Friday Facts #224 - Bots versus belts

[NuclearLamp]

I agree alot with the points made in the FF. Some thoughts about why:

TL;DR: I don't like the idea of removing bots. I think they are a good (and optional) alternative for players that aren't that good at the game while still letting them progress. Also as it says, NERFs wouldn't solve anything because people would still just compensate: Now they carry half the items? Double the bots. The better option is to reward the use of belts instead of punishing the use of bots, so in the long run they are an alternative.

There's this point on factories (most common on non experienced players), I don't have a name for it but the feeling it's quite noticeable, where your vision for it, your preparations and outlines get overcomed by the progress that needs to be made. Basically the factory needs to get bigger or there's this fundamental structure flaw that you made before that now feels small or in the way.

In very short words, sometimes the spaghetti ensues. And then it overwhelms.

Every factory has this limit. Some people are just good at structure and put this line very very far into the future.

The only options are to try to work your way around it with some fixes that also increase the level of spaghetti or on extreme cases start over. Now you can say that you can deconstruct everything on factorio and you technically could solve every problem of this nature but, specially for early players, there's this sense of moving forward that is present all the time, and it grows exponentially. So going back and deconstructing huge parts that probably feed the rest of the place feels like huge step back and not fun.

This point is where you can't keep fixing stuff, not with belts. To me the logistic bots are a huge help here. Suddently you can decompress the stress of how the hell I'm going to get X in that place, and you can work around that, in the name of progressing in the game.

I could have never made a factory as big as the one I'm working on without the help of the bots, because although I think about it hard and try to give space and think bigger and bigger, I miss stuff and make mistakes.

There're people here that are just *wizards* and make all those mega belt-only bases that make my jaw drop, and get all those belt arrangements that are awesome but alot of people are not like that. Without logistic bots and special chests, I, for example, would hit this limit I talked about again and again, and I'll get increasingly frustated with the game. Because to me and I don't think it's an unpopular opinion, the game gets more fun the bigger the factory is. If I never get to that point, just because I lack the big foresight to make it possible, then I'll either be forced to learn all those tricks to get to late game (after more frustation and failed attempts) or most likely quit.

I agree that giving small nerfs wouldn't solve anything either because you can just buld more stuff.

But removing bots would be a huge wall for early players to bounce off. Some here said that they are just boring. I don't think that but I do think that they make the game easier. An in-world game setting is a great idea from a development perspective. People that like the game a bit harder will just not use that, the game can still be done without them. But is there a fundamental piece of fun or something that the player misses by using some bots that justifies making the game as a whole less atractive and accessible to new players?

The obvious option is to buff the belts, so planing and using belts rewards the player and feels like a good alternative. Stacked belts sound interesting. Another one could be a variation of the spliter that lets certain objects towards the left and the rest to the right or something like that

[SunTroll]

To everyone that is saying if you find bots op then jut don't use them. This is one of the most stupid arguments I ever heard. By this logic devs should never bother balancing their games since if something is op just don't use it.
(do the daggers deal more damage per hit, have better range, knockback, critical, dps than sword just don't use them. Does the fire magic make every other element irrelevant doesn't matter just don't use it.)

Also this does limit the choice since there isn't any choice. You will always use bots unless you are doing no bots challenge run (and if you are then you will always use belts).

What I would want is that the game mechanics were balanced and I needed to make meaningful choices between them (this of course wont be achieved by removing bots since that will be the equivalent of forcing every player into the no bots challenge run.)

To address the buff vs nerf. I get that it feels better to get some stuff buffed than to get something nerfed one should also keep in mind that if there is 1 op thing you just nerf it and don't buff every single other thing in the game. (whatever that is the case with bots I don't know but it is a thing to consider.)

p.s. If someone newer uses bots it actually somewhat makes sense for him to wanting them removed since the development time isn't infinite and it could be spent elsewhere.

[Dry Hairy Tree]

Must agree that leaving the player with more options is the better fit for the majority - belts AND bots.

My 2 cents: Getting to tier 3 belts is an entirely unreasonable wait from tier 2.

e.g. I can set up a very early stone smelting factory to get red/green science and steel, steel poles, steel smelting, rail and then red belts (logistics 2) fast. I can do this so efficiently the main bus never sees a yellow belt or a wooden pole as I'm designing train stations, demarcating etc, and exploring the space as the techs and equipment begin to roll out. Then I make a factory... then I got to wait interminably long to upgrade belts again, past the stage I'm making bots and laser turrets and explosive cannon shells, and when I do get to blue belts - they're so expensive bots look cheap. And then I got to go back over everything to upgrade the belts...

