Loader Poll - Trying to get an idea of what the opinions are

[Koub]

Then you'd need to implement barreling every fluid in vanilla first

[torham]

Just some thoughts.
I think restricting types of items it can accept would go against the whole previous experience of how transportation works in factorio. At the moment anything can handle any type of cargo, with one single split between liquid and solid. inserters can handle with equal efficiency both coal ore and another inserter arms. you do not really even have to think about it, every machine interacts equally.

The balancing needs to come from production costs, running costs capabilities of the item, and importantly, size.

The production costs are self explanatory. The more expensive, the less used it would be early on. In late game, this will no longer be an issue, which is fine, by that time you have presonal roboports and blueprints, it is just as easy to slap down a blueprint for cargo handling, as it is to slap down one of these.

Running costs: Obviously electricity. Inserters consume electricity, I see no reason the loaders should run for free. I also like the idea of spin up spike, that would force you to build extra power plants, just to cover for the spikes. Late game this becomes a non issue. Again, that is fine, as the late game is all about large scale planning anyway. Lube. This is an interesting idea, but like Koub said, it would be a nightmare to supply your mining outposts. The only way this could be done is with barrels of lubricant, supply one, and it will be slowly consumed by the machine a bit like coal for furnaces. That way, the train that comes around can always bring a few barrels of lubricant. This would be a heavy running cost, since with barrels, you would have to design a whole sub system for delivery, from loading the train all the way to the loading of the barrels into the loaders.

Capabilities of the loader: I do not have any strong feelings on this. Any and all interactions could be justified if the previous costs are balanced. The game should be fun, not a chore. Having one single item in the game that can only interact with wooden box and nothing else is weird. I personally like the idea of it having in-build storage area, or having it simply load into, but not out of containers. Speed of the item would also have to be balanced.

Size: Many people argue that on infinite map, size doesn't really play a big role. From my personal experience, i would like to disagree. The map might be infinite, but very soon the floor of your factory is covered with belts and machinery. I found myself many times cursing at the screen, just because I needed that one extra row for a new conveyor belt, that one extra tile for a power pole. Having the loader 2x2 would make it very bulky, and in that sense, expensive. You would quickly learn to design around this problem though, but it would still prevent you from using it in certain situations, where trying to design very compact layouts.

[MeduSalem]

The lubricant consumption is only something that some people proposed to limit OPness of the (un)loader as it was presented in the FFF. I personnally don't think it is mandatory if the base item is not unbalanced. Just imagine how the hell you'd be able to get lube to your outposts, where it would be mostly needed ?

Barrels.

Then you'd need to implement barreling every fluid in vanilla first

Nope, NO barreling for every fluid...! The amount of additional items would be ridiculous (one for each barreled fluid type) and even more so for mods adding additional fluids. I'd rather get rid of the damn barrels in the first place.

Instead I would implement tank wagons as a general solution which can be filled with any fluid. At least they have been planning to do that for more than a year now.

Really... In 2 years I haven't crafted a single barrel yet because of how I don't like the concept of it. As long as there are no tank wagons for trains I will continue to use underground pipes.

[Zeblote]

Nope, NO barreling for every fluid...! The amount of additional items would be ridiculous (one for each barreled fluid type) and even more so for mods adding additional fluids.

What if barreling was improved? There would be only two recipes, namely "barrel fluid" and "unbarrel fluid". The first makes a barrel with whatever fluid is connected to the assembler, the second takes whatever fluid is in the barrel and puts it in the pipe.

[Koub]

Nope, NO barreling for every fluid...! The amount of additional items would be ridiculous (one for each barreled fluid type) and even more so for mods adding additional fluids.

What if barreling was improved? There would be only two recipes, namely "barrel fluid" and "unbarrel fluid". The first makes a barrel with whatever fluid is connected to the assembler, the second takes whatever fluid is in the barrel and puts it in the pipe.

Which wouldn't even prevent to add a real tanker wagon, for carrying fluids over outpost to base distances.

[Hexicube]

Koub, aren't you supposed to tell people not to derail threads?

[Koub]

Ahem *coughs*
Well people, back to the topic please, this is a poll about the loader subject, not a topic about lubricants and how to transport loads of them (ew that looks dirty ).

