Factorio Forums

sillyfly wrote:

ssilk wrote:We had very long threads about this. There where many reasons for 2 and also many for 10.

Do you have a link to such threads? can be interesting!

Well, this isn't so difficult, but I try to list in order of date:


https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... imal#p6948
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... imal#p8401
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... ize#p22231
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... ize#p23964

I think there are a bit more, but that is essentially the most important.

BTW: Here the idea to make this a per-game-option: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 6906#p6906

BTW2 and off-topic: I found Kovarex posting about the implementation of the logistic network into the inserter. https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 6972#p6954

Prezombie wrote:

ssilk wrote:This change was introduced, because we don't want to have two different bases (2 AND 10, that really don't makes sense).
In the end there was a tendency for 10 instead of 2 - as it is now.

And what was so bad about the alternative of making the requester system use the number of stacks for large numbers? Its a calculation that you still have to make in this new system. Once you start dealing with a lot of stacks of any base and storage space limited in stack number, you should be thinking in the number of stacks, not the total in those stacks. If you used a stack system in the requester circuits, that would have removed the need to shatter the logarithmic beauty in the old crafting tree.

That's already one of my favorite suggestions.
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 079#p30710

#2 The selection of the number should have 5 levels:
-- simple: Items 0-99, type in number, or press two buttons (calculator), or drag mouse...
-- More items: the scale how it is about yet, but I would prefer buttons and that it is based on the stack-size of the selected item-type
-- Stack-context: X stacks of the selected items-type.
-- chest context: X (logistic) chests full of this item type.
-- any number, a special/hidden mode of the first.

Hello, thank you for making the poll, I'm quite surprised, that more people like the new way.

We need to avoid the confusion in the dabate:

• Please, don't mix the debate with the fact, that stacks got smaller, the size of stacks is part of balancing, and can change when we feel it should
• We didn't want to make the trains less effective. We already agreed, that train wagons will get more stacks, so no worries.
• We don't doubt 2^x works great for minecraft, but the typical workflow with items in Factorio is just different.
• We also like 2^x as we are geeks, but we are not geeks enough to be able to count 128*17 quickly.

Im also kinda surprised, I hoped more people would have liked 2^x

Happy with the new change. 10's makes sense. Although it does mean more runs as the stacks are naturally smaller(50/64, 100/128).

No big deal though

kovarex wrote:

• We also like 2^x as we are geeks, but we are not geeks enough to be able to count 128*17 quickly.

In what factorio scenario do you need to calculate that? Besides the already discussed scenario of using a requester chest, which is what should have been edited in the first place.

I've had to split stacks multiple times more often than know the exact number of units I have beyond counting stacks. a stack of 100 can only be split evenly twice, while a 2^x stack can be split x number of times.

Prezombie wrote:a stack of 100 can only be split evenly twice, while a 2^x stack can be split x number of times.

Counterquestion: In which scenario do you REALLY need this?

like when trying to split a stack of coal between 8 smelters manually.

But this is just a very special case. Split a stack evenly between 3, 5, 6, 7, ... will not work for both.

Sander Buruma wrote:like when trying to split a stack of coal between 8 smelters manually.

I need that kind of splitting two or perhaps 4 times during a whole game. It's just too stupid work for me to split things manually.

I think that's also the whole discussion about: this game is about automation, but it seems, that many players like to do things by hand.

Voted 10. While i do agree that Po2 has a few advantages in some rare scenarios, i dont believe that the game will suffer much from losing those. On the other hand, 10 allows for way easier and faster management of multiple large stacks compared to Po2. But thats already all beeing pointed out somewhere else. I rest my case.

Calico wrote:On the other hand, 10 allows for way easier and faster management of multiple large stacks compared to Po2.

Speak for yourself. Powers of two are much easier and faster for me to deal with.

As long as we have a split in half with right click, I would expect stacks to be powers of two.

Thank Mod there is an awesome person who made a power of two mod.

Well, considering that everyone in the modern society is required to know base 10 system but the same cannot be said about base 2, it' safe to say he's speaking for the majority here.

What everyone should do is play the game for another week or two with the new stack system before trying to rate. Right now, we are still used to the base 2 system of previous version, and some of us have been conditioned by years of using Minecraft 64 stacks. Getting used to a change can be a hassle, which I believe leads to a lot of negativity towards the change. I'm fairly sure that for some people, simply getting some practice will be enough to tip the scales towards the new base 10 system.

Honestly, if The 2^x system isn't going to stick, I'd rather that the entire stack-based inventory be dropped altogether.

