Friday Facts #137 - The release scarecrow

[ShadowTheAge]

I dislike the inserter nerf

1. I often use a lot of trains on a same station that supply different resources. So I need to unload them with smart inserters (to filter items). Now - very slow.
2. I often make "manufactures" where I produce complex component from simple input by transfering intermediate items from machine to machine (example - science production, one gear machine is enough to feed 2-3 red bottle assemblers, 1 conveyor assembler and 1 inserter assembler) Long inserters are often mandatory in this case.
Oh well, looks like I need to find/make a mod.

[aka13]

I also would like to state that I see the inserter nerf as unnecessarz and potentionaly damaging to the inserter balance as it is right now.

[Rakshasa]

I dislike the inserter nerf

1. I often use a lot of trains on a same station that supply different resources. So I need to unload them with smart inserters (to filter items). Now - very slow.
2. I often make "manufactures" where I produce complex component from simple input by transfering intermediate items from machine to machine (example - science production, one gear machine is enough to feed 2-3 red bottle assemblers, 1 conveyor assembler and 1 inserter assembler) Long inserters are often mandatory in this case.
Oh well, looks like I need to find/make a mod.

Or you could find a solution to your woes.

[Tinyboss]

Sorry if this was already asked (there were already 11 pages by the time I got here!), but couldn't the rapid inserter go ahead and move a partial load if it's been waiting more than, say, one second for more items to show up? Or is the bottlenecking behavior intended as a challenge to work around?

[albatrosv13]

deleted

[Ashery]

Some folks are going a bit overboard here.

The devs came up with an idea (The loader), decided it was overpowered, and redesigned it to not only fit into the game better from a thematic point of view, but also balanced it a bit. However, as any competent game designer can tell you, you can't just throw every idea you have into a game and have it play well; everything in the game needs to have a well defined niche. There's a reason a game like the original FTL (ie without AE) gets the praise it does from a game designer's standpoint. And the devs' initial reasoning behind shifting the current inserter tech to the new one was likely a combination of the current tech being a bit of an oddball for lore-based reasons and, more importantly, to explicitly define the niche the new inserter will fill.

And this design change would have far reaching consequences; it just so happens that a number of us feel they would hurt how well the game plays.

Which is why I'm suggesting that the max container bonus gets a significant nerf as well as shifting the technology to later in the game. This allows the new inserter to have its well defined niche while still allowing for the highly efficient, compact designs that rely on the current stack bonus.

[ihcn]

I fully support removing the stack size bonus from normal inserters, as long as:

-rapid inserters are smart
-there is a long-handed version of the rapid inserter

This would nerf existing inserters and create more late game things to build, without ruining setups that need fast smart inserters and fast long handed inserters.

In other words, I'm happy to spend a lot of resources to upgrade my existing long handed inserters to rapid long handed inserters, and upgrade my existing smart inserters to rapid inserters, but please give me the option to do so.

[AccidentalChef]

I agree with ihcn. Losing the stack bonus from the existing inserters isn't a problem as long as rapid inserters have all the features that smart inserters currently do, and long handed rapid inserters are available. I also think a name that implies the inserter moves a larger volume is better than one that implies speed alone. Bulk inserter, batch inserter, stack inserter, or something similar would be good names.

[Losash]

Gosh, I've registered just for a sole reason of replying in this topic.

I'm a reletively new player to Factorio, with around 120h playtime and around 20-30h of reading articles/watching YT. But I'm already considering myself quite good at game's theory and aspects of mechanics. That's why I thought I have the right to argue in here.

I've read through all 11 pages of this thread and had no other feeling than being around kids/noobs or I don't know... I will explain.

First of all, if you here are so scared of game developement, you could, at least, check ALL Friday Facts since september-october 2015 to understand many concepts, including the FFF, where they say, that everything is going to be connectable to logic through special entity, and this is their new way they are going for, and any new loader/inserter/whatever WILL be "smart", instead of crying about smart inserters. Even mining drills will be "smart". Even accumulators will be "smart". Come on.

