Train capacity updates not universally positive

[distant barn]

As trains can't pick up partial packages, the train capacity updates can be detrimental in some situations. Especially on an array of low output factories (e.g. for the operator shapes) a higher capacity actually makes the process slower as it takes longer for the first package to be picked up.

[teal shale]

we need an option to customize how many shapes are in one package

[upper apex]

I don’t think they will do this because the train capacity is part of the research tree.

[upper apex]

I slightly agree with you, I think the packaging of shapes is irrelevant honestly. It would be much better if the train loads whatever amount of shapes are available at every stop. And introducing a new research for train loading speed. Now packages can still form if they hit the max limit and stop when capacity is full if a train has no available space or the train hasn’t arrived yet. But I do think they need to rework on train loading and unloading.

Idk though, I don’t have really any good alternatives for trains. That’s a tricky situation. In order for their to be more improvements on it, it might need a larger rework

[distant barn]

Or some other option. But as it is it's the only upgrade that can have a negative effect.

At least give me the option to disable the upgrade maybe.

[upper apex]

Yeah but the trains are specifically used for high input situations. If you have low input, don’t use trains.

But again, if you really think about it, it doesn’t really matter, so yes I agree with you. It should load half packages or quarter size packages.

Currently the trains hold one large package for each level of the belts (3) but what if it held 4 smaller packages per belt layer, so (12) per cargo

Would solve your issue I assume

[distant barn]

MAMs are automatically low input and might take quite some space, so transporting the stuff from the output with belts might not be a good idea.

[upper apex]

And would be nicer to see trains picking up material more often even if it’s only 2 quarter size packages whatever. Because I’m not a fan of watching trains skip the loader like 4 times before a box of shapes is ready.

[knotty nebula]

How. You basically suggest to reduce chunks 4 times. Upgrade to chunk size will still have the same effect: 1 quarter of a chunk will fill up longer.

[distant barn]

And yes, trains are for transporting a big quantity of things, but they are also much faster than belts. I'd like to use this second property without the first one.

[upper apex]

The point of MAMs is to obviously automate shape production, but what’s the point of automation if you don’t have high input. A MaM with low output seems irrelevant because mams require a lot of thought to create and they should scale easily if done correctly. So input and output becomes the only challenge after MAMs and I don’t even really think that is a valid challenge.

[knotty nebula]

Allowing train to carry multiple chunks also has its flaws: station buffers will be effectively reduced.

[upper apex]

I’m purely talking about his post of saying the problem is low output or input. Which means it takes longer for a train to load 1 package. If the packages are divided into 4 smaller sizes, the train could deliver the smaller outputs more frequently without over production.

[distant barn]

I'm not at the stage where I know how to properly compact things, so if I scale it, it takes a lot of space. This means that the outputs of the parallel copies are too far apart to use belts.

[upper apex]

Not if stations adapt to the new train loading so they will effectively work the same as they currently do.

[upper apex]

Ah well, so order of operations is important. Work on compacting your factory and then start worrying about throughput.

[distant barn]

Anyway, I agree that the case might be an edge case, but the fact that the upgrade can be negative still stands. I think the easiest option would to make upgrades disableble after buying them.

[upper apex]

Your train loading and unloading will work fine once you get that sorted out and scale up.

[upper apex]

Which upgrade are you talking about specifically

[distant barn]

I'm not worrying about throughput, I'm worrying about delay.

[distant barn]

The train capacity upgrade that this thread is all about. It's the only update that can (granted in an edge case) have a negative effect.

[upper apex]

So the delay because belt speed is too high and capacity is too low? Or the other way around?

[knotty nebula]

Here is an adjacent issue: separated upgrades for different categories of buildings don't make much sense. All "factory speed" upgrades could be united into a single upgrade, including chunk size. Thus overall buffering time will remain the same.
But "make 20% more of everything" is quite a boring upgrade.

[distant barn]

With belts: delay because the distance is too large.
With trains: delay because I can't easily combine output from different locations as every location has to wait for a full package to form

[distant barn]

I think it's fine as it is. Even if you change nothing about your machine, it might not be ideal for your new upgrades, but still better or at least equal compared to without it.

[upper apex]

I agree, and I think the reason why that isn’t currently in the game is because it’s significantly more sophisticated than the current research system. With potentially more harm than good.

The current research allows the user to think about and manage the research at the correct rate to make everything work properly.

So yeah it’s valid to feel like it should be simplified, but half of the community might not be affected by it because they like that aspect.

The current system provides more control for the player. With more control, comes more user error. With less control, less error, leading to the question; “why have a research system if it opposes no extra thought?”

Am I making sense lol

The research system acts as a barrier to later game activities AND to allow the user to think about “what is important right now?”

[knotty nebula]

I don't like an ability to mess with machines rations. I always upgrade everything together, and most players do. Nobody designs blueprints with "wrong" proportions. And if they do, it's only because it's their first playthrough and they didn't figure it out yet.
I think here should be only 1 upgrade - "make everything faster". Everything but miners.

[upper apex]

Ok, so I agree with you but you said one thing that is VERY important.

