Change beacon effect area

[NotRexButCaesar]

Many of you may be angered by this perhaps *controversial* post, but when looking at it from an interesting/fun gameplay point of view, I believe it may make sense.

The most common complaints about beacons are that they make boring looking or repetitive builds, and that they make a "best way" to play the game (12 beacon layout)

If the reach were modified in some way (made rectangular), the most optimal setup would not allow for any inserters, meaning that all beaconed build would be optimization problems, and none would be "best". Most sub-modules for different items would also look more interesting, as they have different numbers of ingredients and can use direct insertion differently: each item would be more interesting to both build and look at.

I'm not really sure if this would be all positive though: how would it affect what we now call 8 beacon builds (would the challenge of lining up beacons to be offset from assemblers be removed or become less interesting or the removal of the restriction on long handed inserters make them less interesting overall)? I'm very open to criticism of this idea, any opinions are appreciated.

Remember that the question is "would this make the game more fun or interesting", not "do I personally like this/think it is OP/(not) like to play this way".

[Koub]

You should mod it and try it for yourself .

Remember that the question is "would this make the game more fun or interesting", not "do I personally like this/think it is OP/(not) like to play this way".

Finding something OP means the game would feel unbalanced. And an unbalanced game is usually less fun, so it has a lot to do with balance.

[jodokus31]

Judging from Seablock (actually Bob' mods), which provides 2 higher tier beacons with wider range, it's indeed interesting but also quite OP.
Ok, Bobs mods are insane with beacon range and modules. Seablock (Circuit Processing mod) tames that a quite significant, but still.

1 Tile bigger would be nice, because of 2 spaces for belts. On the other hand, there is belt braiding.
Maybe it could be balanced, by reducing effect transmission % (and maybe power consumption).

First, a mod could do it.

[ssilk]

I find that something that might be tried, because beacon builds look quite repetitive.

[KoblerMan]

Remember that the question is "would this make the game more fun or interesting", not "do I personally like this/think it is OP/(not) like to play this way".

Finding something OP means the game would feel unbalanced. And an unbalanced game is usually less fun, so it has a lot to do with balance.

Oh hey there, Captain Obvious! Long time no see!

[...]

1 Tile bigger would be nice, because of 2 spaces for belts. On the other hand, there is belt braiding.
Maybe it could be balanced, by reducing effect transmission % (and maybe power consumption).

First, a mod could do it.

I would sooner take an extra tile of range over belt weaving. I see the appeal, but as a consistency freak I could never get over the idea that there are different tiers of belt in the same place. *shudder*

[SirSmuggler]

How about extending the range, and to balance it limit the number of beacons that can effect a single machine? It's probobly an even more unpopular and controversial sudgestion, but I like it. For all I care personaly, limit beacons so that each machine can only gain the benefits of a single beacon... Mabye two if I'm feeling generous

[eradicator]

-infinity

Pretty weird reverse logic there: "Beacons are boring, maybe they get less boring if we add more beacons.". The solution is using less beacons not more. Possibly something like Built-in-Beacons. Imho the "overlapping" of beacon effects is the main problem. Beacon area could be arbitrarily large if assemblers were only influenced by at most one beacon.

because beacon builds look quite repetitive.

Most definetly, but this doen't look less repetitive to me. A perfect rectangular grid. Doesn't even need the usual 1-tile shift.

lessrepetitive.png (293.25 KiB) Viewed 3690 times

[Koub]

These mods could be of some use to test various suggestions in here :
https://mods.factorio.com/mod/BiggerBeaconRange
https://mods.factorio.com/mod/beacon-interference

Also https://mods.factorio.com/mod/beacon-overhaul, but it gets even further from vanilla.

[jodokus31]

[...]

1 Tile bigger would be nice, because of 2 spaces for belts. On the other hand, there is belt braiding.
Maybe it could be balanced, by reducing effect transmission % (and maybe power consumption).

First, a mod could do it.

I would sooner take an extra tile of range over belt weaving. I see the appeal, but as a consistency freak I could never get over the idea that there are different tiers of belt in the same place. *shudder*

If you build belt based 8 beacon setups, its common practice to use belt braiding/weaving. It's really hard to produce products with more than 3 ingredients. (I'm sure, there are other solutions). That's why many people use logi bots for high-end builds.

because beacon builds look quite repetitive.

Most definetly, but this doen't look less repetitive to me. A perfect rectangular grid. Doesn't even need the usual 1-tile shift.
...

In the pic, you have no place for belts and you cannot place lines of assemblers. Two rows of beacon are possible, but maybe not optimal

...Imho the "overlapping" of beacon effects is the main problem. Beacon area could be arbitrarily large if assemblers were only influenced by at most one beacon.

