Friday Facts #128 - Back down to earth

[Marsbar]

I'm personally a big fan of the 'hopper' idea. Place a hopper over a belt, hopper can hold up to the inserter stack size bonus, will fill any empty belt spaces.

So you still get/need to use inserters, but the stack bonus becomes more useful. Have the hopper a single item that can be placed on any speed belt.

I like this line of thinking. A loader that could only hold as much as an inserter would be great. It would help with the belt to chest transition, without being so incredibly overpowered. We would keep the use of the inserters, and the loader would scale as we researched the inserter stack size bonus.

[spreadsheeticus]

Is there really a need for the loader to be rapid?
It'd be pretty nice to be able to lay down an unloader next to an overflow crate in order to move the contents without building power infrastructure.

[Zeblote]

Is there really a need for the loader to be rapid?

Yes, it is completely pointless otherwise.

The idea is that it unloads a fully compressed belt.

[Carl]

So my thoughts.

Why the complaints. You're still talking somthing that without other changes to belts is still going to be completely inferior to bots and they're still not going to solve my main issue with belt,s which is them becoming trivially fully loaded even with both sides in use in a blue belt system.

At the end of the day inserter systems are a midgame level system, they don't compete with bots, and they wouldn't be competing with this because it's explicitly an item intended explicitly to replace the inserter with a more capable and efficient model better suited to the extreme throughputs and efficiency required to compete with bots. Think of it as a super-mega-delux inserter instead if you prefer.

[Zeblote]

Why the complaints.

People are annoyed that new players won't have to build the complex designs that they spent hours perfecting.

[GoldenPorkchop80]

The thing I am actually most afraid of is that the loader will be too overpowered, and the gameplay will get very dull.

I personally like the inserters myself because they can be deployed in very interesting ways, and they also help make very interesting and, dare I say, supercomplex factories.
Adding this "loader" would be like killing the inserters. At least, in some form.

I would prefer that this feature stay out of the game, for all inserter's sake.

(P.S. Not sure if this exists, but I think that there are some things in Factorio that already "autoload"? Please reply if i'm right or if i'm wrong.)

(P.P.S. Are the Power Switches in the game yet!? I really would like some diversity in my power grid, and I haven't played the game for a while now, cuz i'm busy with school and life and stuff.)

[indjev99]

The belt balancing mini-game is overrated. It has almost no benefit compared to letting over-supplied belts fill up, and under-supplied factories shut down naturally.

If you really want to play the belt balancing game, you quickly realize that it is a boring circuit optimization problem that has nothing to do with building factories. The best solution is to copy a design from someone who cares about it more than you.

I completely agree. There is much more interesting things to do in Factorio than balancing belts.

[DukeAl]

At first i was against the loader but after reading Klonans remark about the splitter i thought about it again.
I like Choumikos suggestion to make it a container that only connects to belts. This way the actual throughput is limited by the inserter stacksize bonus and we still need the inserters.
To achieve full compression you still need multiple inserters feeding the loader so i don't see the need to set the output to half the belt speed.
Multiple tiers matching the belts would be good though.
Making it require lubricant would mean that the player is forced to move lub to almost every part of the factory and Outpost. I wouldn't like that.
Making it unreasonable expensive doesn't make any sense either. As soon as the production chain stands nobody cares about the cost and unbalanced is unbalanced no matter how expensive. Also Kovarex already said in the fff that "it's much more expensive than inserters".
About the tech cost i would suggest putting it before trains and robots. They are no use if i have to build a whole factory with purple science first to get them and then have to tear everything down to implement them.
Limiting the inventory to one stack would make it useless when using mixed belts. (gems in bobsmods or dytech for example)
So i don't think there is any need for further limitations.
With the changes to the circuit network that are coming i take it that it would be possible to connect it to the network to define a on/off condition but i don't think a filter would ne needed.
I'm not sure if it should be one item or a dedicated loader/unloader but having only one item that can change its direction like underground belts do would be neat.

And ofc congratz to the successful steam release

[Carl]

Adding this "loader" would be like killing the inserters. At least, in some form.

This is obviously intended to be a late game item where a few specific roles aside inserters are allready killed by bots.