1. Make upgrading belts easier like the mod that does it.
2. Make upgraded belts cheaper so they're a better choice with other options on the table.
3. Leave the poor bots alone you're gonna upset some of your most avid fanatics, and you know all that free advertising does actually have a price...

[brunzenstein]

This FFF had me shaking my head and definitely increasing my blood pressure.
The logic here seems so flawed I don't even know where to begin. I guess to give more constructive criticism rather than rant I'll say this.

I like having choices.

I dislike it when someone else decides that I "ought" to like one style of play (belts or bots) over the other and then tries to force me to play that way.

Given the current arrangement of things:
If I think that belts are more fun than bots, I will build a factory that relies on belts. If I think bots are more fun, I will build a factory that relies on bots.

The game seems to be going more and more in a direction of having players play in a certain way based on what you the devs want. It no longer becomes sandbox and becomes "I want to play this way so you all should too".
Last thing. Be a bit more blunt... The several weeks since 0.16 came out and the decisions and proposed changes during that time have made me highly question the judgement within the Dev team and if I want to even continue supporting the game and playing.
I hope it doesn't continue down that path.

Obviously the reason is coming out loud and clear now, that a couple of people know best and believe that their method of play through is the ONLY way to play the game. The chest nerf, the fluid nerf, and now this logistics nerf talk are basically all attempts to destroy the game simply because someone hates the logistics networks they created.

agree 100%

[Zavian]

In general belts are just more fun to me and I don't need nerfs nor buffs (except for belt compression lol) to chose them over bots in general gameplay. If I were going for specific goal like huge SPM or somesuch, I would probably have no choice but to use them though.

However, I think having to use huge belt balancers and other balancing tricks shouldn't be neccesary to play with belts in big factories.

If you are careful about how you arrange your belts, you can normally get away with only using 4 belt balancers. eg If I'm doing a high throughput train station I might use 12 belts from 4 cargo wagons. (3 belts per wagon). then I'll arrange them into 3 banks of 4 belts, with each bank having one belt from each wagon. Send each bank through a 4 belt balancer, and your entire load is evenly distributed over all the wagons, and every belt is already balanced with every other belt in it's bank. The load isn't evenly distributed over all the banks, but it doesn't need to be provided you aren't attempting to use more items/sec than that bank can provide. If you don't care about part of some sub-factory shutting down if a train comes in with an empty wagon for some reason, then you don't even need the 4 belt balancers for each bank.

[impetus maximus]

just want to note for the record. right now Factorio has 98% positive reviews on steam.

98%.png (234.26 KiB) Viewed 8086 times

[jomama]

I try to avoid overusing logistics bots since they seem kind of cheaty, but I rely on them heavily for 4 key things:
1) supplying my character
2) supplying my tactical/non-automated trains with an assortment of goods (and using a blueprint of a constant combinator to change what's loaded onto the train when I'm a 10 minute round trip away from my base)
3) produce low volume goods where building belt spaghetti is not worthwhile (armor, guns, artillery train cars, rocket silos, etc)
4) very high throughput, small-distance transport jobs where belts are insufficient (like a switching station where I go from 12-car freight trains down to 4-car trains my base was designed for)

It would be extremely annoying to lose the logistic network for #1-3. #4 is the one I feel guilty about, but the throughput/space of the belts is the limiting factor. Also, on my previous computer my UPS was dropping, so that sealed the deal on using bots for certain jobs. A higher throughput belt or belt/style option would help mitigate the need for bots doing bulk transport, so I vote for belt buffing.

The idea I came up with has already been suggested:
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=25685
Bucket belts!

[seludovici]

Wow, never knew I needed a separate login for the forums; and a triple bot-check for registering! (Y'all really hate bots... jk).

I wanted to try and give some sort of consolidated philosophical response to your request for input based on: (i) my own experience with the game (about 300 hours across 7 games in various stages of vanilla, vanilla plus, and angelsbobs); (ii) a lot of time on the Factorio subreddit; and (iii) way too much time watching YouTube.

Your first point I believe related to the alternate universes. I think you are correct (though overly uncertain) that the second universe is correct. In a very basic and pure way, Factorio is a game of logistics, a game of belts and inserters and assemblers. And, indeed, that is my favorite way to play. Across all iterations, my favorite part of the game is from the very beginning (yes, even the burner tech) through about halfway through the science production (i.e., usually Science Pack 3 aka blue science). Across my seven games, I have rarely gone past a single rocket launch, instead preferring to start something new. A lot of the joy comes from figuring out how do I build this and how do I build it well, and having logistics bots able to move materials to be processed into more advanced products can really trivialize the challenge. And, additionally, I've had little appetite for either YouTube or reddit posts about bot-based megabases (it's rare to see a fully bot based regular base; at most, I see a moderate hybrid).

