Re: Reverse-facing locomotives contribute to total train power
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:45 pm
This is an argument against balance. Just remove the thread if that's your position.
www.factorio.com
https://forums.factorio.com/
This is an argument against balance. Just remove the thread if that's your position.
Easy: Don't change how it currently works. At least one loco in each direction clearly shows player intent. That's imho off-topic - nobody ever complained about that.
I could be wrong, but isn't this the same thing that already happens with the current double-headed trains?
Add a weight/bias towards the end of the train with more locomotives. But if you want my opinion, if this happens in any realistic scenario, I think the player has bigger things to worry about than game mechanics. At that point I would argue that's a design flaw on their part.
This x1,000%.eradicator wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:52 pmEasy: Don't change how it currently works. At least one loco in each direction clearly shows player intent. That's imho off-topic - nobody ever complained about that.
If there's balancing concerns just make backwards locos contribute a bit less than full power (60~80%?). Having them be entirely dead-weight is a bit of a strain on my suspension of disbelief too. And above all it's really annoying to have a train stranded because locos in the "correct" direction ran out of fuel while the other ones are full to the brim (yes, i build long range trains).
I would assume, there's no need for change logic. single headed can only go into one direction. double headed in both, no matter how many locomotive facing in which direction.boskid wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:39 pmThere are also other problems when locomotive in wrong direction would contribute: would that mean a train with all locomotives heading into one direction should be able to find a path in opposide direction and travel entirely in reverse? What if there would be 100 locomotives in one direction and a single one in opposite?
+1eradicator wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:52 pmIf there's balancing concerns just make backwards locos contribute a bit less than full power (60~80%?). Having them be entirely dead-weight is a bit of a strain on my suspension of disbelief too. And above all it's really annoying to have a train stranded because locos in the "correct" direction ran out of fuel while the other ones are full to the brim (yes, i build long range trains).
Except you wouldn't even have to do that. Just buff the coefficient for proper aerodynamics and suddenly, you can implement this suggestion and still incentivize single-headed trains. Problem solved.jodokus31 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:09 pm+1eradicator wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:52 pmIf there's balancing concerns just make backwards locos contribute a bit less than full power (60~80%?). Having them be entirely dead-weight is a bit of a strain on my suspension of disbelief too. And above all it's really annoying to have a train stranded because locos in the "correct" direction ran out of fuel while the other ones are full to the brim (yes, i build long range trains).
backwards locos contribute less, maybe even less fuel efficiency
this is already handled in the pathing code.Squelch wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:37 pm
I think what @Boskid alludes to, is that having locos contribute traction in both directions firstly implies that any loco can then travel in both directions autonomously. This then brings pathing issues - which way should a train path to arrive at a station? If it arrives backwards, then the cargo section will be past the stop, and therefore unloading positions. Ok, only enable it for double headed bidirectional trains - how is the "head" of the train decided? The same situation of arriving backwards because of a valid (less expensive) path is found by the "tail" backwards facing loco then might arise. Player intent cannot be implied, nor automated.
Sure, but this ignores the fact that you're still multiplying fuel storage x2 if this gets implemented (assuming you have same number of forward-facing locomotives to rear-facing). This means for super long distances, you only would need half the amount of refueling outposts. I think this is still a consideration.
Exactly.ptx0 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:43 pmthis is already handled in the pathing code.Squelch wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:37 pm
I think what @Boskid alludes to, is that having locos contribute traction in both directions firstly implies that any loco can then travel in both directions autonomously. This then brings pathing issues - which way should a train path to arrive at a station? If it arrives backwards, then the cargo section will be past the stop, and therefore unloading positions. Ok, only enable it for double headed bidirectional trains - how is the "head" of the train decided? The same situation of arriving backwards because of a valid (less expensive) path is found by the "tail" backwards facing loco then might arise. Player intent cannot be implied, nor automated.
pathfinder searches from both ends of train. both ends are the head - and you can have locomotive in the middle and cargo wagons on either end. it just searches for path from the 'face' of one loco in either direction if it exists. the signals tell the trains how they can move.
I think a potential fix for the logic issue is to just not allow trains with only backwards-facing locomotives to run in reverse, which is as of right now the default behavior.jodokus31 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:09 pmI would assume, there's no need for change logic. single headed can only go into one direction. double headed in both, no matter how many locomotive facing in which direction.boskid wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:39 pmThere are also other problems when locomotive in wrong direction would contribute: would that mean a train with all locomotives heading into one direction should be able to find a path in opposide direction and travel entirely in reverse? What if there would be 100 locomotives in one direction and a single one in opposite?
Me, too!Squelch wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:37 pmAs an aside, I would love for locos to be able to travel in both directions autonomously, and be able to couple and decouple under circuit control. Shunting yards (sorting yards) could then be made for those long distance routes. I have in fact explored this under mod control (albeit still using unidirectional locos), and it gets very messy. I do not see an easy solution personally that would help.
I think this is embellishing a bit. I did already list this stuff in "potential design challenges", but it's not like you can look at some player's outstanding oil processing setups and tell me that they wouldn't be able to figure this out.Squelch wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:37 pmAll said and done, while bi-directional locos might seem a great idea, there is a whole pallet of cans of worms that would be opened. Right now, there is no ambiguity with how autonomous trains will arrive at a stop. With bidirectional locos a whole new layer of complexity and ambiguity comes into play.
