Remove the coverage gap between small/med poles

[npuldon]

TL;DR

Remove the coverage gap between small/med poles by adding 0.5 to the supply_area_distance because I have askws around repeatedly and have heard no justification for keeping it that improves the player experience over removing it

What ?

Change
data.raw["electric-pole"]["medium-electric-pole"].supply_area_distance = 4
data.raw["electric-pole"]["small-electric-pole"].supply_area_distance = 3
to
data.raw["electric-pole"]["medium-electric-pole"].supply_area_distance = 4.5
data.raw["electric-pole"]["small-electric-pole"].supply_area_distance = 3.5

Example coverage gap linked below. Small to small and med to med is also included in my proposal.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ ... nknown.png

Why ?

Perhaps the strongest justification is that the buff proposed makes the coverage consistent with the wire distance, while currently it is not. Consistency seems like a stronger justification for filling it in than the arbitrary 1 tile gap as it stands.

Other side benefits: Players would spend less time backtracking (which is distracting and not fun) during construction to place additional poles due to entities missed by the coverage gaps.

Difficulty easing effect: Less capital cost devoted to poles for the same production block. Seems like a minor reason to prevent the change and can be easily mitigated if desired for balancing reasons by increasing the capital cost.

[bobingabout]

actually, the gap between small poles when placed in a string is 2, so you'd want to increase it from 3 to 4.

during my standard placements, which isn't max range, I do find that there's a gap in my coverage, and that can be a little annoying.

They did buff the range of the substation, so, it's possible they'd look into it.

[pleegwat]

Currently, a small pole does not reach accross a furnace, and a medium pole not accross an assembler. The proposed change would enable these, which would be a significant buff.

[Trebor]

If you want the coverage and reach to match why not ask for the reach to be lowered?

[Trebor]

TL;DR

Add an option to (modifier key) to remove the coverage gap between small/med poles by reducing the range of the poles to the coverage range.

What ?

Change
data.raw["electric-pole"]["medium-electric-pole"].maximum_wire_distance = 5
data.raw["electric-pole"]["small-electric-pole"].maximum_wire_distance = 4
to
data.raw["electric-pole"]["medium-electric-pole"].maximum_wire_distance = 4
data.raw["electric-pole"]["small-electric-pole"].maximum_wire_distance = 3

Why ?

Perhaps the strongest justification is that the proposed makes the coverage consistent with the wire distance, while currently it is not. Consistency seems like a stronger justification for filling it in then the arbitrary 2 tile gap as it stands.

Other side benefits: Players would spend less time backtracking (which is distracting and not fun) during construction to place additional poles due to entities missed by the coverage gaps.

This is a counter proposal to:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=66089

[npuldon]

really either way, one is more capital intensive than the other. I don't really care. It just would make a lot more sense if they matched.

[leadraven]

If your need full coverage in dense area you should place poles manually. Poles drag-placement is used to cross large empty areas.

[CDarklock]

Remove the coverage gap between small/med poles by adding 0.5 to the supply_area_distance because I have askws around repeatedly and have heard no justification for keeping it that improves the player experience over removing it

Depends on how you define "player experience."

You have a tradeoff right now, between putting power poles as far apart as you can but having gaps, and putting more power poles close enough together that there are no gaps. The latter also requires more fiddling around and attention to detail.

This tradeoff has value as an in-game challenge. While it would certainly be more convenient if you didn't have it, it isn't necessarily better not to have it.

[Koub]

[Koub] Merged both topics with same suggestion.

[steinio]

OCD Alert.

It is fine as it is, mind the gap.

[mexmer]

OCD Alert.

It is fine as it is, mind the gap.

don't step on gaps, you might fall to underside

[mexmer]

anyways, topic related answer. i like current state with gaps.
if i need full coverage, i put poles close together.
small poles are good enough for smelter line coverage, you can even use them with assemblers, although medium poles are better.

on the other hand, when you need to do "long range" connection, before you get big poles, you just put them at max distance, you don't care about gaps. i would not want to change this.

[BlueTemplar]

Perhaps a good idea would be to add a modifier key so that the modified drag-placing behavior becomes to place without coverage gaps ?
(even if NO entities to power are present !)

[Koub]

On second thought, I also think the gap has little to no added value overall, while multiplying the power poles to cover everything can be a PITA.
Voting on vavor of removing the gap.

[mexmer]

On second thought, I also think the gap has little to no added value overall, while multiplying the power poles to cover everything can be a PITA.
Voting on vavor of removing the gap.

then what about big poles? turn them into substation?
substation grid has no gaps. and that's for me distinction between powerpole and substation.

[Koub]

No, big poles are fine : they're long range poles, not meant to distribute locally, but to allow reaching long distances. Ilike them as they are.

[mexmer]

what am i saying is, if you hate gaps, use substation. it has also bigger coverage than small and medium pole.

[Koub]

Oh yeah, sure, however by the time substation is unlocked, most of my mining setup and smelting arrays are complete, and making a continuous coverage with small or medium power poles is such a pain.

[npuldon]

^

[mexmer]

Oh yeah, sure, however by the time substation is unlocked, most of my mining setup and smelting arrays are complete, and making a continuous coverage with small or medium power poles is such a pain.

and here you are wrong, you will still do it. because there will be no other way to fit 2 inserters if you increase small pole range by one.

small poles cover 2 buildings 2x2 and inserters from both sides. if you use in this setup medium pole, you will have overlapped area, therefore increasing range by one (to dismiss gap on small pole), gives you in regular setup zero benefit (well not exactly, there are setups where it will actually help)

medum pole cover 2 buildings 3x3 and inserters from both sides

if you increase range of small pole, you make it effectively medium pole ... don't you think, it will make them too strong for start item?
if you reduce their connection range (other way to remove gap), it will be more pain to do distance connection with them than it was until now.

i would like really see any CONSTRUCTIVE proposal of change. because until now, i've seen only complaints, but not a proposal.