However, notwithstanding my support for Universe 2, I think it would be a mistake to attempt to switch to said universe as your hypothetical relies on a faulty premise. While it could be put more abstractly, a good working statement of the premise would be that a better design remains the better design regardless of whether or not it is preceded by an inferior design. Or, for a little Latin, that a fix post hoc is as valid as a fix ante hoc. Without getting into a long winded discussion, let's use a black box to simply conclude that for various psychological, cultural, and sociological reasons, taking away a very important (arguably fundamental) part of the game that has already been implemented would be a far greater loss than the gain that would be had by reverting to a "better design."

Yet, as we are in Universe 1, I would applaud you both for the game-balancing you've undertaken (especially starting in 0.15) with bots and your recognition of this in the FFF. Logistics bots for use in production are a very-late tech; I suspect used sparingly by the vast majority of games; they are expensive; they are not easy to use; they consume a vast amount of power; and no, I don't think that bot bases make belt bases seem tedious. But the relatively early access to construction bots and player supply/trash similar to your conception of Universe 2. In short, I would say that for most players, while we are in Universe 1, it feels like Universe 2.

But, there is a subgroup of very dedicated fans who understandably are very concerned that we stay in Universe 1. Like I said, I (and I suspect most/many players) don't get much past a few rockets per game. But, there are some who have had their fill of that and sought something more. And what they found was a metagame in megabase building. My impression from you (the devs) has been that your initial vision for this game was to build a little resource-gathering and logistics automation game. And let's launch a rocket at the end. And you created tools to let the player do that. What these fans have done are taken those tools and, satisfied that they had used them for their intended purposes, sought to take them to the absolute limit of their use (and of their computing power). Perhaps you foresaw the development of megabases before the first megabases were developed (if so, please let me know), but foresight is not the point. Rather the point is that for these fans, this metagame that they dedicated themselves to, exploring the outer limits of logistics and computing--not, how do I make an engine, but how do I build 10,000, with the minimum use of resources, both virtual and their real computing resources--has become their Factorio.

[o6dukeleto]

Using a 1000 SPM base to talk about nerfing logistics bots seems ridiculous. I'd like to see a 1000 SPM base with NO logistics bots, I am sure it would be a tedious exercise.

I think anything > 500 SPM base requires logistics bots and a lot of planning. I actually think the base shown in the FFF #224 is actually a very nice design and took a lot of thought and planning to build. I have not looked at it in detail, but I suspect it has some very well planned out logistics networks to minimize bot travel, etc.

Belts become obsolete in the late game, they are replaced by both TRAINS and BOTS. Trains take over because they have much better throughput over long distances. Bots take over because they have much better throughput over short distances.

I think the main problem I have with logistics bots is that they are over powered in the mid game which I define as < 500 SPM and after getting logistics bots.

The problem is that once you get access to logistics bots, you can immediately create a large network with a large swarm -- there is no restriction. I think a simple logistic bot cap PER network would reduce the immediate ability to "abuse" logistic bots. I would recommend that it be PER network, so that early logistic networks require planning (much like late game networks):

• If you make a large network, you will have to pick and choose what items use the logistic bots, you cannot immediately spam bots and expect everything to work -- you have to do some thinking and planning
• If you make small networks, each network could use the max logistic bots, but now you have to plan for how you interconnect the networks
• You could still have your large belt base covered with a single network, but you would be restricted to use bots for some very specific things -- like building satellites
• You could create some smaller networks for high speed processing of some materials, like green circuits, but you would have to interconnect these networks with some other transport mechanism, possibly belts or trains.
• You could still have long logistics networks to help maintain your walls and weapons against biters because they would only need a few bots and could have materials delivered by trains or belts.
• etc.

I think putting a bot cap PER network would add some thought and planning to logistics bots. It may also be a somewhat simple fix.

Lastly, I think that the "logistic bot cap PER network" should be an infinite science like "bot speed". This would allow for scaling bots to the late game (> 500 SPM) where they are required to create mega-bases without a lot of tedium. An infinite science also delays the ability to exploit logistic bots because they are now behind a space science requirement and like bot speed this requirement should probably double every time it is researched. Balancing these numbers would probably be the most difficult task.

Since some people dislike the early-mid game, I would also recommend the "bot cap PER network" be configurable parameter when starting a map. The devs could provide defaults for each of the different world types and players could override at their discretion.

