This has to be added at some point in the games existance
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ace96/ace96d6ce3c76f2c2d882af3144ff401d8b3b218" alt="Wink ;-)"
Moderator: ickputzdirwech
tbh I agree. "Space" is essentially a resource in this sort of game. The space with which you have to store things for example. It's nice to have progression in the form of say... a few tiers of chests. But beyond that there should be a limit. Honestly if you really want to create a large 'storage' warehouse... just designate a large area for strictly storage and build an isolated logistics storage network there with a provider chest and just dump everything onto the belt the leads to it. Tada. Your warehouse. It'll still take the space. It'll just be out of your 'view' and work area.Garm wrote:I am actually against small buildings capable of storing humongous amounts of resources. It encourages hoarding. While it doesnt matter much now but with addition of multiplayer this can negatively affect the experience.
Create a disconnected robot network with nothing but storage chests and one provider closest to your base, 'dump' items into provider and robots will move them to the storage (since nothing wants them). Done.Coolthulhu wrote:It would be nice to have some sort of a "dump", though.
Congratulationsssilk wrote:Well, this is my thousands post here. So I try to make it a bit longer![]()
I don't see, why players should tend to stock. And if so: why not?I've no problem with that. I think this belongs to a learning curve, the player sooner or later will realize... Storing items are not always a good idea, indeed I would say in most cases. But it helps a lot, if you have enough resources.
There is a concrete problem, why I suggest such "bulkable" things: when you use trains you have currently no good opportunity as to create for every item one train station. This is because you cannot really control the speed, in which the resources are mined. The source is far away... If you would put all resources into one train station, which is much more efficient, you have to sort them. For example the wagons are unloaded by smart inserters, one side of the track for copper, the other for iron. This works fine, as long the delivered amount matches the needed, everything fine, but there is always (!) a point, when this makes more problems. I would describe it with "overfilling"
Such silos are not really a solution. The end-solution is to control the mining from that far distant. But that needs to be researched. Or you drive there and do something. You need time!
With the silos, I would call them better "buffers" you buy time. You take credit, because sooner or later the trains are blocked with items, so you can react; turn some mines off, or get more resources of the other type. And the second is speeding up time to built such a buffer. Currently it takes a lot of time to make such a storage/buffer, that fits the available space and the storing needs lots of energy (inserters).
With a silo, or anything which stores the raw material fast and simple, this is much, much easier.
Yes. Not mixing is a good solution, as said (...for every item one station is also a solution...). It is currently the only working method.Garm wrote: Well first of all I do not believe that is a real problem - It is similar to comparing mixed item belt getting overfilled due to negligence. My own complexes usually have dedicated wagon for each resource. if the demand is high I deploy entire trains for each resource, but I never mix.
I don't see it controversial. This theme has a long history and it comes up nearly every month.As such I do not see this as a problem that warrants such controversial solution.
I'm fine with the chests. I experimented a lot things with them. The problem I have with them is, that they need much time to built. Too much.Secondary - we already have buffers - chests which can be built into unique designs based on player preference.
Well, we have here a game with the most emergence I ever saw. And I cannot compare it with dwarf factory, never played it. I spoke from something completely different and dont understand you.Tertiary - this is big - I believe it is better to have emergent gameplay (Eve, DF) instead of scripted one. Storage complexes made by players from chests are a form of an emergent gameplay, pre-designed storage buildings are part of the scripted one. Problem there lies in replayability - players would be less bored playing again and again if the designs they make are malleable, building a rigid structure can only be fun but a few times, later it becomes a mundane task.
e.g. - most enjoyable aspect for me in DF - is digging cavers - one of the most common tasks possible turned into neverending fountain of enjoyment specifically because of that.
I dunno what you mean. I want to store raw materials. Fast build, some storage to by time. You cannot store electric circuits or any other intermediate products in a silo. But you really need so much of the raw material, that this makes much sense.Fourth - about hoarding - there is also psychological aspect due to immense buffer you separate two concepts, that make this game attractive: the task (acquiring resource) and reward (making stuff from said resources), this is mostly subconscious but eventually players will grow "disenchanted" crafting from seemingly neverending storage, or stockpiling into one.
You tell me, that I think the game is too hard??Fifth - Are you saying the game is too hard? what is the purpose of intentionally making it easier?
Yes this game is emergent, but it is still young, there aren't as many tools to provide emergence in all areas like in defence, but that is unrelated topic.ssilk wrote: Well, we have here a game with the most emergence I ever saw. And I cannot compare it with dwarf factory, never played it. I spoke from something completely different and dont understand you.
My point is, that the game needs more speed. Blue prints are a super duper point to gain more speed (ever thought about the fact, that blueprint will reduce the emergency of Factorio very much?). I don't want to handle with that. I'm eventually at some place, far away from my main factory and I need to buy time. I haven't researched blue prints yet and it would need to much time. I need just a simple solution. And I think my suggestion is such a super easy thing.
I meant dopamine release due to reward and further brain association of it with the task involved - stuff that makes you interested in mundane and boring tasks within a game.ssilk wrote: I dunno what you mean. I want to store raw materials. Fast build, some storage to by time. You cannot store electric circuits or any other intermediate products in a silo. But you really need so much of the raw material, that this makes much sense.
Well you are asking for a new building, that will make the game much easier, than it is now. It makes you sound as you are not satisfied how hard it is at the moment.ssilk wrote: You tell me, that I think the game is too hard??![]()
I did not state that, since this suggestion was not proposed by a developer. I've stated that compared to other suggestions made by players this suggestion (also made by player) is not as important.ssilk wrote: Like In your last sentence, you state, that you know better than the developers, what is good for the game.
I recommend some sleep and a good cup of tea or coffee. I book this under bad mood.
2. At later stages of the game it seems item belts become quite lacking due to inserter-belt limitation in throughput. Would it possible to add hopper-like structure that works as combination of chest above the belt. Items placed in that chest will automatically drop onto the belt below in all 4 slots at once.