People are annoyed that new players won't have to build the complex designs that they spent hours perfecting.

And what about the real oldies that had to sue even more archaic system back earlier in the games development that i'm sure existed?

Thats a stupid argument, especially in light of the fact that for new players the complex system they have perfected aren't going to be built anyway because once you discover bots, they become entirely unnecessary and over-complicated.

As i noted belts have a lot more issues than loading unloading, in fact i face serious issues there only very rarely, these would make those situations nicer but they wouldn't address the core complaint, belts can't move enough product quickly enough.

[RedScourge]

Sounds like a great idea. The last thing I want to deal with when I am trying to defend my base in early to mid game is what will happen to my production if I did not load balance properly, or if an ore field runs out when I am not expecting it. Then I have to try and figure out a quick fix for the problem in between repairing and reloading my defenses.

Whether or not it is overpowered depends entirely on where the tech unlock is in the tree, how much it costs to produce, and how much electricity it requires. I think that having it cost a lot to produce would be annoying, but I understand how overpowered it might be if it is too cheap to produce. As a compromise, I think it would make sense to have it require a lot of electricity. Just having to pull power lines to it can be rather inconvenient, but making it require a lot of power will decrease the temptation to over use it.

I also like the idea of a train loader/unloader system like a hopper, but I really see those as being entirely separate things. This seems more to me like a load balancer or a raw materials throughput guarantee measure, than an optimization for train systems.

If you still think it is overpowered, why not make it 3x1, or 3x2 and give it the ability to draw from upto two adjacent chests at once.

Also remember that if people do not like it, they do not have to use it. If it really becomes an issue, perhaps that technology could be selectively disabled when you set up your scenario.

[Rythe]

To be honest,
I think people would be having the exact same reservations as if splitters were never in the game. You'd have to split using inserters! Its part of the fun of the game! Splitters just trivialise the logistic trouble of splitting a belt, which makes them overpowered, and they don't even need electricity? Splitters over powered, and they dont add anything we cant do already.

Completely false.

Splitters do perfect load balance on a belt split, which you can't get with inserters outside some possible edge cases where input never drops.

The other thing is, splitters are a natural extension of belt mechanics. Just as curving a belt 90 degrees should not be handled by an inserter, splitting a belt with an even load should also not be handled by inserters. Because you're going belt to belt.

What the loader does is increase efficiency going in/out of storage to/from a belt network, and that's it. Transfers to/from a belt network is something that absolutely should be handled by inserters given game mechanics, because that's how it works in every other case*. So, again, consistency.

Really, loaders are only going to be useful for copper wire (possibly a very few other quick crafts with modules), trains, and bot networks. That last part is why most of the people who seem to want loaders also say that belt networks are already useless once bots happen, so let's just make life easier for bot networks. That's not a legit reason to add in the loaders.

The exception with trains getting special buildings (hoppers) for fast loading/unloading cars is because trains are not belt networks. They're train networks, and their whole purpose is quick bulk transfers. Right now, we have a whole tech line shoe-horned in to make trains kinda/sorta work in that capacity - inserter stack size. Inserter stack size helps bot networks here and there too, but mostly, it's just to make trains semi-useful. That is something that actually needs to be looked at and fixed. Also, the excessive lines of chests and inserters to load/unload trains. We really do have an awkwardly extended entity chain just to handle train freight, and a quite poor one at that.

Which, from a general game mechanic and game mechanic consistency standpoint, is why loaders are bad and yet trains still need their fix.

*Except for mines, of course, which are their own special case in that they spit ore out the side of the building unlike anything else.

[jason03272002]

Not sure about the loaders. They do the exact same things as inserters, just at a lightning fast pace. It'll be extremely difficult to balance something like that should it be added.

[Carl]

They do the exact same things as inserters, just at a lightning fast pace.

Once again, something bots allready do.

It's a direct competitor to bots, not to inserters which are allready 90% irellevent by the time somthing like this comes along.

Also stop and think about how you'd have to alter your factory and furnace setups to handle somthing like this, every factory input belt would need a splitter next to each factory, add in it's 2 long length and thats a pretty major redesign, lets not even talk about how main busses are going to have to change to accommodate the resource throughput rates allowed. Right now a lot of factories once you get automation 3, and especially if your mad enough to use speed modules start to run into serious issues with not being able to load/unload fast enough from belts as is, this in solving that would totally change the requirements of a belt system.