BTW, from an implementation standpoint I think the cap should just restrict number of flying bots so that it is easier to implement when networks merge. If two networks merge and the bots exceed the cap, then it will just stop sending out new bots until it is under the cap -- possibly the roboports could have some visual feedback when they are at/over the limit. This would also alleviate the problem where you accidentally merge two networks and suddenly you get a swarm of bots migrating to the a previously separate network -- the cap would not stop the migration, but at least it would slow it down.

Lastly, there are precedents for bot caps in the game, your personal network limits combat bots and research increases these limits. Secondly this could be easily explained from a "story" point a view -- network control can only handle so many logistic bots at a time and must be researched over time to create better network control.

My personal view: (late game is >500 SPM)

• I like belts and wish they had a bit longer life span, but they do not have to be viable in the late game
• I like logistics bots, but they do seem a OP when they are first researched, BUT they are required in the late game -- if they are nerfed -- it should be time based and research should eventually overcome the nerf.
• I like trains and worry that any buff to belts may affect the viability of trains, that said, belts beyond about 300 SPM get tedious for me because of throughput limitations -- so it might be worth buffing them a bit

[Jürgen Erhard]

Ah, so "you play with bots, you play Factorio wrong" wasn't just a feeling or a "conspiracy theory".

Sorry, not bots, no game, no recommend. Actually, probably pure hate.

No, belt building is not "the more fun way". Maybe for you, but… you know what I adore about Factorio? And what the pretty extreme modabilty underscores? The flexibility in which way you wanna play. Bots, belts, yes, even trains: play it the way you want it to. Because "we" (Wube) don't tell you which way is the most fun.

And now you go and tell us that "this is the most fun way". It isn't.

Nerf it more, go ahead, I already paid, so who cares whether I like it or not. Just be sure that I'll remember. I haven't played one NCsoft game since they killed City of Heroes. Yes, you don't give a damn, I know.

Rage, rage against the dying of Factorio.

[Jürgen Erhard]

Als long the player delivery and "construction" robots are still there I could live with that. Maybe you could make it as an difficulty setting (default off) to avoid a hard nerf.

But then people would have the same freedom as today: play with bots or play without. This really (and scarily) sounds like "we don't want players to have that freedom".

[Filter62]

Oh, I use bots here and there, yeah they are easy to setup, but hard to research and maintain. So I use belts where it is easier, bots go just when there's to hard or no place to build belts. Belts maybe really are superior to bots, they don't need electricity, belts have much more good control of materials and cheaper, while bots may have problems sometimes if there's not enough supply. I'm strongly againts bot removal though, it's essential part of the game for me. I'll be really dissapointed if you remove them. And by my humble opinion, bots not op even a little, it's just fine. (And sorry if there's too much bad grammar, I'm Russian. XD)

[Zavian]

Using a 1000 SPM base to talk about nerfing logistics bots seems ridiculous. I'd like to see a 1000 SPM base with NO logistics bots, I am sure it would be a tedious exercise.

Here's a video tour of a belt based design for 1600 science/minute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnQM-jtOPiU . I actually think belt based designs are more challenging and interesting to build. Bot based designs are certainly simpler and easier to design and build, and at least before 0.16 they performed better from a ups viewpoint.

[wvlad]

I'm with "logistic bot cap PER network" guy, +1000

[anarcobra]

Belts are fun, bots are boring

Wrong. Belts are boring. Bots are boring.
The fun part about factorio is trains.
The factory is just an excuse for building a logistics system using trains.
Laying 32 belts of iron to feed things is time consuming and boring, and means I spend less time doing actual fun stuff, like laying rail and planning the expansion of my train network.
Maybe just remove belts and bots so the game becomes more fun.

[vladdu]

I'd like to make some suggestions from thinking outside the chest... erm, box It might become a little off topic, in which case I apologize.

We want to be tinkering, but it's only fun as long as it's not tedious. After a while, micro-managing a megabase becomes (at least, it does for me) very boring. The circuit network helps (even if my old eyes get hurt from trying to check that all connections are correct and whether this wire is green or red), but the circuits themselves can become complex and repetitive. "Use blueprints!", I hear, and yes, I am - but building them is still tedious after the 500th... and even after the 50th...

There is one aspect that gets changed fundamentally when getting to the late game: the basic logistics. Going from belts to bots is revolutionary. I agree that there are things that can be tweaked to make it better, but others have addressed those. I want to ask the question: what about beyond megabases? What if other aspects could receive revolutionary improvements, so that the game changes from micro- to macro-management? This way it can remain fun much longer as there will be fresh challenges. Of course this is something for Factorio 2.0 (although it may be possible to mod most of this?).