Actually, I think that is the main appeal of the beacon concept: Try to transmit the effect to most other machines

[eradicator]

In the pic, you have no place for belts and you cannot place lines of assemblers.

You should google for "12 beacon" assembler setups - the most common pattern in megafactories. Above picture has space for 3 full unbraided belt lanes. That's a lot more than 12-beacon setups have.

[jodokus31]

In the pic, you have no place for belts and you cannot place lines of assemblers.

You should google for "12 beacon" assembler setups - the most common pattern in megafactories. Above picture has space for 3 full unbraided belt lanes. That's a lot more than 12-beacon setups have.

Yes, you are probably right, that this might be always more optimal due the second row of beacons. 8-beacon like assembler lines will probably loose always then.

[Sad_Brother]

I would sooner take an extra tile of range over belt weaving. I see the appeal, but as a consistency freak I could never get over the idea that there are different tiers of belt in the same place. *shudder*

Belt weaving feels weird. Yes.

In order to get more interesting beacon setup we definitely need more interesting beacon coverage:

• round area instead of square
• closer beacon has stronger effect
• beacon improve over beacon, inserter, turrets, radars, miners, etc, not belts.

Just changing reach would not be interesting.

[KoblerMan]

In the pic, you have no place for belts and you cannot place lines of assemblers.

You should google for "12 beacon" assembler setups - the most common pattern in megafactories. Above picture has space for 3 full unbraided belt lanes. That's a lot more than 12-beacon setups have.

This.

You can have a setup where an underground belt feeds into an assembler and comes out the other side, like so (where A is the assembler, B is belt, U is underground belt, and I is inserter:

Code: Select all

        A A A
< B U I A A A U B >
        A A A

This can even be done with yellow belts since it just barely fits their requirement of 4 tiles. And of course you can have 2 input belts and 1 output belt, meaning you can put in up to 4 ingredients.

[blahfasel2000]

And of course you can have 2 input belts and 1 output belt, meaning you can put in up to 4 ingredients.

With red undergrounds you can gain another two tiles on the opposite side of the assembler, which allows putting in a fourth belt perpendicular to the other three. And with blue undergrounds and long-handed inserters you can even get another two perpendicular belts in, for a total of six belts, without any belt weaving or braiding.

As is the case with 12 beacon builds already, the main problem isn't actually getting the necessary number of belts in (that's mainly a problem with 8/8 builds that have no gaps between assemblers), but getting enough belt to assembler inserter throughput.

[jodokus31]

Just for the record, I know what the 12-beacon layout is and how to feed assembler with underground belts underneath them. I just was too focused on assembler lines without gaps fed from the side, because I usually prefer those, because it is more compact (?)
But the double row of beacons is obviously a lot better (20 vs. 10 beacons) and only 3 spaces apart for underground belts and inserter.
So actually more boring IMO, because the solution is obvious. (assuming the inserters are fast enough)

[ssilk]

Back to the repetition argument:

How about if beacons get a reach bonus, if they are surrounded by other beacons? Like the the nuclear reactors create more power.

Or if we say the beacon had a “direction” in which they can send its power?

[NotRexButCaesar]

Most definetly, but this doen't look less repetitive to me. A perfect rectangular grid. Doesn't even need the usual 1-tile shift.

In the pic, you have no place for belts and you cannot place lines of assemblers. Two rows of beacon are possible, but maybe not optimal

My point exactly. If one assumes players will try to get the most beacons possible, without wasting beacons, then with different recipes, the optimal setup would be different. The hope of the change would be that the optimal solution would also be interesting to look at and unique.
(Sarcasm is neither helpful nor appreciated)

...Imho the "overlapping" of beacon effects is the main problem. Beacon area could be arbitrarily large if assemblers were only influenced by at most one beacon.

How is that different than adding more tiers of assemblers? I would argue that is the most boring solution.

[NotRexButCaesar]

Or if we say the beacon had a “direction” in which they can send its power?

I considered suggesting rectangular range, but didn't know if that would work or not with the game/game engine. It sounds interesting to think about at least.

[eradicator]

without wasting beacons

At megafactory scale where most beacons are used power is also the least concern. More of a nice to have. So if "wasting" (what you really mean is "not sharing") reduces the overall count of required machines that's what's gonna happen.

[NotRexButCaesar]

At megafactory scale where most beacons are used power is also the least concern. More of a nice to have. So if "wasting" (what you really mean is "not sharing") reduces the overall count of required machines that's what's gonna happen.

Id say this is actually a benefit: as the scale of the factory grows, the layouts will change to fit the factory. Early beacon builds will have simple lines or boxes, then as production ramps up, a maximum sharing build, with the super end game maximizing coverage.