Friday Facts #137 - The release scarecrow

[KatherineOfSky]

Legitimate according to who ? Legitimate because of what ?

I agree that the rapid inserter will create new creative opportunities, that is not in question.

When I said "legitimate" it was in reference to Zeblote's post: I wanted to point out that not only silly contraptions would be affected, but also solutions to real game problems. Nothing more was implied.

[ske]

I, for one, am very much in favour of the latest change to limit stack size to only one type of inserter which is specially designed to take advantage of such a thing. One could argue that the graphics need to be adjusted accordingly - which is a secondary issue.

I am excitedly awaiting the upcoming release!

[Baric]

Will the rapid inserter be a "smart inserter"?

I am not very concerned about the stack decrease except for a debuff of smart inserters.

And does the rapid inserter wait to input into assembly machines?
This could cause issues. *edited this question*

Smart inserter was my biggest concern as well.

If smart inserter doesn't get stack size bonus and rapid cannot be connected to logic it can severely limit logic based factory and train station designs. Controls with filters and logic networks is one of the parts I've found to be really fun.

[obstinate]

This is an interesting approach. I think I'm good w/ it.

[huhn]

the new rapid inserter is so strong that i don't see the reason to nerf the other inserter.

with this change you have to use a rapid inserter every time you want to move 2 or more items. so we are going to use this rapid inserter a lot more than every other inserter.

with the old stack bonus this would be more even.

[TruePikachu]

I'm opposed to the complete removal of the stack size bonus from the existing inserters.

• If the rapid inserters aren't smart, it will make unloading mixed cargo wagons a lot slower (since smart inserters won't have the stack size bonus anymore)
• If the long inserters don't have the stack bonus, it will result in compact assembler layouts which require the bonus (e.g. moving copper cable into a circuit assembler) suffering by either needing two rapid inserters and a chest to act as a substitute (which also consumes the two tiles the long inserter would be reaching over), or more long inserters (which results in a maximum of three).
• If the rapid inserters can't have their stack sizes individually configured, but don't eject until full, it can result in systems that don't need the full extent of the current stack size being hindered by having to wait for material; if a system needs the stack size of two to operate correctly, and this results in it operating at full time, a stack size of eight, for instance, will cause the same system to operate in surges (due to insertion limits on both the input and output).

My suggestion is to keep the existing inserters the way they currently are (though one can make their stack size bonus more expensive to research, and possibly remove the bonus altogether for the burner and standard inserters, keeping it on the long, fast, and smart models), make the current stack size bonus research distinct from the rapid inserter SSB (which would be required for balance), and ensure the rapid inserters can be configured with their own stack size limits (so that slower systems don't get hindered further when a greater SSB is researched).

[Xterminator]

I'm opposed to the complete removal of the stack size bonus from the existing inserters.

• If the rapid inserters aren't smart, it will make unloading mixed cargo wagons a lot slower (since smart inserters won't have the stack size bonus anymore)
• If the long inserters don't have the stack bonus, it will result in compact assembler layouts which require the bonus (e.g. moving copper cable into a circuit assembler) suffering by either needing two rapid inserters and a chest to act as a substitute (which also consumes the two tiles the long inserter would be reaching over), or more long inserters (which results in a maximum of three).
• If the rapid inserters can't have their stack sizes individually configured, but don't eject until full, it can result in systems that don't need the full extent of the current stack size being hindered by having to wait for material; if a system needs the stack size of two to operate correctly, and this results in it operating at full time, a stack size of eight, for instance, will cause the same system to operate in surges (due to insertion limits on both the input and output).

These are my main concerns as well with the changes. I like the idea of the rapid Inserter and think it is probably a better solution than the loader, but taking the stack size bonus away from all other Inserters could cause issues.

I really do hope that the rapid Inserter is planned to be smart as well otherwise you are very limited when wanting to unload a mixed train since Smart Inserters won't have a stack bonus anymore it will be horribly slow if the rapid ones can't be filtered.

Also, I'm curious and concerned with how it will work when doing something like inserting cables into circuit machines. If other Inserters don't have a stack size bonus you will need a lot more fast Inserters than you do now to keep up with the demand of the cable for circuits. In fact, without a stack size bonus I'm not sure even 3 fast Inserters could keep up on assembler 3s that have modules and/or beacons. So then you need to use rapid ones. But since they wait to have a full load before doing anything I think there would be small bottlenecks or surges since it would wait for say like 11 cables before interfering them. So you would have surges of production might cause issues for other stuff in your factory.

The train placement visualization though is super cool. Will make building stations without a train there yet much easier.

[Blackwinds]

How will rapid inserters handle (for example) unloading from train cars that run out of items? Or mixed train cars?
Say a train car has 3 wood and 3 iron ore, and I have two rapid inserters with 4 stack size. Will both grab wood, one getting 2 and one getting 1, leaving the iron ore? If the train leaves and a new train arrives with more resources,will they resume their stacks where they left off?
I like the idea a lot, it even nerf logistics bots a tiny bit (can't rely on logic bots dropping stuff in boxes for maximum throughput) while simplifying situations where you're moving an absolutely huge amount of resources. Trains should load even faster!

[brunzenstein]

The train placement visualization though is super cool. Will make building stations without a train there yet much easier.

Where do you see the urgent needed visualization for placing the
(how many horizontal / vertical?)
inserters on the station?

[malecord]

Hello. I'm the one who likes the idea of having a dedicated "unload wagon" inserter whilst the other inserters are tuned down. It gives each inserter a well defined role so that each one fits one (and only one) precise use case in your blueprints. For a clean, sound and efficient Factory design.

