Production Balancing

Question

I think it makes no sense to see hundreds of screws racing by and what you get from it are two frames a minute. From a gameplay perspective i think it makes setting up production lines unnecessary.

Im currently trying to get the 500 frames to unlock tier 5 and 6. I set up quite a large factory just to supply one machine making frames and one machine making motors. The time it takes to unlock isn't an issue. But that feeding machines by hand to then handcraft the frames is way more effective than my whole automated factory consuming power of multiple huge coal burners.

I think the point is that assemblers and belts are too inefficient. I would maybe change belts to "stacks per minute" and give a crate of screws a capacity of e.g. 20, rods a stack size of x, etc., and slow the belts down if necessary to compensate.

With 90 Iron Ingots per minute incoming, i should be able to produce more than 2 Frames per minute. Why not balance it to be more plausible, lets say 90 ingots results in 45-60 frames and you would need 2-4 assemblers to achieve that. While one mk2 belt would be sufficient to supply all 2-4 machines instead of 1. The space elevator would need to be filled 20-30 times instead of 1 and could activate automatically (Would be cool to see it activate more often). The factory would feel much better. Lots of numbers would need to be changed, but thats just basic math.

Also i think in general it would make sense that faster belts effect items with lower stack size more. So early game i could produce early products onto one belt easily because ingots, plates, rods and screws can be stacked very well. So i can directly start planning and building the final factory and don't have to rebuild all the time. Later complex products can't be stacked well and benefit from better belts, that at this point are easy to unlock.

Comments

The fact that this has so many negative votes is really saddening. This is ****exactly**** how I feel. Hell, did I write this post? Because that's also exactly the example I was going to give. I overclocked the shit out of all the subcomponent constructors of the molecular frame assembler and STILL didn't meet the requirements to have it run nonstop. Seriously game? If it was producing 10 frames a minute, maybe that'd be alright, but 4 frames? Are you kidding me? I'm a huge factorio fan, tedium and me are good friends. But Factorio makes it *fun*. Building a factory in this game is not fun in its current state, it's frustrating.

Btw, I was serious, I had to check that I didn't write this post. IMO building a factory is the least fun part of this game by a long shot, and that's extremely disappointing. I got to the 500 molecular frames thing, thought to myself (well shit, time to build a dedicated factory for this). So I did. Spent about 3/4 hours setting up the new building, the production lines, the miners, the long ass belts dragging the iron to those production lines, grabbing all the slugs I could manage, upgrading to the best belts I could afford-- and when I finish it and start it all up, what is my golden factory producing? Less than 4 molecular frames a minute. And I need 500 of them? Wut. I can produce significantly more than 4 molecular frames a minute by hand, that factory was a huge draw on my power supply, and I spent 3/4 hours on it. So I let it run while I watched Youtube and made dinner and stuff. I came back, it had hardly produced anything, so I let it run a few more hours, then came back and finished it off by hand. In the time it took to produce about 20, I produced 150. That's a problem. /rant