[_aD]

Since the loader is just a ramp for belts, to tip stuff into chests/trains, I don't see why it should be expensive, require anything to run, or be late-research. If you think you can really feed a Factory of loaders all running full tilt, then I tip my hat to you. Makes sense that assemblers cannot accept a dump of iron plates and gears into it - it needs them to be inserted into the correct place. Train wagons can easily input or output lots of throughput and chests can just be filled up so those two areas seem logical to be the only type of items that can interact with loaders.

I don't see how it'll be over-powered - if you really can produce that many items and shift them, then there might as well be a method to use that bandwidth effectively.

[Tankh]

Since the loader is just a ramp for belts, to tip stuff into chests/trains, I don't see why it should be expensive, require anything to run, or be late-research. If you think you can really feed a Factory of loaders all running full tilt, then I tip my hat to you. Makes sense that assemblers cannot accept a dump of iron plates and gears into it - it needs them to be inserted into the correct place. Train wagons can easily input or output lots of throughput and chests can just be filled up so those two areas seem logical to be the only type of items that can interact with loaders.

I don't see how it'll be over-powered - if you really can produce that many items and shift them, then there might as well be a method to use that bandwidth effectively.

Exactly!

I think people are just way too conservative and scared of any new item in the game. There's no way this would be too overpowered.

Piping lubricant to them? What? How would that in anyway be useful anymore
Sure, make them use electricity, cause that's what inserters do. Other than that, just make them late-game research I suppose. It's just great to have more items that promote use of transport belts.
Roboports are way more OP than the Loader could ever be.

[Zeblote]

I think people are just way too conservative and scared of any new item in the game.

People spent hours perfecting overcomplicated inserter setups, and now they don't want other people to have it easier.

I remember some were actually against fixing the slow belt corner bug a while ago, same thing.

[kovarex]

Actually, even splitter was considered cheaty, as it can be achieved by circuit network.

[Zeblote]

Actually, even splitter was considered cheaty, as it can be achieved by circuit network.

One more reason to ignore "x is overpowered"

Noone would want to have their splitters taken away now.

[MeduSalem]

I think people are just way too conservative and scared of any new item in the game.

People spent hours perfecting overcomplicated inserter setups, and now they don't want other people to have it easier.

[...]

That's not the case. People actually welcome new items (even more so than the devs themselves do) if... IF said items expand/improve the gameplay in a reasonable way.

The problem I see here is that many people fear that once Loaders are a thing that there will be only little usage scenarios left for Inserters beyond putting stuff in/out of Assemblers/Furnaces because with everything else the Loaders will have the clear advantage because they are convenient (easier contraptions) and have higher performance (no bottlenecks like Inserters) in an all-in-one 2x1 item. You have to admit that this IS a very drastic change.

Rather than adding to the gameplay the Loaders are about to eliminate a lot of the gameplay for the sake of convenience and performance. So while designing the Loaders we should also be keeping in mind what happens to the Inserters and what their place would be with the addition of Loaders.

In my opinion if loaders are really going to be added they should add more depth to the gameplay rather than making it more shallow just for the sake of convenience and throughput. Otherwise we turn the Loaders into a meaningless affair that doesn't add any fun but may destroy the current Factorio experience.

When there are good suggestions on how to add depth to the Loaders without just relying on the same old tricks I am all for it. And with old tricks I mean the following WON'T work exclusively:

• Make it late game
• Make it more expensive

Above have been proven to be probblematic when implemented as the only balancing measurement. There has got to be more to the Loaders than that.

Some people already expressed suggestions like containers or boxing/unboxing and portal cranes and whatnot to help with some of the existing problems while adding new experiences to the game.

Or even Hoppers and Unloading stations for ore:

Ore Loading and Unloading

Loading:

crane-2b.jpg (27.9 KiB) Viewed 5152 times

Unloading:

pemco_hopper_car_loading_3553.jpg (23.85 KiB) Viewed 5152 times

It's all been expressed multiple times over in the Ideas & Suggestions board. Why not pick up a few of these and see if there can be something fleshed out to a more fun experience somewhen in the future.

[...]

I remember some were actually against fixing the slow belt corner bug a while ago, same thing.

The slow belt corners were an obvious bug or at least a detrimental shortcoming with Belt Rebalancers being a temporary workaround, granted that it took a long time to actually fix the underlying problem. So I fail to see how that is the "same thing" as fundamentally changing or shifting the gameplay.

Actually, even splitter was considered cheaty, as it can be achieved by circuit network.

One of course could say that but the splitters at least didn't kill off a lot of usage scenarios for Inserters just for the sake of convenience.