Keep up the good work!

[Ratzap]

People will no doubt complain about the bonus change simply because it means they'll have to think of new ways to do things. If they feel badly enough they can mod around it I suppose but the rest of us will just rethink and rebuild.

[Xeorm]

Any chance for an upgraded version of the long inserter too? It's so useful at times for some setups, and seems like it could use the same upgrade that the fast inserter needed. Would also fit the new design just fine to call both rapid.

Otherwise, I find I like the new idea.

[HulkingUnicorn]

Please don't nerf the existing inserters.
Because you will end up using only the rapid inserters in the end, making the fast inserters a mere intermediate product.

Removing the stack bonus entirely for the other inserters seems like too much of a downgrade, I think.

I have a suggestion for your wait infinitely on resource lack issue.
Turn if there are no more items to pickup in that moment.
[...]
This will make your rapid inserters behave like fast inserters on low item availability and "rapid" on high item availability.

I got the vibe from the text that this issue is intended functionality in order to differentiate the rapid inserter from the other inserters (and to give it a flaw).

[EvanT]

TL;DR: Rapid Inserters are great. Stack size nerv for all the other inserters does NOT affect gameplay significantly. I still would prefer the old inserters to keep the actual stack size bonus. Why not having two research lines?

1. The rapid inserter is a great idea!
2. If smart- and longhand-Inserters no longer have the stack size bonus it will truly limit their applications.
3. Stations which accept multiple item types will have much longer unload times.
4. No train with multiple item types could even drive to a rapid station.

So this will result in:

• train car load balancing loading stations are still possible in the same way as before.
• having type pure loading and unloading stations. I see no real problem with that. This is a thing I normally do at least for loading and makes sense for unloading too.
• four times longer un-/load time for supply-stations. This is a drawback but not a huge deal. I find that one train per 2-4 outposts is the limit either way.
• long handed inserters are now not only slower than fast ones but can only move one item at a time. So business as usual. I very rarely use them in situations where they could profit from the stack size bonus already, since I use fast ones in heavy throughput situations anyway.

[Afforess]

I guess the one thing I really dislike about the inserter stack size nerf is that it makes the Long-Handed inserter useless. It might as well be removed, because the number of places it can serve any function is close to zero.

[starholme]

I guess the one thing I really dislike about the inserter stack size nerf is that it makes the Long-Handed inserter useless. It might as well be removed, because the number of places it can serve any function is close to zero.

You never pick up or place items on a belt with long inserters?
You never move items between assemblers with a long inserter where the item crafting time is longer than one inserter operation?

I will personally miss the stack bonus on longs, but they aren't useless. I'm more concerned about the smart inserters...

[Afforess]

I guess the one thing I really dislike about the inserter stack size nerf is that it makes the Long-Handed inserter useless. It might as well be removed, because the number of places it can serve any function is close to zero.

You never pick up or place items on a belt with long inserters?

No. That's too slow.

You never move items between assemblers with a long inserter where the item crafting time is longer than one inserter operation?

What has that long of a crafting time? Red circuits? Processing units? I dunno, not many items.

I will personally miss the stack bonus on longs, but they aren't useless. I'm more concerned about the smart inserters...

True, smart inserters are also nerfed with this.

[MeduSalem]

Well the way things turn out the rapid inserter change is for me a game killer. If it is released the way it is described I won't be playing Factorio anymore.

The rapid inserter is even worse than the concepts for the loaders. The rapid inserter cripples so many things at once that I really don't give a damn explaining anymore because I did many times over and it seems like my feedback on the matter had gone unheard. It's now really a thing of "We want a faster way to transfer items from and to belts no matter the costs", even if it means breaking almost every working contraption out there.

[Neemys]

I can't wait for the next release ! The removal of insterter stack bonus and this new inserter looks promising

I guess the one thing I really dislike about the inserter stack size nerf is that it makes the Long-Handed inserter useless. It might as well be removed, because the number of places it can serve any function is close to zero.

I use them on multiple place like when I need two belt to feed one assembly. fast for the close belt long for the other one. There are other use for them, mostly to reach farther when you have no choice.

[*]Stations which accept multiple item types will have much longer unload times.
[*]No train with multiple item types could even drive to a rapid station.[/list]

I assume that rapid inserter when different item are in chest will choose item like the actual inserter, take 12 (if you have max technology) put them on belt, choose the next item, and so on. So you will have on belt mixed group of 12 item that you need to sort like now.
If you sort item when taking out of buffer chest it's like now, smart that take on item at a time.
So your assertions are wrong.

The only thing that change is if you use smart to take item from wagon to buffer. You will need to set up sorter with smart inserter after the buffer instead. But when done correctly (using rapid inserter to take item out of train and buffer and enough smart inserter in sorter) it will be as fast as station using one item.

[safan]

Well the way things turn out the rapid inserter change is for me a game killer. If it is released the way it is described I won't be playing Factorio anymore.

The rapid inserter is even worse than the concepts for the loaders. The rapid inserter cripples so many things at once that I really don't give a damn explaining anymore because I did many times over and it seems like my feedback on the matter had gone unheard. It's now really a thing of "We want a faster way to transfer items from and to belts no matter the costs", even if it means breaking almost every working contraption out there.

If I know one thing, the developers listen to us. So don't worry, even if it turns to be a mistake, they are not too proud to take it bad. Saying you'll quit is a bit whiny

Anyways i agree that removing the stack bonuses of smart and fast inserters is a bit harsh, but I challenge the complainers to post a screenshot where the stack bonus of a long inserter realy matters, and a other solution won't do.