@uint For me, belts and bots have their niches. Belts are cheap high capcity throughput that works without power and entirely dedicated to the path you set. Ideal for anything that needs to be moved in mass farther than a bot's flight distance without charging mid delivery. If a bot needs to charge ...

I hopted to hear, that bots are history... It's called a mod... go make one. Bots will not be removed, but they may yet be nerfed into uselessness, which then I'll make a mod. Mods let you mod the game the way you want.... which why they're called mods, because mods are the way to mod things you do...

I think what people mean by saying that bots are breaking the game, and why devs want to nerf them, is that bots weren't meant to be an upgrade from belts. They were meant to complement belts, just like trains complement belts in cases where using belts would be esoteric (or just make life easier a...

Or you could also ask yourself why is there so much noise with people asking to nerf bots in every imaginable way now that the devs have opened the pandora box, but almost no bot balancing issues were reported before (and I could find only one mod that did nerf the logibots that existed before this...

Hello there! Tbh, I havn't read the entire forum atricle but I had a semi-long discussion with some friends of mine who worked in the gaming industry. I agree with the factorio devs that bots in the current build are gamebreaking. What freaking game are they breaking? I'm a fan of bots and I don't ...

Did you even read what I wrote? I was comparing belt to bot capacity and specifically stated that it was tough to guess being the base could be smaller so I didnt double the bots to make the back trip and charge time. I do cost comparisons and because Kovarex used a biased short straight shot, figur...

Because I love calculating costs.... For example, this part of my base only creates white science and they have 18,000 bluebelts inside. It would take about 32,000 bots with capacity 4 & 187% speed to move the same number of items ideally. It would probably be more due to having to fly around, ...

Because I love calculating costs.... For example, this part of my base only creates white science and they have 18,000 bluebelts inside. It would take about 32,000 bots with capacity 4 & 187% speed to move the same number of items ideally. It would probably be more due to having to fly around, b...

You don't care about resource or energy costs in late game. What matters is player time, QoL, and UPS. (and maybe foot print) Hence, nerving or buffing resource or energy costs is useless if not exaggerated up to crippling the game. And nerving player time, QoL, and/or UPS doesn't make any sense (a...

Increasing cost is equivalent to decreasing output per resource. Sounds like, but indeed this isn't the case with the robots: You can see the costs as an investment into the future to build more bots and increase production with more robots. Which decreases the costs of the bots. [Moderated by Koub...

As a person that views the boardstate, deckbuilding, and politics of multiplayer Magic: The Gathering easy , I'm telling you this from experience: Loosely balanced is not ok. It may be a different game, but that does not mean game theory cannot be applied. Here's an example: Primeval Titan puts any...

I fully agree. Inserters are almost doubly effective moving items between containers than between a belt and container according to the numbers I have seen. If inserters could pull items off & put them on belts as quickly as they move from container to container, bots would lose a lot of their e...

EDIT: By the way Koub, thank you for not just dismissing my arguments completely without a moment of consideration. I really appreciate you <3 1) They have virtually no running cost (power is infinite with solar, and nuclear is not much better). Did you know it takes 96 solar panels to charge just 4...

Wow, that was text wall I dont habe time to pick through. I accuse him of usimg his subjective opinion to say thay bots are objectively better. He uses no measurable numbers to back up his claim that bots are better, but the FF points multiple times to his subjective view. There are different things...

What was not clear is whether bots are getting nerfed and how bad will the nerf be. The thing that upsets me is that Twinsen gave the reason to nerf logistic bots is because "they are not fun". His subjective opinion is the only reason the nerf talk is given any more time. He trashed bot b...

The stacking on belt only seem the best way to keep belt pertinent in middle to end game vs bots. Assembly machines should be able to get directly stacked items too, to keep belt on same level of the bots. bots througthput 326 items. blue belt 40 items. Even a small stack of 2 items will keep the u...

Logistic bots already cost more than they add compared to belts. Any further nerf without a cost reduction would further make them cost a ridiculous amount for what they add. You could make 25k blue belts just from the research cost difference alone. Each bot costs 3.4 times as much as each additio...

That's funny, I might be wrong, but I get the feeling that most people who ask for a bot debuff actually mostly play without them (or with very little of them). So basically, it's a "bots should be nerfed because I don't use them, so it won't change my playstyle, while hindering the pleasure o...

I am very disappointed to have 2 devs now completely and utterly ignore not only the straight up resource costs of logistics bots, but the incredible amount of research cost. Research cost for full blue belt usage: 194,395 raw resources (liquids reduced to petrol, light, or heavy) Research cost for ...

The most repeated quote from my brother while playing Pokémon: "I can't be arsed with this rigmarole." Sometimes, you just need something to work, and don't really want to spend the time doing a belt puzzle... Robots are handy for this sort of thing, when you finally unlock them. Totally ...