One more reason to ignore "x is overpowered"

If half the community is complaining it wouldn't be wise to just "ignore" the feedback. Don't forget we are talking here about a serious change in gameplay behavior that will probably have a lasting impact.

[kovarex]

There is no doubt, that 95% of inserters would still be used the same way, as it would be very impractical to use the loader on common places, like smelting setups, assembler setups, etc. To use the loader as input for assembling machine, you need to split the belt line, and use a loader, that is 2X1, using 1-3 inserters is clearly easier.

[sillyfly]

I think if implemented wisely, they won't take away all or even most of the inserters' usecases.

Talking about things that eliminate elements for the sake of convenience and performance:

1. Electric miners vs Burner miners - who uses burner miners after the first 10 minutes of the game? Why were electric miners added if they simply take over burner miners, just to make the game easier?
2. Faster belts - once you have red belts on mass production you hardly bother thinking about yellow belts. Maybe there should be only the slowest belts, so players need to come up with smart designs using only yellow belts?
3. Bots - They completely take over belts. Where is the creative or intelligent process of slapping a requester->assembling machine->provider blueprint over and over again?
4. Splitters - the exact same thing can be done with inserters and some logic wires, why spoon-feed the players? Think of the magnificent designs we would have if you'd have to split a belt with inserters, keeping track of how much each side got, and having full compression, of course.
5. Underground belts - Surely we can just use long-handed inserters for this. Or even better - a smart chest with crossing smart inserters with logic wires.
6. Medium power poles - Seriously? Just a totally OP power pole? Having them cost steel and require green research is clearly not a solution.

</sarcasm>

[MeduSalem]

There is no doubt, that 95% of inserters would still be used the same way, as it would be very impractical to use the loader on common places, like smelting setups, assembler setups, etc. To use the loader as input for assembling machine, you need to split the belt line, and use a loader, that is 2X1, using 1-3 inserters is clearly easier.

You have a point there. It makes me rethink the entire topic from a different, more practically oriented perspective:

What are the actual uses of the Loader depending on their capabilities? I tried to think about it (also incorporating proposed ideas from the poll):

1 - If Loaders can only be used directly with chests

Then I only see 2 real applications for them:

1) Connecting Belts to the Logistics System more efficiently. Instead of needing multiple chests and inserters due to the Inserter Bottleneck you only need one chest and loader.

2) Creating a more efficient high performance buffer/storage system with belts and chests.

Why it isn't better for Train Loading/Unloading one might ask at this point:

It's simple. You would still need inserters to move items from train wagons into chest buffers before outputting them to the belt with Loaders. And since the inserters are limited in speed, even with Stack Bonus, you'd still require the same amount of inserters as currently, also with the same amount of chests. Which in turn means you'd still need as many loaders as chests. The bad thing about it being that now you would actually NEED splitters to join the streams of all the Loaders. So the train station is even BIGGER and more complicated than current setups and NOT more compact and easier. It would become a lot more difficult to have parallel train stations as well, due to the additional space needed on the side of the station for Loaders & Splitters.

2 - If Loaders can only be used directly with chests and train wagons

Then I see 3 applications:

1) Connecting Belts to the Logistics System more efficiently. Instead of needing multiple chests and inserters due to the Inserter Bottleneck you only need one chest and loader.

2) Creating a more efficient high performance buffer/storage system with belts and chests.

3) Train stations IF there are Stacks integrated into the Loader for buffer reasons. Otherwise it wouldn't work out quite as well as you would think.

3 - If Loaders can only be used directly with train wagons

1) Obviously only train stations, but then I would give them a huge buffer (similar to an integrated chest with multiple stacks). Then they'd work fine.

If they are placed next to the train tracks or ontop of the train tracks is a matter of taste, but it could be a bigger building like a 2x2 or 2x3 object as well. It might even be 2x4 like a hopper/bridge crane.

4 - If Loaders are able to feed Assemblers and Furnaces

That's the hardest part to judge... Would it be able to compete with Inserters?

I guess people might find layouts that are actually superior with Loaders instead of Inserters, especially if they are depending on Modules and Beacons to boost speed beyond a point where Inserters picking directly from a belt become a true bottleneck. Altough it will probably only be working with recipes requiring 1-2 source items because of space limitations.

5 - If Loaders should only be able to feed OR pull from chests

I think that this is just problematic and limits their purpose even further than all other ideas.