Secondly, and which gave me more butthurt, is a hype around red inserter. Seriously? I've desided to write this reply when I saw 2 "proof" screenshots by someone to the topic of "show me where red inserter is a must-have". And this guy attaches a screen him produsing some nonsence moded trash in an assembler, which has 12 components and 6 module slot. Heck, I am playing "vanilla" only, and will play "vanilla" only forever, but those screenshots just made me to get even more sure about it. People really talk about game balance and red inserters, when mods gone this far and have 6 module slots, well, why not 100? If you play with mods, use whatever inserters mods ever came up with, like a 100-pack-4-handed-ultra-load-2000-GT-INSERTER, and what is your problem at the end of the day?

A good vanilla player, who has a large theoretical basis and creative thinking would never write nonsence like "Oh come on, I have a neat setup with furnaces, which can burn anything, but now you ruined it all, I don't know what to do *sniffs*", or "If you do it like that I'll quite the game forever *sniffs*". WHAT? You need to understand the concept, that game only becomes wider in it's possibilities, and will never collapse or cut down on things you can do, if you could do, let's say, X things and setups in 0.12, there is no way you will be doing Y things in 0.13, where Y<X. And after you will understand this, you will, maybe, think, that a player can overcome any change like that, and build new layouts for the new version. Even if they would delete red inserter completely, this does not matter. I don't build noncence setups, which are impossible without it. There is always a way to do EVERYTHING without such a long inserter. You can search for really end game bases and try finding there anyone ever uses it? No?

I don't know what else could I possibly say, but in short you got my point - whining about them nerfing something is an inability of thinking out of the box and build another layout or using another idea - and developers, who have the 0.13 build in their hands, and who are players themself, obviously, they know that, that's why they will never listen to such a criticism you, "smarties", output. I've seen someone wrote "Money stroke in their head and they stopped listening to the community". "Make things which 99% of players want". What a noncence. A topic, full of people, who have tons of spare time to read those threads and post in them, but who are too lazy and irrogant to change their Factorio base setup. Pft.

[brunzenstein]

..... I've seen someone wrote "Make things which 99% of players want". What a noncence. Pft.

Hi!
I'm the "nonsense" one whom your quoted correctly with: "Make things which 99% of players want".
And I stand by that sentence.
If you've read my post you have found out that I haven't lamented anything regarding the planned stack inserter or long hand inserter changes. Not a bit but pointed out that there are high priorities and low priorities.
And as such I find the high priority should be focused on lingering gaps and long term carried on bugs before bettering things which enhancement of user pleasure is at best a mixes bag. And I have nothing against a mixed bag but alle against a miss of focus.
And the focus should lie on overcoming the icebergs (persistent GUI and other lags & bugs within Factorio's coding) and not the change of ice in the (given high class) scotch whiskey glass in our hand.

[Tev]

Well most hardcore players realized it's huge buff to trains

But yeah, "omg red inserter useless now" fad is overblown. Red inserter is primarily used for moving stuff from belt to furnaces, then for moving stuff to assemlbers for red circuits and such multi-ingredient recipes, and then for (un)loading wagons in bot based networks. So no nerf basically . . . Only obsessive spaghetti makers will feel a hit.

Btw few people remember everything from each FF, I also forgot every inserter will be "smart", so it came as no surprise to me that some people threatened with quitting - removal of smarts would be devastating . . . but it's not happening, so everybody can chill.

brunz: tbh staggering superiority of bots over belts in late game is one of those long running "issues", and rapid inserter (+nerf of stack size bonus) addresses it very well.

[albatrosv13]

deleted

[Neotix]

If you want to remove bonus from inserters then add API to bring it back in mods. Everybody happy.

