Friday Facts #128 - Back down to earth

[Zeblote]

I can think of more nice things if it doesn't include a chest by itself...

[Ojelle]

I can think of more nice things if it doesn't include a chest by itself...

Indeed, it shouldnt include an entire chest. Thats easily addable. But a few (sortable (like trains)) storage spots, even as few as 5 (pref 10) , would open so much new possibilitys.

[Zeblote]

Maybe we should have two? Loader and Smart Loader. You can set a filter on the second one but it is more expensive, like it does with the inserters.

Don't have 3 different ones for the belt levels, it just dumps as many items as fit on the belt.

[bobingabout]

MDon't have 3 different ones for the belt levels, it just dumps as many items as fit on the belt.

And what would happen if you connected it between 2 chests directly?

[Zeblote]

MDon't have 3 different ones for the belt levels, it just dumps as many items as fit on the belt.

And what would happen if you connected it between 2 chests directly?

Nothing happens, as it has a belt connection on the other side.

I'm imagining the thing like this (pro concept art )



The red arrows change color depending on which belt is connected, and you can't directly connect it to another loader.
If the belt is pointed towards it, it becomes a loader, if the belt faces another direction it becomes an unloader.

I'm not sure how we can get it to make sense graphically if connected to a train



But surely the devs can figure that out

[Fusty]

MDon't have 3 different ones for the belt levels, it just dumps as many items as fit on the belt.

And what would happen if you connected it between 2 chests directly?

Nothing happens, as it has a belt connection on the other side.

I'm imagining the thing like this (pro concept art )



The red arrows change color depending on which belt is connected, and you can't directly connect it to another loader.
If the belt is pointed towards it, it becomes a loader, if the belt faces another direction it becomes an unloader.

I'm not sure how we can get it to make sense graphically if connected to a train



But surely the devs can figure that out

That's some sexy concept art! I love this idea in general.

[mooklepticon]

I think it's valid, very late game. There comes a point where you're unloading train cars with tons of ore and such. Fast inserters seem unsuited to the task, and should be taken over by something faster. Make it expensive!

[Koub]

This is exactly the kind of things I had in mind as a loader/hopper (functionality wise). I just imagined it with a fancy big structure that's somehow higher than the wagon, to drop stuff from top directly into it.

[deemer]

TL;DR: Loader no, belts with crates, yes.

IMO, there are two problems that something like the loader needs to solve.

#1, it needs to be better than blue belts/fast inserters, but not so awesome as to preclude the use of bots.
#2, it needs to be more CPU-efficient than belts, as all the CPU time spent on single items on a belt limits the practical size of a base.

So I don't like the loader concept as presented.

I like the idea of a higher tier of belt that has a stack size bonus, but lowered speed so that max throughput is like two blue belts. Maybe the belt supports mini-crates that can hold like 10 ores/plates, but you need a return belt, or figure out some other way to return the crates back to the front of the belt.

Properly balanced, this should solve lots of people's concerns. It enables more throughput at a higher capital cost. It will enable a new class of more expensive, but faster train stations that aren't just "put down this one super-loader". It will replace bots for some uses, but IMO bots are currently the use-everywhere low-thought solution de jour. It will introduce new challenges of complexity that need to be addressed to realize the base-scaling potential. And it should reduce CPU usage, allowing mega-bases to be that much more mega.

[rnorris]

I don't quite like the recent suggestion by Klonan to limit the loaders to outputting at half belt speed and only interacting with inserters. Restricting them to being loaded/unloaded by inserters means you'll still have to have about 4/5 fast inserters to output a compressed belt, making the minimum setup footprint closer to a 5x6 per compressed belt (feeder chests with inserters from the side and back, feeding into a splitter and then single output line), vs a 3x1 if the loader can take directly from a chest. As an aside, another possible ingredient for the loader recipe is a speed 3 module - high-tech enough to be a late-game factory component, expensive enough so that it's not used everywhere, and it makes sense since the loader should be, you know, fast.

[Neotix]

I also don't like that obstacles. For me loader/unloader should work like in FF (with ability to work with any entity, not only chest) but be more than replacement for inserters. It should have some clever mechanic behind (internal buffer, filters like in wagons, circuit network compatibility, be able to turn on/off...) to become part of puzzle. It should be entity that allow players to build event more complex and clever constructions not only faster.

