Factorio Forums

Chartas wrote:So we have infrastructure that can ONLY transport fluids, yet fails to be better than the more general alternative, which can at the same time also transport other items and is generally less anyoing.

Seriously stop with these nonsensical arguments. Barrels are easier to handle, sure, AFTER you set up your empty barrel managment. Which is hugely non trivial for beginners and makes for more complex oil outposts. Not that they are overly complicated, sure, it's still simple blueprint, but you can't honestly argue they're as simple as storage tank at the destination, storage tank at source and storage tank riding between the pumps.

Not to mention the whole "can hold more fluid" argument is retarded, what are you going to do with empty barrels? Unless you setup some super complex circuit setup / precise train schedule, you have to reserve half the capacity to empty barrels with filters (the easy solution, making it at least comparable in setup costs with fluid wagons) or with another wagon, which makes you carry less fluid per wagon, making the entire argument moot.

+ what Selvek said. Arguing about capacity in the game where I can carry dozens of tanks and locomotives in my bag of holding backpack is either bad joke or offtopic.

Chartas wrote:So to summarize: Barrels should hold less liquid so that the extra work/annoyance needed for pipes/fluid wagons is actually worth it.
The previously mentioned 100 appear indeed to be a good unit. Or 25 and then upping the stack size to 50 would also be okay.

And scale the "crafting time" reducing to 100 would mean reducing the cost to 40% of what it is now, reducing to 25 would mean reducing the cost to 10%, etc.


Also, I think part of the issue is a result of the whole... "I can fit more in a 1x1 chest than a 2x6 cargo wagon", cargo wagons used to have 20 slots, now they have 40, that just compounds the issue.

Tev wrote:you have to reserve half the capacity to empty barrels with filters (the easy solution, making it at least comparable in setup costs with fluid wagons) or with another wagon, which makes you carry less fluid per wagon, making the entire argument moot.

This is the second or third (?) time I've seen the "empty barrels reduce the cargo wagon capacity by half" argument from different people. It is based on the flawed assumption that fluid wagons are somehow unloading fluid and then NOT going back empty. So your fluid wagon ships crude from the oil field to your main base. What exactly are you carrying back from the base to the oil field? Nothing, you are taking empty fluid wagons back there.

Yes, it is true that empty barrels do mean that every round trip is half fluid and half empty barrels. But that's true of fluid wagons too - half of every round trip is going to be an empty fluid wagon.

Advantage: neither

AndrewIRL wrote: Yes, it is true that empty barrels do mean that every round trip is half fluid and half empty barrels. But that's true of fluid wagons too - half of every round trip is going to be an empty fluid wagon.

I think you misunderstood Tev. He/She didn't mean sending back empty cargo wagons, but instead using the filter to reserve 20 stacks for oil barrels and then 20 stacks for empty barrels. That would halve the capacity, and therefore is really not the most effective thing to do.

Tev wrote:Seriously stop with these nonsensical arguments. Barrels are easier to handle, sure, AFTER you set up your empty barrel managment. Which is hugely non trivial for beginners and makes for more complex oil outposts.

Anything concerning fluids is none trivial for beginners. I still remember my first factory that run on a single refinery because it got too complicated to handle it. After 250+ hours ingame that certainly looks different. So you're right in saying this is not a beginners issue. But it's still a balancing issue. Once you know what is actually happening and how to improve your factory this starts being an issue. And realising that whatever you came up with is actually not a good way and using the special vehicles/structures for it are not the way to go, because the general alternative is more effective, is exactly what I'm saying is unbalanced. That would make fluid wagons superfluous and on a large scale remove any pipes, because the belt is simply better. (Then why even have them at all?)

Tev wrote:Not to mention the whole "can hold more fluid" argument is retarded, what are you going to do with empty barrels? Unless you setup some super complex circuit setup / precise train schedule, you have to reserve half the capacity to empty barrels with filters (the easy solution, making it at least comparable in setup costs with fluid wagons) or with another wagon, which makes you carry less fluid per wagon, making the entire argument moot.

First, no reason to call anything retarded... It's a disscussion and like Aeternus nicley showed, you can respectfully disagree without being insulting... Secondly, there are circuit free and easy setups that solve this problem effectivly. Try coming up with some, it's a fun exercise. Even though using at least one circuit between a chest and an inserter seems reasonable.

@bobingabout: Yeah of course the cost should probably be adjusted as well if you go with stack increase. By how much i don't know, but your idea seems nice.

bobingabout wrote:Also, I think part of the issue is a result of the whole... "I can fit more in a 1x1 chest than a 2x6 cargo wagon", cargo wagons used to have 20 slots, now they have 40, that just compounds the issue.

Everyone compares chest to cargo wagons, but i really don't care about that. Those two entites serve vastly different purposes, (the wagon can mooooooooove) but i care about fluid and cargo wagons. They serve the same purpose and one of them is limited in application to a certain field, while the other is not. And yet the none limited version is superior in any aspect. That's the whole problem.