This is pretty much how I feel about double-headed trains in their current state. There's a reason this has always bugged me.ickputzdirwech wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:49 pmI don’t think this would be a balancing issue whatsoever. I would even argue it is out of balance right now. Neither the use of one- nor bidirectional trains should be incentivised. There is no right or wrong (I personally prefer one directional trains). Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages mainly having to build loops or trains clearing the stations faster (with the right signaling). Right now bidirectional trains have far more disadvantages imo: higher fuel consumption for lower speed per locomotive.
A consideration, yes, but nothing pressing that needs a buff, and can just as easily be accounted for by player planning.KoblerMan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:51 pmSure, but this ignores the fact that you're still multiplying fuel storage x2 if this gets implemented (assuming you have same number of forward-facing locomotives to rear-facing). This means for super long distances, you only would need half the amount of refueling outposts. I think this is still a consideration.
I stand corrected after I just tested it for myself. I somehow have a vague recollection that this wasn't always the case, and I hadn't confirmed it until now.Exactly.ptx0 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:43 pmthis is already handled in the pathing code.Squelch wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:37 pm
I think what @Boskid alludes to, is that having locos contribute traction in both directions firstly implies that any loco can then travel in both directions autonomously. This then brings pathing issues - which way should a train path to arrive at a station? If it arrives backwards, then the cargo section will be past the stop, and therefore unloading positions. Ok, only enable it for double headed bidirectional trains - how is the "head" of the train decided? The same situation of arriving backwards because of a valid (less expensive) path is found by the "tail" backwards facing loco then might arise. Player intent cannot be implied, nor automated.
pathfinder searches from both ends of train. both ends are the head - and you can have locomotive in the middle and cargo wagons on either end. it just searches for path from the 'face' of one loco in either direction if it exists. the signals tell the trains how they can move.
I missed that while typing.As jodokus31 said here:I would assume, there's no need for change logic. single headed can only go into one direction. double headed in both, no matter how many locomotive facing in which direction.
AcceptedI think this is embellishing a bit.
As others already said, require a locomotive facing each direction. To avoid the train arriving the wrong way round you have to solve the same problems as bidirectional trains right now. I.e. make sure it exits a station on the correct side and prevent it from reversing when repathing on track. The latter becomes a non-issue once you can afford one rail per direction with proper signaling. And if you disable a station the train reverses in per circuit network you'll have to account for that at the next station(s), but that's by your own design and won't happen randomly.Squelch wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:37 pmI think what @Boskid alludes to, is that having locos contribute traction in both directions firstly implies that any loco can then travel in both directions autonomously. This then brings pathing issues - which way should a train path to arrive at a station? If it arrives backwards, then the cargo section will be past the stop, and therefore unloading positions. Ok, only enable it for double headed bidirectional trains - how is the "head" of the train decided? The same situation of arriving backwards because of a valid (less expensive) path is found by the "tail" backwards facing loco then might arise. Player intent cannot be implied, nor automated.
That'd be interesting.As an aside, I would love for locos to be able to travel in both directions autonomously, and be able to couple and decouple under circuit control. Shunting yards (sorting yards) could then be made for those long distance routes. I have in fact explored this under mod control (albeit still using unidirectional locos), and it gets very messy. I do not see an easy solution personally that would help.
I don’t think any functionality was removed: just not arbitrarily added.
It would fundamentally change trains:
I believe it would be a loss at the benefit of people who think that their play-style is or should be the best or “right” play-style
This suggestion has a very low gameplay value. Indeed, I would go so far to say it has a negative value. (*) Why? It shifts the decision that a player needs to make at some point if he wants to make it so or so. That removes this kind of semis-balanced decision in one direction.That means, there is always a consideration: How much more complexity will a suggestion bring in vs. how much more game-play?
In simpler words: Added game-play vs. added complexity.
I personally think this is a matter of opinion, more than a matter of fact. And I don't see your opinion as being correct, especially on the negative gameplay value and overly complex fronts.ssilk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:50 amJust a few thoughts:
Suggestions are about gameplay value. See search.php?keywords=Game+value&t=27087&sf=msgonly
This suggestion has a very low gameplay value. Indeed, I would go so far to say it has a negative value. (*) Why? It shifts the decision that a player needs to make at some point if he wants to make it so or so. That removes this kind of semis-balanced decision in one direction.That means, there is always a consideration: How much more complexity will a suggestion bring in vs. how much more game-play?
In simpler words: Added game-play vs. added complexity.
That it shifts this decision is very clear. It has been discussed many times already (I linked many examples). It’s mostly the opinion of the more advanced players. For me it is very clear: Changing this decreases the gameplay in many directions and also decreases the replay value.
(*) Yes, it makes things easier for the players. Big quality of live value, no question. But that’s not what we are searching here for at top priority.
And I repeat some alternatives:
- this idea is a very good mod idea (already mentioned existing mod in this thread?)
- a way to turn around locomotives at train stops:
- a way to de-/couple wagons/locos/trains:
- shunting yards/switch yards/store items in decoupled wagons: Even if I have no idea how that could work.
I just thought about how cool this could look, we had such turntables for locos at trains stops. Amazing.
There is a maxim - If opinion is strongly divided on a balancing matter, then the current system favours neither, so is therefore correct.