Friday Facts #224 - Bots versus belts

[desastreger]

I haven't read every single answer as I am in the office and found the blog post thru Feedly.

Here's my idea for a reasonable nerf that would require insane amounts of work from the devs as the new mechanics needed around it would be insane:

What if the little creeps didn't fly?

That way you'd have to take some things into account to make this work:
- Items weight
- Pathfinding (needs to be walkable by the player)
- They shouldn't be able to stack or run into each other (perhaps developing lanes or roads?)

That would hit the sweet spot between belts and current robots.

Thanks!

Love the game.

[Hedning1390]

I choose to play with belts. I think using logistics bots where everything can be done the same way: requester>inserter>assembler>inserter>provider makes for really boring gameplay.

I think a massive change like removing logistics bots will make a lot of people unhappy, but I think they would get used to and accept the change in time. I am also convinced that people who buy the game after the change won't feel like they are missing.

That said I don't mind them being in the game. Like I said I can choose to play without them.

[smu42]

I'm not a fan of logistic robots.

But taking things away is psychologically difficult to accept.

I'd suggest that, if you do change the bots, don't really remove them, just make them harder to research (so that the mega base people can still do their thing).

If you do remove the bots, at least give the player something new.
Something like making belts more interesting. Maybe multilevel betls (real underground with multiple levels) or stacking items closer together on belts (like others suggested).

[Xterminator]

This FFF had me shaking my head and definitely increasing my blood pressure.
The logic here seems so flawed I don't even know where to begin. I guess to give more constructive criticism rather than rant I'll say this.

If you think belts aren't good enough compared to bots, then buff the belts (many great suggestions on how to do that so far), don't nerf bots. It's a pretty straight forward difference between nerfing bots or buffing belts:

If you buff belts:
- You bring them more in line with bots and make them even more fun.
- Preserve the way bots are now for players who like using them
- Don't force players into one play style as it seems you are trying to do now
- It's essentially a win, win. Bots don't get ruined, but belts also get better.

If you nerf bots:
- belts don't actually gain anything themselves.
- You force players to use belts more based on your ideal play style which totally goes against what Factorio has been so far with giving multiple playstyles.
- Ruin people's experience who have weaker PC's and want to build bigger
- Eliminate the possibility to make any large megabases without lagging like hell
- Alienate a lot of players

Pretty clear difference. This quote from a previous post pretty much sums up the rest of my thoughts perfectly:

I like having choices.

I dislike it when someone else decides that I "ought" to like one style of play (belts or bots) over the other and then tries to force me to play that way.

Given the current arrangement of things:
If I think that belts are more fun than bots, I will build a factory that relies on belts. If I think bots are more fun, I will build a factory that relies on bots.

The game seems to be going more and more in a direction of having players play in a certain way based on what you the devs want. It no longer becomes sandbox and becomes "I want to play this way so you all should too".
Last thing. Be a bit more blunt... The several weeks since 0.16 came out and the decisions and proposed changes during that time have made me highly question the judgement within the Dev team and if I want to even continue supporting the game and playing.
I hope it doesn't continue down that path.

[Durabys]

https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-224

A simple solution that does no harm to anyone:

Remember how people played Marathon and Resource Overhaul mod? And then you made Hard Recipe and Railworld settings?

Just look at all the Config+/Advanced Settings/ReStack/Noxys Extra Settings Info mods on the mod portal that people frequently use and which allow one to RIDICULOUSLY modify the base game.

In vanilla non-modded Dwarf Fortress and Rimworld the player has EXTREME amounts of freedom to modify pre-game settings and options for a new game. Each game being completely different from another.

Add an option to the New Game settings screen that allows you to remove/add buildings/mechanics for your new game.

Done and nor harm inflicted on the community!

[kassel188]

Getting the impression your logic is based of "I don't like it, so it should not be in the game", which is the wrong way to see it and just plain selfish. Many of us really enjoy the way bots are currently. Why should we be punished for it? The good think about factorio is that you have options. You are not forced into playing with bots, but they are required in late game if you want to make your base over a certain size or capacity, because belts have serious limitations. If you however want to make belts have additional features, that grants them the possibility of use in late game (like better capacity, better speed, underground use ect) then go for it. But don't punish us bot users by nerfing it or removing it. I have 500+ hours in the game, and I could never consider building a base without them. With logistic networks, they grant you so many new technical challenges thats on a whole other level than belts. Belts to me now really feels like kindergarden difficulty in comparison. They are no challenge, and I very often rush through early game to avoid them as much as possible. So I really hope bots will be kept as they are. Let the people who enjoy them, use them. If you want alternative methods of reaching endgame, then by all means add them, but don't remove stuff and ruin the challenge and fun for others.

[Cleany]

Notes:

"Belts are more fun". Who says? You will find that people generally gravitate to what is more fun and do it voluntarily. What is more fun, is what most people do.

"Bots replace the functions of belts". No they don't. On the whole bots replace the function of belts taking things over long distances, and things that are rarely used. Bots are pointless in small production areas as they do not transport thing with consistent speed as belts do.

[ili]

Stop removing OPTIONAL features!
Why remove logistic robots?
Why remove wagon separation?

