Why can I build only one Cargo landing pad ?

[Artful]

First, I know, mods fix that and I'm glad they exist ( I recommend this one https://mods.factorio.com/mod/a_lot_of_cargo_pads, it transform the landing pad into a requester chest, instead of an annoying buffer chest )

I'm just wondering why ? Why is it like that ?

The entire game is based on : "you can always expand, always have more". Why not the Landing pad ? In my base, I've build all around the Landing pad. I've created a mess of Transport belts, thinking "as long as it works it's ok, I'll build a new proper production next to the old one, when I'll need it, like for every others." But no. Why ? Without a mod I would have had to destroy everything around my Landing pad and re-do.

I think this isn't the "Factorio spirit". I shouldn't need to destroy anything. My first production lines are always a mess, and once I understand how to do it properly, I rebuild next to it ! And then I rebuild again but bigger and better, and again ... etc.

Never have I had to wipe out anything in this game because it was badly done the first time.

Plus it forces you to a centralisation I really don't like.

[Hurkyl]

Originally posted by Maltsi:

Why do you want the limit? what does it offer? The only thing i can think of is that devs wanted you to have 1 logistic center where everything goes through.

If you want to hear the dev's own words on the issue, this is from FFF #417

Originally posted by kovarex:

Regarding the landing pads, you can see one of the problems of the original design, where every landing pad was individually accepting some cargo from space. This had 3 main problems:

• It was very annoying to manage each of the item requests individually.
  
• Since the landing pads were not logistic providers yet, we tended to have this repeated pattern of landing pad → passive provider chest everywhere.
  
• Since you could build landing pads anywhere, it felt a little bit too cheesy, to be able to drop items from space anywhere needed. This is one of the reasons why now we have just one expandable landing pad per planet.

[Maltsi]

Originally posted by PunCrathod:

Originally posted by Maltsi:

There is no challenge, just put down blue chest and be done with it. There is no puzzle here. So why the limit in the first place? Just to mess up with those few people who dislikes using logistic bots to trivialize everything? They would still have their option of using bots even without the limit, it only hurts belt users.

You are contradicting yourself. If there is no puzzle then you would not be here complaining about it. Also if you want high throughput it is not as trivial as "just put a blue chest and be done with it"

Repeating your flawed arguments is not going to change anything. You are just refusing to use the solution you already have therefore your problem is your own fault.

Limiting the possibility to use belts is not puzzle. There is only one answer and that is bots. Which im using since its the only way. THIS is what i hate. I hate forced playstyles, there is a reason i never used logistic bots for other than personal inventory management

[Galileus]

Originally posted by Maltsi:

There is no challenge, just put down blue chest and be done with it. There is no puzzle here. So why the limit in the first place? Just to mess up with those few people who dislikes using logistic bots to trivialize everything? They would still have their option of using bots even without the limit, it only hurts belt users.

How are you hurt, exactly? Does the neccessity of plopping down a few roboports make it so unbearable?

You could make the same argument about advanced oil processing. "Why force multiple outputs, it only <<HURTS>> those of us who want to use straight lines of pipes!".

YES, mechanics that are meant to limit you do limit you. Because that is what a puzzle is. A set of limits, that force you to connect things in a certain way. And yes, you can do it better or worse. Having bots fly long distances will lock them out and might lead to overflow in the hub. You can try and make a robot-operated loading station and keep the space cargo off of the network otherwise. Or you can scale your network to be able to operate long distance. Or you can create a centralized hub, but that will limit your other options.

Can you please provide any better argument than throwing tantrums, because you don't like the shape of the cookie?

[PunCrathod]

Originally posted by Maltsi:

Limiting the possibility to use belts is not puzzle.

No matter how many times you say that it is not going to become true.

[Maltsi]

Originally posted by No Butt Pls No Ban:

Originally posted by Maltsi:

There is no challenge, just put down blue chest and be done with it. There is no puzzle here. So why the limit in the first place? Just to mess up with those few people who dislikes using logistic bots to trivialize everything? They would still have their option of using bots even without the limit, it only hurts belt users.

