Factorio Forums

I think it would be better if a stack inserter waited until there were enough items in an assembly to fill the hand before moving it out of the assembly. This will make minimal impact on existing builds - there will be a few more items within the assemblies with no impact on throughput.

The main reason for the change is to alter the behaviour of the bot net. As it stands, bots generally don't use their full stack bonus because there is only one item in the chest they collect from. Even if you have some back pressure, the bots will prefer the closest chests, keeping them empty by moving one item at a time while ignoring the further away chests, moving them at their full stack bonus.

I think it's a simple change that would increase the bot's efficiency.

The reason I bring this up is because my smelting area uses bots. I have noticed I need FAR more roboports on the output side than the input side. On the input side I have four, output side I have ten and still have a charging queue on the output side. Upon looking at the bots I can see that they are all carrying one item not the expected four. This is not an issue with things like copper wire because of the fast craft time, so by the time the bots get there there is enough to saturate them. Its also not an issue for for red circuits where it takes 5+ drop offs by the bots for one pick up, but for closer to 1-1 things like green circuits, it's extremely evident.

IMHO: you request a change on your broken by design factory with the side effect of breaking working designs of any others.

How about using circuit network for that? Use the grabbed items signal of the inserters.

Moved to won't implement because of that.

IMHO: Posts like that are extremely disheartening. Do you not want to discuss the merit of the idea or discuss what setups it could break? Just because it may break some setups does not mean that it's a bad idea. 0.13 broke two of my bases beyond repair. Saying that it may gives me no way to offer a counter-example or solution.

Thanks.

PS: I would really like my posts to be visible on the main forums for more than 10 hours on a Sunday, but it's up to you who you censor.

BenSeidel wrote:Posts like that are extremely disheartening.

Hm. If that is the impression, then really sorry. This is not what I want.

Do you not want to discuss the merit of the idea or discuss what setups it could break? Just because it may break some setups does not mn that it's a bad idea. 0.13 broke two of my bases beyond repair. Saying that it may gives me no way to offer a counter-example or solution.

That was bad luck. I currently havn"t enough time to make long explanation why I think this is not going to be implemented and in that case I posted also from my iphone. Well, it's maybe not the best way to do things.

I try my best to make you a comparison: This suggestion will change inserters cause of a problem with the logistic network. This is, as if we want to rebuilt houses because we want to increase the speed of the streets and the houses are in the way at the sides and forget about, that the houses where first. The problem is in my eyes, that we cannot use streets through a village as an autobahn, we need to go around the village.
Just a very raw comparison and of course it has some flaws, but that the nature of such comparisons.

I will take me more time tomorrow, but I think you should ask this as a question in Gameplay Help, maybe they can help you better.

PS: I would really like my posts to be visible on the main forums for more than 10 hours on a Sunday, but it's up to you who you censor.

If a suggestion is moved to "won't implement" this is not the end. In the past I've moved several suggestions back, when there where good enough arguments. So in this case.
<twinker twinker>

And I really don't like to be compared with a censor. A censor deletes posts. That's not my interest as moderator. My interest as moderator is to enable good discussion and stop bad. And in this case I thought due to experience that I can make short things short and forgot about the person behind. Again, I'm sorry.

Yeah this isn't going to happen. Not only would it not improve gameplay but it would break everything when you research the first stack bonus and a factory expecting the item to be removed no longer gets the item removed.

ssilk wrote:That was bad luck. I currently havn"t enough time to make long explanation why I think this is not going to be implemented and in that case I posted also from my iphone. Well, it's maybe not the best way to do things.

That's a pity, there aren't many posters on the forums that have such strong opinions, and discussions with your are some of the best I have had. Your comparison with the autobahn, while rough and not purely accurate, is apt. The only rebuttal that is needed for that is "Sometimes villages are bulldozed". Patch 0.13 for example made two of my bases broken beyond repair as all of my circuits relied on the single pickup behaviour. There are many people that experienced the same issue.

ssilk wrote:ask this as a question in Gameplay Help

I didn't raise it as a question because my base is not broken, the extra roboports work and I get full throughput. I have also tried using the circuit network, but its uses too much UPS time and actually counters the benefit it gives because the combinators need space. This space bashes my beacons around and increases the distance the robots have to travel, so I end up with less throughput for the same number of bots (smaller is faster). Additionally, the combinator build isn't foolproof as it pulls out less than a stack whenever the power dips or the inputs dry up. The only way I know of to make it foolproof is to count the number of items put into the factory, but this becomes even worse for space.

ssilk wrote:If a suggestion is moved to "won't implement" this is not the end. In the past I've moved several suggestions back, when there where good enough arguments. So in this case.
<twinker twinker>

The issue wasn't that it was moved here, just that it was move so quickly. Only 23 people had viewed the topic when I came back. Sure, if there was a supplied reason why it could never be implemented, move it, but are you really saying that in the current state of the game there is no way to integrate it in in any possible form? Maybe it could be done by allowing us to read the output stack size in the assembler or by having an additional network setting on the inserter such as "move when you have X in your hand" (I have never been able to get this to work when pulling from a chest). It's also more than just robots being stupid, its about the number of robots on the screen. Less is better for UPS.

ssilk wrote:And I really don't like to be compared with a censor. A censor deletes posts.

I admit, comparing you to a censor is extreme and uncalled for but I was trying to make a point. Censors don't have to destroy all copies of the item, simply making the item difficult to obtain is sufficient. I feel that moving it to "wont implement" makes it less visible and less accessible to the general public.

ssilk wrote:And in this case I thought due to experience that I can make short things short

Short discussions are boring. Repetitive discussions are pointless. Cyclical discussions are pointless. Repetitive discussions are pointless. Long, detailed, in depth discussions are the only way to move forward.

ssilk wrote:Again, I'm sorry

Thank you for being the bigger man than me.
Sorry my post was as harsh as it was.

BenSeidel wrote:

ssilk wrote:ask this as a question in Gameplay Help

I didn't raise it as a question because my base is not broken

Didn't say it's broken. I think you use the logistic network in the wrong way for this case and you can fix your problem with already existing Factorio elements.
But going deeper here would be off-topic, so I recommend to word your problem in Gameplay Help.

ssilk wrote:If a suggestion is moved to "won't implement" this is not the end. In the past I've moved several suggestions back, when there where good enough arguments. So in this case.
<twinker twinker>

The issue wasn't that it was moved here, just that it was move so quickly. Only 23 people had viewed the topic when I came back.

Quite normal for Saturday evening.

ssilk wrote:And in this case I thought due to experience that I can make short things short

Short discussions are boring. Repetitive discussions are pointless. Cyclical discussions are pointless. Repetitive discussions are pointless. Long, detailed, in depth discussions are the only way to move forward.

Well, I see this board is sometimes fun to discuss, see the suggestion about the heat-exchanger. It's fun to see the development of ideas... (even if useless ). But changing a basic functionality of a basic element is just ... different. You need to have a really, really good reason, something which is a total showstopper and "I cannot play my game as I want to play it" isn't such a good reason.

And to your argument, that earlier versions break your base: That's quite normal for an alpha-version! It hits me nearly with each version. There is no guarantee, that somebody doesn't find such a good reason to change something and till now such decisions where always useful. The solution is just: a) don't update b) use an old version to play your old games. There is the zip-install, which makes that really easy.

PS: And I move this now back to won't implement, cause there is no further argument and if Rseding and me are the same opinion it is a 100% clear sign, that this will not be implemented. I'm sorry.