[Losash]

One of the topics, which I touched in my message, but had no detailed explanations were, that developers have their 0.13 build and we do not. What do I want to tell... Well, it is hard and frustrating to play "guessing game" for us, and it is really easy for us to get upset on some news like that, because we don't have final 0.13 in front of us. I believe, that developers are not silly, in fact, they might be smarter and more dedicated than most of us, including me. They were thinking about this change for a long time, reworked it again and again, plainly because their standarts are higher than some may expect, and they want to keep the game well rounded. So, I'm with it, if developers introduce it. I don't need to mention it, but if it is going to be satisfying for you: I do not like the change too, according to the small amount of information we know now, according to the 0.12 we have now, the whole introduction of something faster than 5items/sec is bad. In my oppinion, a player who hasn't seen full 0.13, and who does not know their concept approach to 0.14, this new inserter is a rather bad addition. There are many things which I dislike according to it, starting with trains, which is most capable and powerfull transport in the game already, got another huge buff. Add information from another FFF, in which they said they plan to increase amount of slots in carts too (in the future). But I don't want to start a list. What's the purpose anyways. I've already said that I let developers to "ride a ship", and it will be okay.

I've said, that I've played 120h or something like this. Yet, I'm already done with thinking about anything in early or mid game. I'm not a speedrunner and will never be. My dreams and plans in this game include mostly extream scale, and to tell story short, I want the largest possible throughputs, as long as my computer will show more than 20-30 UPS. Natural lag in the game due to data, which needs to be compilled in each frame is something I'm more worried about now, than most other things. I'm trying to dream of 100k iron + 100k copper per minute, but I know that my computer most likely won't handle it, even close.

You may think, that I plan to be "100% bot player", because we know, that bots provide less lag, than belts. Or yeah, processing stuff in wagons were providing even less lag. But no! There are belts in my dream concepts, and a lot of them, because bots work better in small, local logic networks of a one task, and splitting networks is only possible with belts (distance) [Yeah, there are other options, but they look silly to me now]. I was planning to do 32-lanes-wide-express ironplates bus with theoretical throughput of 80k/min in version 0.12, and I still plan to do same stuff in 0.13, and yes this thing going to lag like crazy. Why am I saying this all:

Morale: extreame throughput in extreame lategame in my personal oppinion, a guy who spent more than 20 hours to read articles, is impossible without belts in some places* even in 0.12. So, we are currently using belts, even though they are not so powerfull as bots. Developers release a change, which powers up belts (in fact not, it just makes using them an ease casuality). We were having no problems in doing full compressed expresses in 0.12, but they still do it. On the other hand, they nerf some aspects, which others mentioned. They buff trains. And at the end of the day, gameplay model in my vision won't change, but some minor details are causalised/nerfed. That is a detailed explanation of my thoughts. And that is why I dislike too. But if developers feel that all this will fit in 0.13 well - I'm ok.

* - added this text to clarify what I mean, because of the later reply to this post. I know that bots are primary source, I mean that.

[roman566]

Btw few people remember everything from each FF, I also forgot every inserter will be "smart", so it came as no surprise to me that some people threatened with quitting - removal of smarts would be devastating . . . but it's not happening, so everybody can chill.

Yeah, the question is 'how smart it will be'? I am already using smart inserter and it's the exactly the place where I need the stack bonus to work as it works now. Unless the devs changed how smart the inserters are, making the new ones smart won't help me at all as I need the inserter to move exactly 5 items for my build to work. I think I will end up not researching the final two stack improvements to somehow keep the thing going, which is just silly as improving the technology decreases the efficiency of my factory.

[RichyNZ]

It has already been said, but I'd like to chuck my hat in with this idea re rapid inserters: being able to limit the stack size on individual inserters. For reasons such as moving copper cables into circuit assemblers.

People complaining about the nerf to reds... Well maybe the devs are also working on an (expensive) rapid long inserter? Who knows.
Basically anything that comes along that is later game, more expensive, requires research, and works better than what I already use is exactly what I want. A great resource sink that allows me to do stuff better. So more specialized types of inserters that cost a lot to manufacture would certainly have there place.
There just seems to be a lot of kneejerk rage towards the devs, because peoples' once great creations are suddenly going to be not quite the pinnacle of efficiency anymore and they have to learn a different way of doing it again....
All in all, looking forward to seeing whatever 0.13 brings!

[Tev]

Morale: extreame throughput in extreame lategame in my personal oppinion, a guy who spent more than 20 hours to read articles, is impossible without belts even in 0.12.

Errr no. Just no.

Throughput of trains is unmatched by anything, especially as load times will be halved.

