Decider combinator should have ability to output "constant"

[Erfar]

Before there was technicaly imposible to make this so the only way was use decider + arithmetic combinators, but now it is technicaly possible to make that circuit, but that create readibility problem

11-18-2024, 01-33-05.png (143.88 KiB) Viewed 861 times

[breadpudding]

100% agreed, let us set a value.

[kitters]

Searched a forum before suggesting exactly this.
Fully agreed, it should be implemented, even though there is a hack to solve the problem.

[spacedog]

This is a miss across the board for all circuit devices, not just decider combinators. I never understood why the only choices are "input count" or 1. If one of the choices is going to be a constant, let us pick the constant.

[AileTheAlien]

This is a miss across the board for all circuit devices, not just decider combinators. I never understood why the only choices are "input count" or 1. If one of the choices is going to be a constant, let us pick the constant.

I think it's because you can output constants with a constant combinator, and then use a decider combinator to choose the values from the constant combinator instead of the non-constant signals from the other combinator(s).

[spacedog]

I think it's because you can output constants with a constant combinator, and then use a decider combinator to choose the values from the constant combinator instead of the non-constant signals from the other combinator(s).

That's true, but it's extra circuitry and wires that clutter things up. It can already output a constant value anyway... so it's hard to see what the downsides would be to making it configurable.

Maybe the devs want us to have messy circuits, but most of the changes in 2.0 were added from a desire to do just the opposite. I get not wanting to make combinators so powerful that huge circuits can be reduced to a single combinator with complex branching conditions, but this request is pretty far from that.

[feng]

/sign

I would also like to see the ability to change the sign of a number on outputs. Lets ban all those arithmetic combinators 'Each * -1'

[SimpleID]

100% agreed, let us set a value.

+1

[neoChaos12]

As much as I'd appreciate this, were it to be implemented, I can see why the devs might not want to do so. The more we integrate such "redundant" pieces of the circuit network, the more we move away from the need to have multiple pieces with distinct functionality in the first place. Basically, why even have 4 types of combinators at all? Why not go about things the way Mindustry works, as an example, where you basically just have a single complex processing unit capable of running assembly line code? Just my two cents.

[R060]

As much as I'd appreciate this, were it to be implemented, I can see why the devs might not want to do so. The more we integrate such "redundant" pieces of the circuit network, the more we move away from the need to have multiple pieces with distinct functionality in the first place. Basically, why even have 4 types of combinators at all? Why not go about things the way Mindustry works, as an example, where you basically just have a single complex processing unit capable of running assembly line code? Just my two cents.

As far as I have seen, those who managed to learn how to use combinators and how to make them usefull for themselves are gonna be perfectly fine with multi-processing units, or maybe even with a "fassembly" code, if the game would have a builtin cheat-sheet for syntax and instructions.

The other half of the players struggle even with basic signal usage with constant combinators and "multiply by -1" setups. And the thing is, they don't even want to learn. Thus we have a giga-platforms which collect every single rock in space just to process it and throw away back to the void. And the game clearly balanced around those types of players.

[neoChaos12]

As much as I'd appreciate this, were it to be implemented, I can see why the devs might not want to do so. The more we integrate such "redundant" pieces of the circuit network, the more we move away from the need to have multiple pieces with distinct functionality in the first place. Basically, why even have 4 types of combinators at all? Why not go about things the way Mindustry works, as an example, where you basically just have a single complex processing unit capable of running assembly line code? Just my two cents.

As far as I have seen, those who managed to learn how to use combinators and how to make them usefull for themselves are gonna be perfectly fine with multi-processing units, or maybe even with a "fassembly" code, if the game would have a builtin cheat-sheet for syntax and instructions.

The other half of the players struggle even with basic signal usage with constant combinators and "multiply by -1" setups. And the thing is, they don't even want to learn. Thus we have a giga-platforms which collect every single rock in space just to process it and throw away back to the void. And the game clearly balanced around those types of players.

As someone who is guilty of ruining many people's first forays into games I absolutely love because I was over-enthusiastic about the "correct" way to play the game, I will refrain from passing judgement on whether or not the other half of players should learn this stuff. But the devs do need to toe the fine line between satisfying both player bases and maintaining the artistic concept of their game. I think that at least some of the "clunky-ness" of the current circuit network system is very much integral to conveying the steampunk-like atmosphere of Factorio.

[R060]

I will refrain from passing judgement on whether or not the other half of players should learn this stuff. But the devs do need to toe the fine line between satisfying both player bases and maintaining the artistic concept of their game.

Why circuits are something that someone should not learn how to use? The game simplified so much when you apply that little control to the things that otherwise would consume/buffer too much resources. I hate grinding stuff in games, thus I hate to "just build more" things when it is already at the perfect ratio just to get it build two times faster. It's like playing chess on two boards making the same moves, but you need to run between them across the room. Look how dumb rockets are now when they are designed for using bots only, because you can't just calculate yourself what you want to load in them and say it "go" via signal (like you could in Space Exploration, or just like you do in multi-item wagons with trains that supply your outposts and walls).

[feng]

The more we integrate such "redundant" pieces of the circuit network, the more we move away from the need to have multiple pieces with distinct functionality in the first place. Basically, why even have 4 types of combinators at all? Why not go about things the way Mindustry works, as an example, where you basically just have a single complex processing unit capable of running assembly line code?

For me its not about taking the easy mode by reducing the complexity of building a circuit network. But without the QoL improvements most complex circuit networks just blow up in size and start to become clunky and unmanageable.

For example setting recipes on auto-assemblers: You need lot of combinators now that have NOTHING to do with the control function. You need several combinators for filtering signals (because of mixed input and outputs at assemblers) or for inverting signals or for outputting a different signal than '1'. Its not adding fun to the game when I have to flood my screen with combinators for trivial tasks.

I also hoped that we get for 2.0 some kind of 'Processor Building' that would just house all circuit stuff (in some extra window or so). But well... too complex i guess and different topic.

[eugenekay]

According to this thread this Feature does already Exist - but it is only available to the Mod API at the moment, awaiting some more work on the GUI. So, be patient.

[robot256]

I also hoped that we get for 2.0 some kind of 'Processor Building' that would just house all circuit stuff (in some extra window or so). But well... too complex i guess and different topic.

At least there is a mod for that! https://mods.factorio.com/mod/compaktci ... rom=search