Bot central

[techno_letsgo]

What i'm suggesting is to add a central for all bots to come back to. This logistic central will come with its own storage (the size of 2 logistic chests) and will have a larger range than roboparts. All robots can come back here when their job is done. It can hold much, much more robots than a robopart can and will be able to charge charge more robots at once and can deploy/take in much more robots at once than the robopart.

Or, if you don't like this idea, you can do the reverse. Check out my assigned robots thread here: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 628#p99628

[ssilk]

Where is here the game-value? I don't see it, it just adds a bigger roboport, which is modable.

[techno_letsgo]

ok sorry if this is a really annoying comment and i don't mean to irritate you by saying this:

When you mean game value, do you mean more game time, a funner time, or an easier time?

[lancar]

I'd like a bigger roboport in vanilla. Sometimes it's hard to squeeze in a normal roboport at just the right spot for your logistic network in tight factories (extended range gives more leeway), and in robo-driven train station unloading we could really benefit from having something with more charging stations per square.

As a result, it should consume more power to run and resources to build. Not that that is ever much of an issue these days, but still.

Modding is never the solution. It's a bonus.

[Neotix]

Your proposition provide only easier bot management. Nothing more and it have low game-value so not worth to spend dev time on it. Thats why we have mods. Mods brings small and big changes with low and high game-value (some of them are implemented into game). You can decide which one you want to install.

You can do want you want with already existed BoB's mods thats bring logistic network expanders and charging stations. You can have only one roboport and big logistic network with many charging points.

[ssilk]

ok sorry if this is a really annoying comment and i don't mean to irritate you by saying this:
When you mean game value, do you mean more game time, a funner time, or an easier time?

Game value is the value of the game. (*)

Increase high game-value: Add platforms in space.
Increasing low game-value: Add more types item X. For example: Add tiers of locomotives.
Equal game-value: Add 19 different inserters.

The systematic is simple: If your suggestions adds something completely different it may have a high value. May have! Perhaps. If it adds only more complexity to existing game it cannot be that good.

Your suggestion is adding just another type of roboport. This can be implemented already as mod. It's already in the game, but the feature is not used yet, only by mods (see post above, there are other mods).


(*) Any yes: This essentially means, how good can the game be sold. The counterpart of this is the complexity.
Hm. I need to search some of Kovarex posts, where he linked where this is better explained.

[bobucles]

I think it can be summed up in one obscure quote:

"Perfection is when nothing more can be taken away."

TLDR: Less fluff more stuff.

[lancar]

ok sorry if this is a really annoying comment and i don't mean to irritate you by saying this:
When you mean game value, do you mean more game time, a funner time, or an easier time?

Game value is the value of the game. (*)

Increase high game-value: Add platforms in space.
Increasing low game-value: Add more types item X. For example: Add tiers of locomotives.
Equal game-value: Add 19 different inserters.

The systematic is simple: If your suggestions adds something completely different it may have a high value. May have! Perhaps. If it adds only more complexity to existing game it cannot be that good.

Your suggestion is adding just another type of roboport. This can be implemented already as mod. It's already in the game, but the feature is not used yet, only by mods (see post above, there are other mods).


(*) Any yes: This essentially means, how good can the game be sold. The counterpart of this is the complexity.
Hm. I need to search some of Kovarex posts, where he linked where this is better explained.

Interesting way to look at it.
I suppose it makes sense, yet I'm still against mods filling up spots that I feel should be instead fleshed out with Vanilla content. It's far too easy to fall into the "modders will fix it" trap of game development.

In this case, though, the suggestion previously made about making existing roboports to get Module slots is probably better for the purpose. That way their properties can be adjusted using existing content.

[ssilk]

I suppose it makes sense, yet I'm still against mods filling up spots that I feel should be instead fleshed out with Vanilla content. It's far too easy to fall into the "modders will fix it" trap of game development.

Till now it wasn't the case. We can discuss some examples, but in general it is not. For example the personal roboport was/is a mod, that is now implemented into vanilla. Many of that is planned and will be implemented.

[Gandalf]

Getting back to the topic at hand, I could see some use (“game value”) in being able to control a little better where bots are stored. Not so much by creating a bigger roboport, bur rather by assigning individual roboports something like a priority or a minimum amount of bots that should be “assigned” to the individual roboport (assuming enough total bots are in the network). This may potentially help bringing bots back to places where they will be needed later.
Simple example:

robots bring a resource in large quantities from A to B. Both A and B have a roboport, so bots start at A, fly to B, then store themselves at B until they are needed again at A. By ensuring A has a minimum amount of bots, i.e. telling some idle bots to return to A, they will already be there once new resources arrive and get to the transport faster.

This may also be useful with construction bots, if you already know the places where you'll need them.