Chartas wrote:

AndrewIRL wrote: Yes, it is true that empty barrels do mean that every round trip is half fluid and half empty barrels. But that's true of fluid wagons too - half of every round trip is going to be an empty fluid wagon.

I think you misunderstood Tev. He/She didn't mean sending back empty cargo wagons, but instead using the filter to reserve 20 stacks for oil barrels and then 20 stacks for empty barrels. That would halve the capacity, and therefore is really not the most effective thing to do.

Round trip
1st leg: Oil Field -> Oil Refinery
2nd leg: Refinery -> Oil field

Load cargo wagon with 40 stacks of full barrels at oil field - drive to refinery unload all 40 stacks with filter inserters on one side of track and simultaneously load empty barrels from the other side of the track. Cargo wagon is now full with empty barrels, leave station, back to oil field.

If Tev had a less optimal solution in mind then - don't do that, do this instead!

Could someone show a picture of a setup that transports liquid via belt to 100 tile distance at comparable rate to what a single pipe can put through?

I'm mostly interested in the amount of barreling assemblers and the size of the barreling/unbarreling setup that can compete with a pipe.

hoho wrote:Could someone show a picture of a setup that transports liquid via belt to 100 tile distance at comparable rate to what a single pipe can put through?

I'm mostly interested in the amount of barreling assemblers and the size of the barreling/unbarreling setup that can compete with a pipe.

in 0.15 you dont use barrels on belts.

long distance: railtanker
short distance: pipe
in base: backup excesses in barrels in logistic network. (robots)

AndrewIRL wrote:Round trip
1st leg: Oil Field -> Oil Refinery
2nd leg: Refinery -> Oil field

Load cargo wagon with 40 stacks of full barrels at oil field - drive to refinery unload all 40 stacks with filter inserters on one side of track and simultaneously load empty barrels from the other side of the track. Cargo wagon is now full with empty barrels, leave station, back to oil field.

If Tev had a less optimal solution in mind then - don't do that, do this instead!

So every tiny oil outpost on the map will have it's own train. So instead of using one train (though with a bit tweaked and tuned schedule) serving 2-4 stations you use 2-4 trains. Not to mention your handling of peaks in oil facility will have to account for much bigger spikes.

Or you can spend forever dragging pipes accross the landscape (and tune pumps so they actually work).

Either way - yay, efficiency!


Chartas: true, I could have not phrased it in such offensive manner, sorry. But it still seems to me like you're all not getting basic inefficiency of using barrels for oil outposts - either in capacity itself, or in setup costs. Of course it pays off in much better handling and storage capacity, but it seems clear to me that it has its drawbacks as well, making it pretty well balanced. And barrels still will be used anyway, e.g. for excess as mophydeen said. Or for specific scenarios. Or when you will want to bother with the initial setup for better long-term handlng of fluids.

tl;dr your case for barrels being unbalanced is weak, and your arguments with its false assumptions (like player time is free) are just further undermining your case.

hoho wrote:Could someone show a picture of a setup that transports liquid via belt to 100 tile distance at comparable rate to what a single pipe can put through?

I'm mostly interested in the amount of barreling assemblers and the size of the barreling/unbarreling setup that can compete with a pipe.

You need 4 yellow assemblers or 7 blue assemblers on barreling (and the same amount on unbarreling) to exceed the pipe capacity.

mophydeen wrote:

hoho wrote:Could someone show a picture of a setup that transports liquid via belt to 100 tile distance at comparable rate to what a single pipe can put through?

I'm mostly interested in the amount of barreling assemblers and the size of the barreling/unbarreling setup that can compete with a pipe.

in 0.15 you dont use barrels on belts.

long distance: railtanker
short distance: pipe
in base: backup excesses in barrels in logistic network. (robots)

I certainly wouldn't but there were people in this thread saying barreling would be easier without ever showing the setup required for moving fluids in barrels. I asked for screenshots to see just how "simple" it is as I'm almost certain it requires relatively massive amount of space compared to attatching a pump to fluid vagon.

I'd rather go the other way. Barrels seem to be in a decent spot right now; but pipes could use some help. It's one of those "lost" techs like mining, where there's one variant that you use from the start of the game until the end. Only even worse, since at least there's two types of mining, even if you do ditch one in the first 30 minutes.

Recently, I have a question in my mind about fluid wagon, and I wanted to make a mod about that. But then I found this post, which reminds me that my mod may also need to change the barrels...

If I understand correctly, this post is about barrels being OP when compared with fluid wagon.
But what if the fluid wagon itself is already OP?
I have seen long trains that have more than 4 cargo wagons for transporting ores from outposts. But I have rarely seen trains with more than 2 fluid wagons.
Maybe the fluid wagon is too large, such that only 1 or 2 are needed for each outpost?
And it sounds ridiculous that you can actually put 3x fluid from a stationary storage tank to a mobilized fluid wagon. Their graphical appearances just don't match this mechanic.

OK, let's do some math...
Cargo wagon vs steel chest:
Material: 845s 140 iron ore vs 280s 40 iron ore
OK, most of us don't care about resources because it is not our planet.