How are you hurt, exactly? Does the neccessity of plopping down a few roboports make it so unbearable?

You could make the same argument about advanced oil processing. "Why force multiple outputs, it only <<HURTS>> those of us who want to use straight lines of pipes!".

YES, mechanics that are meant to limit you do limit you. Because that is what a puzzle is. A set of limits, that force you to connect things in a certain way. And yes, you can do it better or worse. Having bots fly long distances will lock them out and might lead to overflow in the hub. You can try and make a robot-operated loading station and keep the space cargo off of the network otherwise. Or you can scale your network to be able to operate long distance. Or you can create a centralized hub, but that will limit your other options.

Can you please provide any better argument than throwing tantrums, because you don't like the shape of the cookie?

No tantrums here, if it sounds like that, then its because english is not my native language. Limit only exists for belts, which you get around by using bots. Wow such a puzzle. I have yet to see even one good example why this limit is good thing.
You can't use them as large chests since they only accept materials from orbit.
You can't use them to teleport stuff.

Originally posted by Hurkyl:

Originally posted by kovarex:

Regarding the landing pads, you can see one of the problems of the original design, where every landing pad was individually accepting some cargo from space. This had 3 main problems:

• It was very annoying to manage each of the item requests individually.
  
• Since the landing pads were not logistic providers yet, we tended to have this repeated pattern of landing pad → passive provider chest everywhere.
  
• Since you could build landing pads anywhere, it felt a little bit too cheesy, to be able to drop items from space anywhere needed. This is one of the reasons why now we have just one expandable landing pad per planet.

Thanks for that. I honestly don't see any issues in any of their scenarios. Second one is like its now, just minus the logistic chest since the pad is one.

[Marosh]

Originally posted by Maltsi:

Originally posted by Marosh:

It is a hard limit because of your self inflicted constrain. Something like that is never a good argument. With the same mindset, I could put a hard limit on pretty much everything.

Why are belts capped at 240 item/s. Make the stack research infinite or higher. I can't produce 2k iron plates with just one belt. Now I have to create a different design and break my self inflicted constrain or I'm stuck at a hard limit.

I can see where you come from. But in factorio, whenever there is an issue with throughput or production the answer is to "build more, factory must grow". But now, the only answer is spam bots, no otherway.

No, sorry. I get it now. The "no other choice than bots" at a specific breakpoint. I should think more, because I'm stupid.

No you are correct. I can't think of any other thing, where I can't bruteforce a different solution with "more of the same", until I hit UPS limits and "more of the same" doesn't work anymore.

[Neferneith]

I agree with Maltsi on the bot front. Bots are always the lazy solution, it's not even a solution, it's a *screw that problem, I'll just plug requester chets*. It's a confesion of not being able to solve it.

Reciprocaly : if a problem only solution is requester chest then we have a big problem (that need fixing by Wube) or a niche problem (fix by mod). On the case of only 32 inserters around unique landing pad, I guess that's a niche problem.

Back in my days we had no robots and we were happy. We also coded in assembler on punched cards and went to school in the snow, uphill, both way.

[Maltsi]

Originally posted by Neferneith:

I agree with Maltsi on the bot front. Bots are always the lazy solution, it's not even a solution, it's a *screw that problem, I'll just plug requester chets*. It's a confesion of not being able to solve it.

Reciprocaly : if a problem only solution is requester chest then we have a big problem (that need fixing by Wube) or a niche problem (fix by mod). On the case of only 32 inserters around unique landing pad, I guess that's a niche problem.

Back in my days we had no robots and we were happy. We also coded in assembler on punched cards and went to school in the snow, uphill, both way.

Exactly this, and yeah the 32 inserters throughput limit is something that like 99.9% of the people never reaches, but i play same saves long and will eventually reach that point.