Better to just switch to a list-based inventory, changing the "place half" commands to "place 10", and giving items a volume along with giving containers a maximum encomberance instead of each different item taking up 2.5% of your inventory, while a stack of n using the exact same amount of space.

Prezombie wrote:Honestly, if The 2^x system isn't going to stick, I'd rather that the entire stack-based inventory be dropped altogether.

Why would that be? What is the objective difference in the general representation of the inventory between now and then that spoils the current system for you in conjunction with another base number?

I ask because I really don't get point here. Why do you think stack-based systems can only function with your flavor of stack-sizes?

Prezombie wrote:Better to just switch to a list-based inventory, changing the "place half" commands to "place 10", and giving items a volume along with giving containers a maximum encomberance instead of each different item taking up 2.5% of your inventory, while a stack of n using the exact same amount of space.

I did like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s inventory system. But if you start giving items a 'volume', you open pandora's box, releasing all kind of "where does he even PUT 50 STEAM ENGINES into" whines. That's my own opinion, though, but I like the more... abstract nature of item units we have now.
I'd like to have an easy "place one unit" hotkey, though.

It's hard to understand why exactly people like the 2^x old system from my point of view. It would make sense if the numeration system were in base 2 (or 4 or 8 or 16), but the standard is 10, which make arithmetic with 2^x a lot more awkward, all that for no benefit I can see.

Yeah I still remember when I was trying to take 100 items from a chest with stacks of 256 and struggling. I am emotionnaly attached to the 2^x, but I'll be nonest, I have 10 fingers, not 16, and apart from endlessly splitting stacks down to 1, 2^x has no added value.

Note : I'd love now to have the ability to ask for exactly how much I'd like to split a stack whenever I split. For exemple, if I right click, split in halves, if I drag and drop with the right clic, ask me "How many ?".

Ohlmann wrote:It's hard to understand why exactly people like the 2^x old system from my point of view. It would make sense if the numeration system were in base 2 (or 4 or 8 or 16), but the standard is 10, which make arithmetic with 2^x a lot more awkward, all that for no benefit I can see.

Hint: We're people who are around binary all day. I think this game attracts a lot of people in fields where base 2 is something that is used regularly, and thus more natural. I myself am in electrical engineering, I'm familiar and fluent with both systems, as digital systems design and programming are very important skills for the modern electrical engineer.

As for the change, I voted I prefer 2^x, but I think I'll get used to y*10^x in a short while.

Gammro wrote: Hint: We're people who are around binary all day. I think this game attracts a lot of people in fields where base 2 is something that is used regularly, and thus more natural. I myself am in electrical engineering, I'm familiar and fluent with both systems, as digital systems design and programming are very important skills for the modern electrical engineer.

Well, I am in computer engineering (and have did a very small bit of electronic), and I still don't see any advantage in 2^x over 10^x. In the opposite, I prefer 10^x because the way the numeration system work make it much easier to do additions and multiplications (I know the power of 2 only up to 16 384 ; I know that 2^10 is about equal to 10^3 but that still isn't a big help for mental calculation).

Nothing in the game seem to do well with 2^x. In particular, my inner OCD make me wonder from the very beginning why the stack of wood were 64 while you get wood per 5 unit (usually), so that I couldn't have two full stack precisely. I value the option of counting easily how much of something I have pretty high, too.

Gammro wrote:Hint: We're people who are around binary all day. I think this game attracts a lot of people in fields where base 2 is something that is used regularly, and thus more natural. I myself am in electrical engineering, I'm familiar and fluent with both systems, as digital systems design and programming are very important skills for the modern electrical engineer.

As for the change, I voted I prefer 2^x, but I think I'll get used to y*10^x in a short while.

Not all of us. I am a carpenter/painter by trade. While I can operate in both imperial and metric systems, I find metric much more easier and simpler. Its simpler to figure how much is 15 + 17 cm, as opposed to 3 and a 7/8ths of an inch + 4 and a 1/4 of and inch. I guess its ultimately the schools that are to blame. I am sure that nowadays the ^2 system is the basis of the arithmetic in the schools, but back in the 80's when I was growing up, it was all metric and decimals. I am quite sure no-one in my class has even seen a picture of a computer back in the day

torham wrote:I am sure that nowadays the ^2 system is the basis of the arithmetic in the schools

My irony meter may be broken, but I am very sure that youngster aren't learning ^2 things before their 16 at the very least. It's not even used all that much now outside of speciality trades.