Size: 2x6 vs 1x1
Slots: 40 vs 48
So, the size of a cargo wagon is 1200% of that of a steel chest, yet a wagon can hold only 83.33% items of a chest.
If we say a steel chest has 100% efficiency, than, a cargo wagon has only (40 / (2x6)) / ((48 / (1x1)) = 6.944% efficiency.
I'm not saying it is a problem. It makes sense. Cargo wagon is movable but the steel chest is immobilized.

Now, fluid wagon vs storage tank... I think you have already known what I want to say here:
Size: 2x6 vs 3x3
Capacity: 75k vs 25k
The size of a fluid wagon is only 133.33% of that of a storage tank. But it can store 300% fluid of a storage tank.
Efficiency = (75 / (2x6)) / (25 / (3x3)) = 225% !!
If we only want 6.944% efficiency in fluid wagon, it should only have 2.31k fluid capacity instead of 75k.

I laughed to myself when I first saw this number.
Tell me if I did it wrong.

Otherwise, what we need is not just reducing the capacity of each barrel by half...
Say, if we want a cargo wagon can also only hold 2.31k fluid using barrels.
A cargo wagon = 400 barrels
2.31k / 400 = 5.775
So each barrel should only hold 5.775 unit of fluid instead of 250....

I won't make a mod that goes this far. But still, 225% vs 6.944% sounds too much for me.
And I want to say... maybe the problem is not pipe or storage tank, but the fluid wagon and barrel?

Edit: Optera reminded that we can actually store fluid in steel chest using barrels! Let's look at the efficiency.
Steel chest vs Storage tank
Size: 1x1 vs 3x3
Capacity: 48x10x250=120k vs 25k
Efficiency = (120 / (1x1)) / (25 / (3x3)) = 4320%
I would let you decide whether it is a balancing issue or not.

Barrels are fine as they are. They might not pass the sanity check, but then lots of other stuff in Factorio fares no better.

With the introduction of liquid wagon barrels are already a niche item with very limited use. Your changes will simply make them useless completely.

Lav wrote:Barrels are fine as they are. They might not pass the sanity check, but then lots of other stuff in Factorio fares no better.

With the introduction of liquid wagon barrels are already a niche item with very limited use. Your changes will simply make them useless completely.

+1

Your math feels right. In a pure vanilla game I'd use stationary fluid wagons or barrel storage instead of those puny tanks.
Fluid wagons are ludicrous space efficient and barrels especially stored in 48 slot chests even more.

Optera wrote:Your math feels right. In a pure vanilla game I'd use stationary fluid wagons or barrel storage instead of those puny tanks.
Fluid wagons are ludicrous space efficient and barrels especially stored in 48 slot chests even more.

Thanks for reminding me that we can actually use steel chest to store fluid. Added the efficiency to my post. It is even more ridiculous.
Even though 2 assembling machines are needed for barreling and unbarreling, i.e. take more space, a little more energy, some time to process, but still, 4320%.... really?

Chartas wrote:I think barrels can hold way too much liquid as is, and the amount a single barrel can contain should be reduced by... maybe half? Maybe more.

Because...

• ... you can fit 75k liquid into a fluid wagon, but 100k into a normal wagon using barrels. (40 stacks * 10 barrels per stack * 250 liquid per barrel = 100 000 liquid)
• ... barrels don't require dedicated infrastructure beyond two assemblers for loading and unloading and maybe one for crafting the barrels. So i can use barrels in my logistic network and still have a higher throughput while disregarding all the specialized infrastructure like fluid wagons/tanks and pipelines.
• ... it's actually faster to put liquid into barrels and on a YELLOW belt, then to use a pipeline throughput wise, as stated by Lav.
• ... I personally belive that, if there exists dedicated infrastructure that has only a single use case, it should be more effective than any other alternative.

Currently said numbers, coupled with the fact that pipelines are a pain in the *** since you can't walk over them, and that fluid wagons actually need dedicated train stops compared to simply sending them to standard cargo wagon ones, kind of make barrels the more sensible choice in nearly every application.

I think they should not be the number one choice in every situation but instead fill the niche for very low throughput requirements.
If I have this one single assembler in the center of my base and it only needs a tiny amount of lubricant, that's when i should be using barrels to fly it over there using the network or a belt instead of putting a dedicated pipeline. If I have to move huge amounts of liquid the fluid wagons and pipeline should be the more sensible choice.

Here's the problem with this criticism: getting the fluids out of the barrels and into the things that will use them, as well as cycling the empties back to be refilled is logistically much more complex than simply laying pipe and maybe using some pumps and/or combinators to regulate more complex issues (like cracking). That logistic convenience has to have some relevant downside otherwise it makes barrels completely obsolete. At least, as it stands, both have their uses still (barrels=better throughput; fluid wagon=simpler logistics).

I have just released a mod that reduces the capacity of fluid wagon and barrel. Please feel free to try it: Smaller Fluid Wagon & Barrel
Any feedback is appreciated.
I didn't apply the numbers from my previous post, because obviously they will make fluid wagon and barrel completely useless. Now I think they are reasonable. Not too large, not too small.