What would macro-management mean? The game currently has small building blocks - what if one could group them into larger ones and work with those instead? Instead of assemblers, factories; handle whole bases and outposts as one unit; forget belts, have trains as the basic logistic path; instead of bots, maybe get airplanes or boats. Conquer the whole planet without needing to put down every single belt and inserter!

A blueprint can be "compressed" into a single unit that exposes all its interfaces with the outside: belt ports, circuit network signals, roboports, railtrack ports. If it only contains circuit network items, it compresses into a fresh "computer" the size of a regular CN combinator, doing the same computations. If it contains assemblers, the result will be a building as large as the bounding box of the blueprint.

Factories can then be produced in special assemblers (at the same cost as it would by hand) and handled almost like any other item. They will consume just as much power and produce just as much pollution. Between factories there can be special high-speed high-thoroughput belt bus that can only be accessed by factories (no direct insertion). Of course bots will work with factories including roboports. These factories would however count as one item, so FPS and UPS costs just disappear. Whole mining rigs can be produced similarly, but maybe without needing to redesign every one (due to the changing shapes of the ore patches). Factories can then be upgraded (modules, belt port speed) as a block.

The prospects are dizzying. A whole base could be blueprinted, and put on a train together with all required ingredients, some power source and a roboport to a new location to be constructed automatically. (Of course, in practice one has to design a base around the terrain configuration) The player character loses its meaning, as the "normal" zoom level becomes what now is the default map view zoom level. Warfare will also get a new strategic dimension. New research will be needed - SpaceX has a good story line.

Actually, the game starts to look like regular resource management games, á la Civilisation and StarCraft, but I'm not sure it's a completely bad thing. There are certainly ways to steer to different directions.

[irbork]

It came to me in a dream. The perfect solution that changes very little providing balance and additional complexity to logistic network.

Make Sandstorms appear every several minutes.
When sandstorm hits it disables bots with a chance of destruction.
It will adjust mean throughput of bots adding unique disadvantage of low reliability and high cost. It will also add some complexity to every logistic system due to constant requirement of new bots supply, even to a distant mining outposts.
Those changes ought to make belts much more appealing without compromising bot's versatility to much.

[JareX]

Please do not touch bots

I never use bots because I like belts. But I think bots should not be removed from the game, because some people prefer them.
Instead just make belts better
My suggestions for belt improvments are as follow:

1) Allow inserters to naturally compress belts
2) Allow side loading to be naturally compressed
3) (maybe) create an aditional tier of belts wich can carry stacked items as you propose o box a bunch of items.

[andrewf]

I think bots should be more expensive (to build and power). Bots I see as more a quality of life thing , especially with the more complex mods, that allow you to easy-button some of the low throughput items. Another option might be to cap the number of bots you can have, and have progressive tiers enabled by a higher level bot controller (each tier doubles number of bots but the controller costs 4x). That leaves bots in the game, but makes you think a bit more carefully about when to use them (use them for high value activities). I think it is annoying that moving ore and bulk materials around is better done with bots. Factories just become beacon/roboport/assembler grids.

[Jürgen Erhard]

I would hate to see the nerfbat being used as a way to guide players towards what you find the desired way to play the game.
I'd much rather you focussed on offering alternative solutions that are as fun and fill a similar role as the bots do: that is, reward the player by reducing some micromanagement late game, to allow for the player to think bigger and go faster.
I do not have a solution for you, sadly. But I know for a fact that nerfing bots just would make me angry and I would not feel happy about being pushed into not using them. I've come to love them, and stripping them of their usefulness would be quite hurtful and "mean".
Now I wouldn't mind if they costed more energy or whatever, as that is not a nerf to their capabilities, but merely a nerf to "at what point they become really viable". If you decide to make energy cost so high that it takes an extra 6 hours of mindlessly plopping down solar panels to make them worth it, then so be it. But at that point, why not remove solar panels as well, as they sidestep the use of all the things that make factorio, factorio: using belts to transport ressources (coal) and consuming them. Clearly they are must be just as abhorrent, but they are as much an integral part of the game as bots are. And it is definitely too late to take the toys away from us without causing serious backlash. When you scrapped the plans for space platforms, at least it was done before we actually played with it and grew to love them; it hurt, but it was what it was. Bots? Bots are here already, they live, they breathe, they have little bot families and bot jobs and they deserve a right to existence!

Seriously though, don't remove them or I'll be very very sad.

We'll always have Paris 0.16.

Yes, I'd hate even a nerf. And I hate the confession that there were nerfs already. Bad devs, no cookie!