Jury is still out on whether rapids will be able to match bots for train unloading (not immediately from wagons but from chests to network / belts).
And for short distance bots crush belts . . . even though rapids might change that too.

But for 0.12? It's just bots > belts, period. That's why rapid is good addition.

[The Phoenixian]

If you want to remove bonus from inserters then add API to bring it back in mods. Everybody happy.

I'd very much prefer not to be forced to use mods for what was previously basic functionality. This doesn't mean that functionality can't be removed, but the base game must be able to stand on its own. I dislike the call to modding as a solution to those problems.

As part and parcel of that, I feel that removing the stack size bonus needs a bit more work put into it. For one thing, the Long Handed Inserter becomes much more iffy unless something is done to address it's lack of throughput compared to the fast inserter. (Which could previously be managed via the inserter stack size bonus.) Which is honestly my main problem: In the mid and late game, the fast inserter, not the basic inserter, seems to be the bar against which everything is measured.

So:
Fast Inserter: Default variant
Smart Inserter: Programmable variant
Basic Inserter: Cheap but weak variant
Long Handed Inserter: Weak variant with altered reach
Burner Inserter: Ultra weak but uses a different power source. Emergency proof variant.
"Rapid" Inserter: Bulk variant.


---------------------------------------------------------

And lastly a thought on naming: I prefer the old name of "Heavy inserter" to "Rapid Inserter", but if you're saving that first one for something else, then "Bulk Inserter" gives a better idea of what the new proposal actually does. It could also be called "Stack Inserter" but that last one does run into the fact that it would imply that it moves whole stacks at once, even if it would otherwise be the clearest in meaning.

[catdog2]

I'm also worried about the long handed inserter. A little penalty in speed and maybe stack size is good and logical but there should be long handed inserters available which are in principal on par with the short handed variants.

transport belt -> fast transport belt -> express transport belt
inserter -> fast inserter -> express inserter

Would be consistent, better than rapid. But i think something like bulk would be more fitting to emphasize the fact that it's not about the speed the inserter moves.

This technology is researched once and will give access to inserter upgrade slots and an inserter stack bonus module that can be built. Each inserter stack bonus module increases the number of items picked up by an inserter by one and energy consumption by 20%. The stack bonus and energy consumption increase are additive. All inserters will have a number of slots, depending on their type, for inserter stack bonus upgrades that can be inserted by the player. In this fashion, the player has direct control over which inserter should operate with stack bonus.

I actually like the idea of using modules here in one way or another. Maybe differentiate inserters only by type (normal/"rapid"/long handed) and use modules to upgrade speed and stack size. There would probably be a need for special "inserter modules" to balance this appropriately.

Burner inserter: "Welcome, brothers, to forgotten graveyard a player almost never uses"

Burn the burner inserter! It's really only necessary during a very, very short period at the beginning of the game. After you have electricity deployed it becomes practically useless.

The train improvements sound great again, having to place a train to correctly build a station is very annoying. Something similar for placing signals would be great, too!

[Losash]

Morale: extreame throughput in extreame lategame in my personal oppinion, a guy who spent more than 20 hours to read articles, is impossible without belts even in 0.12.

Errr no. Just no.
But for 0.12? It's just bots > belts, period. That's why rapid is good addition.

Sigh... Did you even read my message? You didn't understand my points. I'm not talking about using belts on a primary basis. I'm talking about that you need them to connect 2 bot networks. I repeat once again, I know how bots work and I know that bots>belts, and believe it or not, it will stay like that in 0.13, even if any other argument falls off, they still produce less lag than belts.

I know what bots excel in and I know how to use them. If you would read my message you'd get that I'm talking about bases which do rocket/minute and more. If they are doing 1 single task over a relitevely short distance, they can throughput any amount of items like ores per minute, limit is only your PC, which will show slideshow. Unloading a train, for instance is something bots will always excel. And I insist, that logistic network of roboports on a train stations block should be independent from a global base one, and don't even bother replying if you don't understand why is it so, when you are talking about bases, operating dozens of thousands of ores per minute.

And long story short, those bases can't be done without a relitive use of belts, neither in 0.12, nor in 0.13.