Remove fast inserter

[Stargateur]

TL;DR

Remove fast inserter

What?

I propose removing fast inserter.

Why?

The fast inserter is simply a strictly better version of the normal inserter. Once it’s unlocked, there is almost no reason to ever use the normal inserter again. I think the game would benefit from removing entities that are not fundamentally different from the previous tier.

Now that quality exists, this kind of linear upgrade should be handled through quality rather than separate entities. Who actually uses normal inserters in their factory after unlocking fast inserters?

Inserters shouldn't even support a default “upgrade” behavior. Many inserter types are not equivalent and therefore should remain separate:

• Burner inserters can operate without electricity. Upgrading them to inserter could break setups that rely on inserters continuing to work during power outages or if you didn't setup electric pole.

• Electric inserters should probably stay limited to inserting a single item (no capacity bonuses), as No non-Bulk inserter bonus

• Bulk inserters should be the one with “I can grab more than one item” option. They are not equivalent to normal inserters. For example, if you use an inserter to insert robots into a roboport one at a time, upgrading it to bulk would suddenly insert multiple robots at once, changing behavior and potentially breaking designs. One would need to use override stack size option to simulate it (BTW "stack" ?!).

• Stack inserters add stacking behavior, which is also not equivalent. A stack inserter may wait indefinitely for more items to form a full stack, whereas a bulk inserter would not. Automatically upgrading to a stack inserter could easily deadlock or break parts of a factory.

In short, fast inserters don’t add meaningful gameplay decisions, while other inserter types do. Removing fast inserters and relying on quality instead would reduce clutter without sacrificing depth.

The same is mostly true for assembling machines or modules, you may consider this idea of removing the tier of modules and assembling machines too (and maybe even stone and steel furnace, they are the same... wood and steel electric pole... wooden chest iron chest steel chest...). With quality, having 3 tier of such thing is just annoying, specially because you need previous tier to craft the next tier and it's make quality setup a chore (with quality, no recipe should have previous tier that so annoying and with quality there is no need for item tier anymore, maybe it's time to fully accept quality into the core game, obsolete item can be just recycled now)

[Tertius]

The normal inserter has definitely multiple valid use cases.

• it mirrors technical advancement that's going on with research, so it fits the simulation theme.
• it uses less power and has less drain, so it's the best choice for inserters on your first space platforms and for every small insulated location powered just with one or two solar panels
• with its slow swing, it can be used as long phase clock generator or as a means to put a single item on a belt just once in a while without any circuits

[Bömmeli]

Who actually uses normal inserters in their factory after unlocking fast inserters?

I use them for my power plant. Stack inserters for fastest clear charge, and then normal inserts to balance the feed of the belt loop. Fast inserters are too fast, so they just clear three chests at the same time. Normal inserters are clearing more chests parallel, so the next train can be cleared (and not just the upper cargo waggons).

inserter_use_power_plant.jpg (1.14 MiB) Viewed 492 times

[Hurkyl]

In the early game, inserters being cheaper to make than fast inserters is not insignificant.

The lower throughput of the inserter is very useful for some designs -- e.g. a common sort of early-game mall -- so that the leading assemblers don't hog all the resources and starve the later ones.

[Stargateur]

.

[Hurkyl]

And my point is you are overly dismissive of the cons of your proposal.

The "keep the stats on the regular inserter" has the same problem that you are still eliminating the cost/performance tradeoff considerations of early gameplay. But in addition to that, just like there is an early-game need for a 50 i/m inserter, there is also a need for a 150 i/m inserter.

And I really, really get the impression that you are simply dismissing the gameplay impact as something you find irrelevant, rather than fairly evaluating how it will impact others.


While you want to use quality to replace the tiered aspect of inserters, the problem is that the quality system does not exist in the early game when this distinction is most relevant. And it does not exist at all for people who have not bought the expansion.


So long as I've been pushed to elaborating rather than just bringing up things that seemed to be overlooked that really need to be considered, here's another criticism I had about the specifics. It doesn't really make sense to me to have a "can only move one item at a time" role that needs a dedicated inserter type. It is a super niche role whose functionality can already be achieved by configuring the stack size.

Fast inserters are 'obsolete' when bulk inserters are unlocked in the same way that as regular inserters are when fast inserters are unlocked.