[Marosh]

I suggest the official forums. It's a solid argument, that this is probably the only logistical limitation not tied to UPS.

I can only imagine, that they really wanted a central hub (I like the logistical challenge too) and pulling out of the cargo bay has some problems with how storage containers work.

[Vyndicu]

A lot is going on here. I am going to drop my two cents.


I will remind people that the landing cargo pad has a limited number of spots for inserters that engineers, like me and others, can utilize to remove inventory from the landing cargo pad.

Suppose I have enough incoming material to exceed that limit. What would I do to work around the limitation?

Connecting the landing cargo pad as if it is a passive provider might be one solution, but it comes with strings attached.


Building multiple cargo landing pads on a surface makes it possible to exceed that limitation without any strings attached. I am sure WUBE is smart enough to devise a different sensible restriction other than 'one-per-surface.'

[Hurkyl]

As an aside, you run into the "three drop pods every minute or so" restriction long before you can reach the "32 inserters" restriction. To actually overwhelm the inserters you would need a massive strong of cargo bays to increase drop pod throughput, and so could only be using 30 inserters.

[Maltsi]

Originally posted by Vyndicu:

A lot is going on here. I am going to drop my two cents.


I will remind people that the landing cargo pad has a limited number of spots for inserters that engineers, like me and others, can utilize to remove inventory from the landing cargo pad.

Suppose I have enough incoming material to exceed that limit. What would I do to work around the limitation?

Connecting the landing cargo pad as if it is a passive provider might be one solution, but it comes with strings attached.


Building multiple cargo landing pads on a surface makes it possible to exceed that limitation without any strings attached. I am sure WUBE is smart enough to devise a different sensible restriction other than 'one-per-surface.'

I was thinking how this could be improved, without "ruining everything" as some people put it out (which i still don't understand). Anyway, instead of hard limit of 1, there could be area limit where you could build multiple landing pads around the first one in set amount of space, similar to how pipes are now restricted to 320 something pipe length. This would allow more inserters, still centralized like devs wanted it to be and changes nothing for vast majority of the players in current system.

[Vyndicu]

Originally posted by Hurkyl:

As an aside, you run into the "three drop pods every minute or so" restriction long before you can reach the "32 inserters" restriction. To actually overwhelm the inserters you would need a massive strong of cargo bays to increase drop pod throughput, and so could only be using 30 inserters.

That is not entirely correct.


A single cargo extender can be attached to double the "three drop pods every minute or so" throughput.

Then, an infinite number of cargo extenders can be added where they won't take any inserter spots.


https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3367015682

This is an apparent extreme example where the best inserters are the bottleneck and not the "three drop pods every minute or so."


The only possible way to increase throughput at that point is to treat the cargo landing pad as if it is a logistic chest with inventory to pick up or a second cargo landing pad.

[Vyndicu]

Originally posted by Maltsi:

I was thinking how this could be improved, without "ruining everything" as some people put it out (which i still don't understand). Anyway, instead of hard limit of 1, there could be area limit where you could build multiple landing pads around the first one in set amount of space, similar to how pipes are now restricted to 320 something pipe length. This would allow more inserters, still centralized like devs wanted it to be and changes nothing for vast majority of the players in current system.

No disagreement from me.

[Hurkyl]

Originally posted by Maltsi:

I was thinking how this could be improved, without "ruining everything" as some people put it out (which i still don't understand). Anyway, instead of hard limit of 1, there could be area limit where you could build multiple landing pads around the first one in set amount of space, similar to how pipes are now restricted to 320 something pipe length. This would allow more inserters, still centralized like devs wanted it to be and changes nothing for vast majority of the players in current system.

You haven't changed the fact you still have an inserter limit. And still have the trivialized logistics in whatever area you are considering -- both due to the "space can go anywhere you want" and the "giant chest" advantages.

And just a reminder: players can give thesmelves more inserters with the current mechanics by placing a roboport, a handful of logistics chests, and making a handful of logistics robots.