Edit.
Unloader could have one clever behaviour. It could put items on belt in proportional /at regular spacing.
https://i.gyazo.com/09bbe23410b6dca68e3 ... d4bd5b.png

[Mchu]

I think that loader should be used only on raw ores or plates only, and it should have a big chance of breaking more complex thing if used to transport them.

[ShiftFire]

A loader seems like it would be something that a Logistics network would require. Maybe make it passive or active so that it only activates when something is needed. This way you don't take away the need for balancing your belts on raw materials simply adding an element to efficient production. hooking it up to a requester chest would make the most sense.

Construction bot builds a new turret, a turret needs to be created because there are no more materials, the requester asks for supplies, and the loader sends it to the plant as fast as possible. You would still need inserters to get the final product out of the plant and into storage etc.

[Hopek]

I would like this idea only if the use of such an OP item (or really, really good item), required a lot of maintenance/resources to operate. Like say both sides of the loader need to have a certain resource pumped into it (right= lube , left = water(or something you actually have to make). There also needs to be a flaw (besides the maintenance). The current image of this inserter is too perfect. Maybe make it so it can only put in items at (or slightly slower) than yellow belt speeds. Here is an image that I drew up to represent my idea. http://imgur.com/8ae6CRi

[Zeblote]

I would like this idea only if the use of such an OP item (or really, really good item), required a lot of maintenance/resources to operate. Like say both sides of the loader need to have a certain resource pumped into it (right= lube , left = water(or something you actually have to make). There also needs to be a flaw (besides the maintenance). The current image of this inserter is too perfect. Maybe make it so it can only put in items at (or slightly slower) than yellow belt speeds. Here is an image that I drew up to represent my idea. http://imgur.com/8ae6CRi

Rrequiring not one, but TWO liquid supplies for these to work is really the stupidest idea I've read all week.

[OBAMA MCLAMA]

I missed this news last week. o no.. Either way, im not too entirely for the loader, even though i would abuse the **** out of it.

(not thinking about math here, just off first thoughts idea below)
to make the concept work, My suggestion is: 3 tiers, being half the speed of the belt tiers. so 3rd tier being half the speed of a blue belt. And it only has one lane.
The biggest part of this suggestion is the one lane part. It would make compact unloading, like trains for an example, Either not symmetric, or or less efficient than 7 inserter's when you can only fit 3/4.

[Goldminer]

I like the idea of having the loader require lubricant for operation! This could add a layer of complexity (how do I route the lubricant over here?), provide another use for lubricant (as it is, heavy oil is hardly used at all), and add cost to the loader, making it less over-powered. It could either stop completely, or maybe just slow down to a crawl, if not provided with lubricant.

That is a great Point! I think if the Loader expiring / loss hit points after time so that it dont lasts forever and plus a big cost something like lubricant 16 blue Belts, 4 express Splitter + red and blue Cards and some Speed 3 Modules will make its usage only for real late game interesting or in small solutions reasonable.

Otherways i think it will take more than it will add to the game.

[Carl]

Gentlemen, ladies, please stop freaking the hell out and suggesting stupid crap like requiring lubricant. All Bots require is electricity and they're still way better than this will be without some significant improvements in belt throughput.

Get it through your head. This is worse than bots as currently proposed. Ergo no problem.

I'm sorry but some of the freaking out is really starting to annoy, it's like most of you have never used bots and have no clue how extreme their throughput is. Even without resorting to alien research you can trivially move ridiculous amounts of stuff around with them. Throw alien research on and the transport capacity of a good bot network laughs in the face of belts. All this loader offers is the potential to keep up with bots provided you can feed enough input into the thing. And thats no guaranteed thing, in fact it's mostly flat out impossible with current belt tech.

[Supercheese]

Yeah, the more I hear it discussed, the more I think the lubricant idea is bad. Just electricity is fine.

[OBAMA MCLAMA]

Gentlemen, ladies, please stop freaking the hell out and suggesting stupid crap like requiring lubricant. All Bots require is electricity and they're still way better than this will be without some significant improvements in belt throughput.

Get it through your head. This is worse than bots as currently proposed. Ergo no problem.

I'm sorry but some of the freaking out is really starting to annoy, it's like most of you have never used bots and have no clue how extreme their throughput is. Even without resorting to alien research you can trivially move ridiculous amounts of stuff around with them. Throw alien research on and the transport capacity of a good bot network laughs in the face of belts. All this loader offers is the potential to keep up with bots provided you can feed enough input into the thing. And thats no guaranteed thing, in fact it's mostly flat out impossible with current belt tech.

not everyone chooses the easy way to play You may want to work at that attitude also.