[pioruns]

Inserter should not be removed just like that. It is cheap, uses less electricity, has many valid use cases, dispite better devices available later on.
If you don't like it, just don't use it.

[Stargateur]

.

[pioruns]

Great. I hope that will close the matter for good.

[Kyralessa]

Stargateur, if you want to put forth a proposal and not have it discussed, maybe don't post it on a discussion board.

[MEOWMI]

I'm not really in favor with the idea, but (civilized) discussion can be useful. The opening post doesn't seem like a thorough examination of the ramifications (everything from theoretical uses of inserters of any speed, to how their existence plays a role in more clearly guiding newer players, as well as resource cost and production chain differences which are both trivial to veterans but can be a significant consideration for newer players.)

One of the more interesting uses I've seen for normal (slow) inserters was the removal of exactly 1 U-235 from a Kovarex processing centrifuge. It reliably takes out a single one and a stack inserter can cycle the rest (it becomes somewhat inefficient with productivity modules but won't break anything per se).

Perhaps the biggest reason to disagee is just the fact that the game's design has worked really well so far with them. In the absence of exceptional justification for making such a broad change, it feels highly ill-advised to make such a change at this point into development.

Mods could be a good starting point if anyone really wishes to explore the idea in depth.

[Tertius]

I don't understand why the game is better with the proposed changes. The proposal fails to explain this. For me, the changes appear as artificially limiting item capabilities for no reason. Not using an item is no reason, because there may be players who do use the item. This would be a game breaking change for every player on each of his saves. That's a big no-go. Just impossible to do without alienating a major part of the player base.

Currently, the normal inserter has a lower material cost and is used as an ingredient for the science pack the player unlocks as 2nd pack. Material cost is relevant for the early game, so not having this inserter requires different balancing for this science pack. A balancing proposal is missing.

For gameplay and progression reasons the tier system works perfectly. First you build a weak version of an item, then an improved version, finally a really good one. This provides the player with a good feeling of progression and satisfaction. Quality isn't a proper replacement for this, because it works in a completely different way: you don't get recipes for the better items with research, instead you have to invest a huge amount of resources for a slightly better quality item. This isn't as satisfying as just crafting a better item, and it isn't feasible for the early game where you simply don't have these resources. It's also a very complex game mechanic and will confuse every beginner.

2 or 3 item tiers is enough as game mechanic, because it repeats itself. The first better tiers you unlock is progression, more than a few becomes a chore.
Quality is on top of this, it tries to provide a different "unlock" mechanism: the gate to quality isn't a researched recipe, it's a factory you need to design. (in my opinion it's failing since it's just as tedious, boring and uninteresting as more tiers, but that's just my personal opinion)

The game without quality is perfectly balanced. Removing normal items and replacing them with quality as essential item improvement makes the game worse, not better.

tl;dr
game breaking change that cannot happen

[Stargateur]

Good points, I mostly agree I just try to make sense of quality, also, one must see the big picture, 2.1 will definitely rework quality. Depend on what dev are thinking quality could become more core gameplay or not, I can clearly imagine a world where quality become free, if yes removing entity tier make sense, if not then forget it. Also, about breaking change, 2.1 is here for that. And removing fast inserter is not much of a breaking change, no more than removing filter inserter. "The game without quality is perfectly balanced" MEH 2.0 use so much iron in vanilla compared to before and honestly I still don't like much science that use entity items as ingredient, I wouldn't at all call current vanilla perfectly balanced.

[eugenekay]

Also, about breaking change, 2.1 is here for that. And removing fast inserter is not much of a breaking change, no more than removing filter inserter.

Condensing the Filter Inserter into a single Fast Inserter was not a breaking change; they are specifically handled by a migration for existing items & entities when loading a 1.X-era map. Since they are statistically equivalent (same capacity, rotation speed, and nearly the same Power Usage) most setups were totally fine. I suppose the removal of the Signal may have caused a bit of chaos... I certainly did not mind having less Items to juggle.

Whereas, removing the Fast/Regular Inserter would definitely break timed train un/loading setups and Clock mechanisms due to the difference in Swing Speed.

I like using Legendary-quality Burner (702deg/s) or Regular (756 deg/s) inserters instead of a Normal Fast (864deg/s) Inserter. I think they’re cute!