Factorio is not an FPS, you don't need to 100% balance everything!

Sometime I like to start a "belt only" map, and sometime I like to go for full logistic robot megabase, why take this options from me?

[falizure]

Stop removing OPTIONAL features!
Why remove logistic robots?
Why remove wagon separation?

Factorio is not an FPS, you don't need to 100% balance everything!

Sometime I like to start a "belt only" map, and sometime I like to go for full logistic robot megabase, why take this option from me?

I totally agree, this is 100% something that could be configured in a new game setting and leave the rest of us who like it alone.
(that said I will still "always" appreciate more belt options if they become available in the future)

[GenBOOM]

if you want to make belts more interesting make belts that can intersect on that plane and move upwards into the 3rd dimension of the game.

Do you mean just adding elevated belts or are you talking full-scale dwarf-fortress style Z-axis here?

as someone mentioned undergrounds belts are not really underground, and they for no reason have a distance limitation imposed upon them.

I think elevated belts that do not allow the player to walk on them and require some kind of support structure to be held up would be a much more interesting mid game, and bots can be pushed further back and it would seem only natural.

also, bots and belts are inferior to trains in every way in late game anyhow. while bots vs belt fight is going on the trains are doing all the work.
I agree beacons are too simplified as well. I would welcome an update.

to continue on this idea of 3 dimensional belts...
there would need to be a splitter for going up and down on a layer of belts, and the top belts could easily drop onto a belt below and merge or overflow with that belt.
timing the merge would be the tricky part.
in my mind this seems like the logical step forward for the game.
by having layers you can have different belt priorities and interject items that are not needed as often onto a primary belt, maximizing the use of your space and the use of your high-speed belts.

for recipes that have lopsided ratios like blue circuits of 10:1 it makes sense that you would not want to dedicate even half a belt to that one resource and giving up 1 more tile to make the assembly wider is unnecessary. with 3 dimensional belts you wouldn't need to waste the space you already have. its time to build up, not out.

[bradicai]

I think removing bots is out of the question, your community has become accustomed to it. If you removed nukes from the game because they are better than AP ammo your community would flip out.

However everything in factorio has a cost and a benefit, that make you choose a certain strategy. 4 yellow belts vs less blue belts, its a comparable choice. once balancing cost/throughput/ease/space. You make a choice. The trouble i have with bots is that the down side is null, and the comparison is outrageous. cost and complexity of a belt based system that can deliver and retrieve any type of material to any machine is beyond capability. The argument Belts vs Bots means you have to compare the capabilities.

Belt throughput, limited by space, belt speed, and inserter pickup speed. Logistics throughput, limited by number of cheep bots, and number of charge points available and power.
Belt cost, Build additional belt for 1 tile of 1 route. Logistics cost,Build addition cheep bot for 1 delivery anywhere, and number of charge points available and power.
Belt sorting, easily 2 items per belt route but less easily limited only by throughput. Logistics sorting, no additional cost or complexity.
Belt availability, only start point to endpoints. Logistics availability, Limited by size of network and number of bots.
Belt construction, improper placements can mix belts and even stop all production, causing massive trash pickups(complex). Logistic construction, place roboport, and have robots anywhere in network.
Belt scaling, needs space and increases the amount needed the more you increase. logistics scale, more cheep robots.

so in an overall summary
Belts cost way more, scales magnitudes worse, only easily provide 2 types of materials each,only a point A -> B delivery, limited by inserter pickup speed,limited by throughput speed, complexity is miles higher, BUT they don't use power.
The comparison is a joke. If you like bots use em, if not don't, but if you are trying to bring the comparison closer to each other there needs to be a way to limit the throughput of delivery to and from a chest. I have always wondered how there can be a "train" of 1000 robots that all cram into one chest and empty it in 3 seconds, the easiest way I can think of is to use a similar method to the recharging ports, where only x robots per minute could access a chest but they can hang around and wait their turn just fine. currently there is no real limit or downside to the logistics network and can be solved by making more bots which in turn has no real limit or downside.

But since no change is likely i will repeat "If you like bots use em, if not don't"

-Happy factorio-ing

[Fawar]

Here is a proposition

• Remove charging from robot ports
  Force robot to fly over a player/robot constructed road
  That road would have an electricity upkeep per tile
  Road would not have a direction
  Road would not go underground ever since robots have to fly over them
  Different level of road would have more lanes for parallel robots (no overlapping)

Goal

• Use robots in bottleneck area (belts) over short distance due to upkeep and pathing required
  Still have some sense of spagethi to manage
  Reduce their easyness and bring into a puzzle level

[Squeegy]

You will find that people generally gravitate to what is more fun and do it voluntarily. What is more fun, is what most people do.

Sadly, this is not true. In a game like this, people will gravitate to the simplest and easiest solution, which may result in less interesting problems to solve and less interesting factories if those gameplay mechanics are too easy.

[vampiricdust]

Do not remove logistics bots because you personally do not like them.