That is if the Loaders don't require Lube like some people recommended. With lube the layouts would probably become a lot more difficult and it would restrict the usage of loaders even further to applications where there is actually enough space to do such a thing.

So you might actually be right kovarex, there might only be a fraction of applications that might get superceded with Loaders. Now I am more concerned that there are actually not enough applications to justify the Loader in the first place.

Talking about things that eliminate elements for the sake of convenience and performance:

1. Electric miners vs Burner miners - who uses burner miners after the first 10 minutes of the game? Why were electric miners added if they simply take over burner miners, just to make the game easier?
2. Faster belts - once you have red belts on mass production you hardly bother thinking about yellow belts. Maybe there should be only the slowest belts, so players need to come up with smart designs using only yellow belts?
3. Bots - They completely take over belts. Where is the creative or intelligent process of slapping a requester->assembling machine->provider blueprint over and over again?
4. Splitters - the exact same thing can be done with inserters and some logic wires, why spoon-feed the players? Think of the magnificent designs we would have if you'd have to split a belt with inserters, keeping track of how much each side got, and having full compression, of course.
5. Underground belts - Surely we can just use long-handed inserters for this. Or even better - a smart chest with crossing smart inserters with logic wires.
6. Medium power poles - Seriously? Just a totally OP power pole? Having them cost steel and require green research is clearly not a solution.

</sarcasm>

Ironically some of which have been pointed out in the balancing board too I might add, so it is not all out sarcasm. Two of them I have been pointing out myself:

1. Electric Miners/Burner Miners problem... addressed that one in the "obsolete items" thread: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6169
2. Fast/Express Belts... talked a bit about the problem in the latest FF #128 thread: viewtopic.php?p=131099#p131099

[sillyfly]

...

...

Ironically some of which have been pointed out in the balancing board too I might add, so it is not all out sarcasm.
...

True, I also think some of these are actual issues, that the game could benefit from being addressed. I still think loaders can definitely be implemented in a balanced way, and could certainly bring a lot to the game. I much prefer them to, say, even faster inserters, or multi-armed inserters, which people in the FFF#128 thread seem to suggest over and over again instead of loaders.

[Zeblote]

There is no doubt, that 95% of inserters would still be used the same way, as it would be very impractical to use the loader on common places, like smelting setups, assembler setups, etc. To use the loader as input for assembling machine, you need to split the belt line, and use a loader, that is 2X1, using 1-3 inserters is clearly easier.

Wait, what even is your current plan for loaders? Based on the blog post I never thought they would connect to assemblers.

(That doesn't even make sense, dumping a conveyor belt of stuff in the assembler and somehow not jamming it)

[reububble]

Why not have a very special limitation for loaders. It may seem like a speciality at first, but if you think about it, it makes more sense.

Loaders/Unloaders require a single item filter.
As in, if the belt side of the loader has a wrong item, it will just sit there and block the lane.
If the container side of the unloader has wrong items, they won't be picked up.

Now you can't just feed everything through the one belt and get it sorted (without a big container such as a cargo wagon).
You wouldn't want to use them for assemblers unless you really want a lot of input, and the more inputs, the more loaders and belts sprawling from the assembler, the more work to do.

Mix and match some of the suggestions with this one, you might find one that works for you.

[ratchetfreak]

1 - If Loaders can only be used directly with chests

Then I only see 2 real applications for them:

1) Connecting Belts to the Logistics System more efficiently. Instead of needing multiple chests and inserters due to the Inserter Bottleneck you only need one chest and loader.

2) Creating a more efficient high performance buffer/storage system with belts and chests.

Why it isn't better for Train Loading/Unloading one might ask at this point:

It's simple. You would still need inserters to move items from train wagons into chest buffers before outputting them to the belt with Loaders. And since the inserters are limited in speed, even with Stack Bonus, you'd still require the same amount of inserters as currently, also with the same amount of chests. Which in turn means you'd still need as many loaders as chests. The bad thing about it being that now you would actually NEED splitters to join the streams of all the Loaders. So the train station is even BIGGER and more complicated than current setups and NOT more compact and easier. It would become a lot more difficult to have parallel train stations as well, due to the additional space needed on the side of the station for Loaders & Splitters.

they would still be usable for train stations as you'd only need half the amount of inserters and the rebalancing setup can be simpler. In fact you can reuse existing splitting and merging designs with just 1 extra tile of extra width needed.