I still think belts need more carry capacity for that very reason ofc but that doesn't mean serious redesign work wouldn;t be needed, your not really removing the complexity, your just shifting it around.

[bobingabout]

Long story short:
Use a belt->inserter only system
Use Bot->chest->inserter system
Compare.
Because of the inserter stack size bonus, which only works from chest/factory to chest/factory, and not belts, the bot system is better.
What this Loader is intended to do is making loading/unloading chests to belts as fast as it would be if bots were doing it, allowing your belt systems to be as viable as bots.


Basically, if you want the fastest factory, you currently NEED bots... This Loader is to fill that gap to make belt loading viable.

As for the power issue... I wouldn't mind it taking a fair amount of power, as long as it was balanced similar to inserters, and bot usage. (Inserters have a drain, and a movement cost, I'm sure these would be the same)

[brunzenstein]

I need URGENTLY a (Mod) adaptation for the key mapper if one has a MacBook with a trackpad only.
I cannot set some keys to mimic some mouse actions e.g. the middle mouse click

[bobingabout]

I need URGENTLY

Try not to be too demanding with your requests, Remember, this is their game, and still in very active, and full time development, try to ask politely.

key mapper... I cannot set some keys to mimic some mouse actions e.g. the middle mouse click

You're not the first to ask for more costom controls, and I doubt you'll be the last. Just be patient.

a MacBook with a trackpad only.

I can sympathise. But that's pretty much why I always plug in a mouse. (Seriously, I have a drawer full of them, but I don't expect you to.)
My first laptop, okay it only had 2 buttons, but could do everything a mouse could do (with 2 buttons)
Second, never used the pad, ever, so I don't know. it didn't last long.
My third laptop, well, the driver for it does not allow pressing both buttons simultaneously, so at this point I basically said no to playing games using a touchpad, even though I quite often use the pad, I can't go without the mouse for certain things.
My fourth laptop... the touchpad is a large pad with no buttons, I hate it, it's stupid, what button is pressed when you tap it depends where you touch it when you tap it, I turned the damn thing off and use a Bluetooth mouse.

My recommendation... get a mouse, you can pick up a decent USB mouse for far less than you paid for this game, and I don't see why it can't be used on a MacBook. Unless they did something stupid like not put any USB ports on it or something.

[brunzenstein]

ok - agree
Shall get a mouse...
By the way a Mac Magic Mouse costs around 100€

I did not want do be in any way impolite - I'm just a eager FACTORIO fan boy / newcomer

[bobingabout]

By the way a Mac Magic Mouse costs around 100€

That's what I'd call a "Fancy mouse", hopefully something more generic, like a standard USB 3 button optical wheel mouse will work for you.

I did not want do be in any way impolite - I'm just a eager FACTORIO fan boy / newcomer

No worries at all, I sometimes get a bit carried away myself.

[daniel34]

I need URGENTLY a (Mod) adaptation for the key mapper if one has a MacBook with a trackpad only.
I cannot set some keys to mimic some mouse actions e.g. the middle mouse click

You can change the keybindings in Options --> Controls --> Inventory to not require the middle mouse click.
Example:
CONTROL + SHIFT + Left mouse button for Set filter
CONTROL + SHIFT + Right mouse button for Clear filter
is very intuitive and working without problems.

Or you can install tools like MagicPrefs that enable you to middle click with the trackpad.

MagicPrefs is a free application for OS X which aims to improve the functionality and configuration options of the Apple Magic Mouse, Magic Trackpad and the MacBook glass trackpad.
It features the ability to bind a variable number of finger clicks, taps, swipes, pinch and other gestures to functions like Middle Click, Hold Down Both Mouse Buttons, Spaces, Expose, Dashboard, Recent Applications, Tweet, Read Tweets, Google Reader etc.

[Zeblote]

By the way a Mac Magic Mouse costs around 100€

What an insane price for such a useless product. Why spend so much money on an mouse with no scroll wheel?