A game is about being fun and a lot of people find logistic bots to be fun. I definitely find them to be incredibly fun and enjoy building logistic networks and optimizing them to work better. Logistic bots have their own challenges, as they tend to feed or do one thing at a time, you have to balance just how badly you want certain items delivered. Belts cost no electricity, they are single mindedly dedicated to their specific task, and provide a visual to how well supplied each route is.

Bots, you cannot easily tell why something isn't getting supplied, bots have to recharge and often waste time flying to inconvenient roboports if nearby ones are too full, and we have to balance roboport placement with assemblers & beacons.

If the game wasn't a modable game, I might consider objectively whether to remove bots, but the game's whole basis has been on player choice. Do not give us fewer choices. I have had complete faith in you guys, I rant and rave about this game everywhere. If you remove logistic bots then I will not be so eager to support this game. I will not be so interested in making youtube videos or even playing the game any further. Belts are boring, tedious, and limited in their ideal usages. Give us other alternatives to bots rather than take them away.

[Cleany]

Logistic bots means boring factories made of fieleds of assemblers each with an output chest and an input chest.

It is this, totally incorrect premise, that is responsible for this whole thing.

This is totally wrong. Some people might use the logistics system for this (and why not let them?), but surely most people use is as, and lets be quote clear here, a logistics system.

Logistics, it's how you organise stock items over various locations.

Belts is not a good way to do this. That is why people don't us it for it.

Further to this, bots are not a good way to transport small areas over small areas of intense production, so most people don't do that either.

So lets not even thing about ruining the best game there is because of a straw man eh?

[TeZwo]

Bot are perfect in the current state.
Especially if you want to build bigger bases later in the game, bots are essential.

Besides, you can't get past the conveyor belts anyway. We also played only with trains and without bots, this was also great. Just add a game function to disable bots, general and personal. So you can use personal bots but not the general

[falizure]

You will find that people generally gravitate to what is more fun and do it voluntarily. What is more fun, is what most people do.

Sadly, this is not true. In a game like this, people will gravitate to the simplest and easiest solution, which may result in less interesting problems to solve and less interesting factories if those gameplay mechanics are too easy.

except its up to each player to decide whats fun for them, does it matter how they play as long as they have fun with it? I for example have only just started using trains (YES!!!) only just now...I have gone for ages without using them...ever, I thought they were a waste...still do, but recent map and mod changes have made ore patches somewhat farther apart (I think) and its not been as practical to belt them, especially on my low end pc...

[Oddrobb]

Here's an idea: Give each bot a blank slate when it is produced. Instead of seamlessly integrating thousands of logistic bots into your logistics network with minimal effort, the bots can be like the locos, where the player must program the logic and functionality for each unit individually. That way you will have bots dedicated to automatically refilling certain items in player inventory, transferring from storage to buffer chests, repairing structures, etc. There would be an added complexity layer to the bots (retaining more of the fun of logistics planning), but not so much that they wouldn't be worth producing. Each bot would be more purposeful, but at the same time they would have certain disadvantages as the more bots you produce and have to program, the more impractical a solution it becomes over the alternatives.

[Zavian]

I don't know if anyone got to the same conclusions I did, but there is no need to change logistic bots mechanics.

The bots are good for rapid factory expansion, but they come at a cost. Bots require more computational power than belts and this is the reason you won't be able to build the biggest factory possible. Your framerate will start to drop at some point and because of the factory expansion speed (without belts) you'll reach that point quickly.

The belts take much more time to build and manage than bots, but also less computational power. So in the long run factory with belts will be bigger and you'll be able to produce more goods per second with the same computational power.

To say the truth I never got to the point where belt based factory was so big, that my framerate started to drop. Im a bot person, but my games ended quicky thanks to that.

That's the core of Factorio, to produce as many items as possible.

Let me show you some graphs:
BELT BASED FACTORY:



BOTS BASED FACTORY:

Actually my impression is that a good bot based design is way more cpu friendly than belts. Certainly this was true before 0.16. I haven't played in a large enough belt based factory in 0.16 to really be sure how much belts have improved in 0.16. They have improved a lot, but I'm doubtful whether they can approach a good bot based design for cpu efficiency.

Edit. fixed comment in middle of quote.

[IronCartographer]

I have always wondered how there can be a "train" of 1000 robots that all cram into one chest and empty it in 3 seconds, the easiest way I can think of is to use a similar method to the recharging ports, where only x robots per minute could access a chest but they can hang around and wait their turn just fine. currently there is no real limit or downside to the logistics network and can be solved by making more bots which in turn has no real limit or downside.

You've struck gold here.

In an alternate universe there could have been a (moddable) property for logistic chests: Access rate.

It could take on many forms, be an infinite research, what have you. It's a nerf, but it offers progression potential!

To make it visually consistent, bots interacting with chests could have an animation rather than instantly grabbing items.

Funny thing is, it would actually resemble the issues people were having with 0.16.13(?) and bots being "relatively unresponsive" -- still functional, but at a reduced throughput for a given point of I/O.

Bots are pointless in small production areas as they do not transport thing with consistent speed as belts do.

Nothing has higher throughput in a small space. The cost of bots comes from how power-hungry they are over distances, making them good for lower and lower throughput at greater distances.