Factorio Forums

Don't revert the compression changes, its unnecessary.

As well as an item to tell requester chests whether to pull from buffer chests, it would be symmetrical to also allow inserter network conditions to have an option to consider amounts in buffer chests or not: right now material in a buffer chest counts towards conditions, but if the requester chest isn't pulling from buffer chests, the inserters will be calculating from different counts.

Footy wrote:Don't revert the compression changes, its unnecessary.

Considering how many people seem to disagree with you, you might want to consider elaborating if you want your opinion to actually be considered. You haven't given your reasoning while most of the people in the thread have given a lot of reasoning on why they're for or against each type of compression.

kovarex wrote:Barrels are going to be 50.

Seems reasonable, although maybe drop the cost of barrels to compensate.

kovarex wrote:Barrels are going to be 50.

This makes me sad - barrels seem totally useless now.

Barrels were overpowered anyway in my opinion. I know this game isn't supposed to be 100% realistic, but for basic things like fluid transport, pipelines should always be better than barreling. What needs to be done now, is increase of pipe throughput to match closer with pumps.

rbtcollins wrote:As well as an item to tell requester chests whether to pull from buffer chests, it would be symmetrical to also allow inserter network conditions to have an option to consider amounts in buffer chests or not: right now material in a buffer chest counts towards conditions, but if the requester chest isn't pulling from buffer chests, the inserters will be calculating from different counts.

I hadn't considered that, though you'd normally want to consider the available resources in the network and not what's available to the specific request chest, right? It would certainly need to be a switch and not automatically applied to any inserters dealing with a requester chest with buffer-chest-pulling toggled off.

Alice3173 wrote:

Footy wrote:Don't revert the compression changes, its unnecessary.

Considering how many people seem to disagree with you, you might want to consider elaborating if you want your opinion to actually be considered. You haven't given your reasoning while most of the people in the thread have given a lot of reasoning on why they're for or against each type of compression.

I thought it was pretty obvious, side loading and underground belts used a old workaround in the game from ages ago.
it doesn't make sense that an inserter should be able to stop other items from moving in order to expand gaps to fill them.
It doesn't make sense for side loading to allow items to slip into gaps not big enough for them.
It doesn't make sense for underground belts and splitter to run faster than belt of the same class.
Splitters however do make sense you can split or combine belts based on a simple switching mechanism, they are designed to control the flow of belts...

using splitters doesn't change the game in a big way, it just means updating a few blueprints, its like complaining that the recipes for science changed, "why do you have to break my blueprints" is all ive really got from the arguments, this change makes sense and doesnt change the game in a major way...


Edit:
*Drops the Mic*

Footy wrote:

Alice3173 wrote:

Footy wrote:Don't revert the compression changes, its unnecessary.

Considering how many people seem to disagree with you, you might want to consider elaborating if you want your opinion to actually be considered. You haven't given your reasoning while most of the people in the thread have given a lot of reasoning on why they're for or against each type of compression.

I thought it was pretty obvious, side loading and underground belts used a old workaround in the game from ages ago.
it doesn't make sense that an inserter should be able to stop other items from moving in order to expand gaps to fill them.
It doesn't make sense for side loading to allow items to slip into gaps not big enough for them.
It doesn't make sense for underground belts and splitter to run faster than belt of the same class.
Splitters however do make sense you can split or combine belts based on a simple switching mechanism, they are designed to control the flow of belts...

using splitters doesn't change the game in a big way, it just means updating a few blueprints, its like complaining that the recipes for science changed, "why do you have to break my blueprints" is all ive really got from the arguments, this change makes sense and doesnt change the game in a major way...

Dudeeee... Of thousand of things I could argue against you on rational level... I think I will just go emotional instead and ask - aren't you just one of those people who would gladly suffer himself if only it makes others suffer too?

Footy wrote:it doesn't make sense that an inserter should be able to stop other items from moving in order to expand gaps to fill them.
It doesn't make sense for side loading to allow items to slip into gaps not big enough for them.

I'm not going to argue the other points because I agree with them or don't care about those ones enough to bother but these two are definitely an issue. Things get spaced arbitrarily on the belt all the time which can easily result in gaps that can't easily be taken into account without having to waste a ton more space to do a splitter setup. In these two instances it's a matter of convenience (making things a lot less tedious) over things being slightly more realistic.

using splitters doesn't change the game in a big way, it just means updating a few blueprints, its like complaining that the recipes for science changed, "why do you have to break my blueprints" is all ive really got from the arguments, this change makes sense and doesnt change the game in a major way...

You obviously didn't read the thread very thoroughly then, lol. A lot of people gave well-reasoned arguments both for and against particular aspects. Especially on your side they had better arguments than simply "it doesn't make sense" for everything.

*Drops the Mic*

You misspelled "my argument" there.

Alice3173 wrote:

Footy wrote:it doesn't make sense that an inserter should be able to stop other items from moving in order to expand gaps to fill them.
It doesn't make sense for side loading to allow items to slip into gaps not big enough for them.

I'm not going to argue the other points because I agree with them or don't care about those ones enough to bother but these two are definitely an issue. Things get spaced arbitrarily on the belt all the time which can easily result in gaps that can't easily be taken into account without having to waste a ton more space to do a splitter setup. In these two instances it's a matter of convenience (making things a lot less tedious) over things being slightly more realistic.

using splitters doesn't change the game in a big way, it just means updating a few blueprints, its like complaining that the recipes for science changed, "why do you have to break my blueprints" is all ive really got from the arguments, this change makes sense and doesnt change the game in a major way...

You obviously didn't read the thread very thoroughly then, lol. A lot of people gave well-reasoned arguments both for and against particular aspects. Especially on your side they had better arguments than simply "it doesn't make sense" for everything.

*Drops the Mic*

You misspelled "my argument" there.

Waste more space?
I’ve actually compacted designs loads since this change and allowed for full compression...
Feel free to throw a design problem my way and I can help you...