The new player. The new player needs to learn how to manage upgrades in unison. That’s the name of the game! When I first played I made the mistake of upgrading things incorrectly and you FEEL the issues creeping up on you. Now guess what? You’ve learned that this isn’t a game about randomly clicking buttons. It’s about being precise.

I see it as a great way to get a new player to learn how the game works on a fundamental and foundational level.

Once you have the mindset of “I really need to start thinking BIGGER” is when the game really starts to unfold.

The research is literally only for new players. Once you understand the game, ya the research is kinda pointless BUT it is so important to new players

[knotty nebula]

the initial problem with package size upgrade is also neglected by "thinking BIGGER"

And your whole complain is also a complain of a new player.
Ah, sorry, you aren't a TS...

[upper apex]

Not really because the smaller packages just allow you to transition from belts to trains more smoothly. And increasing load capacity and load speed (in research) is something that can make you think about bringing more to the vortex when you understand trains more

[upper apex]

I’m not following what you mean here

[knotty nebula]

Additional 90s delay isn't a big deal if you think big enough.

[upper apex]

What? lol

[knotty nebula]

Just work on something else during a new production line is buffering.

[upper apex]

I can’t tell if I’m getting trolled 😂

[upper apex]

You realize I didn’t create this post right? I’m just talking to the original poster about the issue in a constructive way

[distant barn]

I definitely see that it's not a big issue, but in my opinion the upgrades should either have absolutely no downside or be able to turned off.

[silent crane]

and way way last lag

[silent crane]

and pc specks

[silent crane]

and this edge case is true for basicly all mams

[cinder ferry]

disagree

90 sec delay on potentially 3 consecutive train delays means you might not be able to see if your machines are working realistically for almost 5 min, not counting them filling up. Which is crucial to know if it is working

[silent crane]

agreed

[sick lake]

Honestly, I think the best fix would be partial package pickups

Getting the animations right might be a bit tricky, but just have the loader spit out whatever it has when the train stops.

Doesn't totally solve saturation to see if your builds are fully working, but at least it means that capacity upgrades don't have a downside

[upper apex]

Why would you test a module on an entire MAM when you can just test it alone? Once every module is correctly tested, just connect them all and it will work 100%

[distant barn]

Until you run into a case that you haven't tested and that breaks for a specific shape, you're now trying to make, because you forgot a single connection somewhere.

[torn cargo]

I compare Trains in game as like waiting for a giant tanker ship from China. It takes weeks to arrive but boy do yo get a lot. Problem is, your product can run dry before another large shipment arrives. Next play through I’m not upgrading train capacity so deliveries arrive more frequently.

[distant barn]

The same for me, probably. You can always get a similar effect with more trains or more wagons.

[cinder ferry]

higher difficulties promote upgrading the train capacity. Especially in insane mode, where platform points are limitting. Spending half as many platform points on trains from having trains carry twice as much crap each is a major benefit.

The only sort of “fix” for this is if loaders can make half size packages that merge. Which would probably be a fair amount of effort, with questionable payoff in terms of how clear it is to the player what is going on. Mostly because the current loaders look very clear in how they operate.

[sick lake]

I think the ideal fix would be that trains load whatever is available each time they stop until they hit capacity. It would be very tough to get good animations for this though

[golden hazel]

I'll think about if partial deliveries make sense. We generally try to reduce the amount of 'configuration' you do via UI, i.e. we are trying to avoid a dropdown on a train station where you configure the mode.

That is, if we don't find a better way we'll consider that as well.

[upper apex]

I mean, for a specific shape? Are you talking about rare edge cases?

Because I’m pretty sure if you just follow the logic, your MAM will always work.

Does the ROS give edge-case shapes?

[torn cargo]

Nope. 👆

[upper apex]

So yeah, just follow the logic and that’s it

[cinder ferry]

A UI config wouldn’t really aid here, since you usually want deliveries to speed up only at the start so the overall machine takes less time to start up. Automatic partial deliveries would be the fix, if any.

If trains pick up a small (single digit) number of mini-boxes at a loader (up to the upgradeable max), then everything would be perfect.

At the start, the train will transport the smallest denomination as soon as it is available. At steady state, each wagon gets filled as much as possible to get the full benefit of the upgrade.

The biggest hurdle here imo is making an animation that clearly conveys what is going on without words.

[distant barn]

What about two types of wagons or two type of loaders?

[cinder ferry]

that would mean making a low capacity wagon that caps out with the lowest throughput, that you’d need to manually change between the variants to get full throughput vs quick startup. This would just bait minmaxing nonsense.

[distant barn]

True, that doesn't sound like good gameplay

[nocturne kraken]

I came here to discuss the train capacity and found this thread. Increasing capacity is far more bad than good in my experience -- played through both square and hex challenges. I think it is easy to fix though: if a train arrives and the smallest package size is ready, it ships. If two small packages are sitting in the loader, if you've upgraded capacity, they consolidate into one package (visually a slightly taller stack). If you have upgraded for three... and so on.

No config needed during game play, and no need for different types of factory elements.

[brisk niche]

How about a percentage bar that we can use to reduce the percentage that needs to be filled before the package is sent?

[nocturne kraken]

That would work, but I think it’s an unnecessary complication to just “auto consolidate on loader/unloader”.

[shrewd coral]

I definitely agree that something needs to be done about the train packet size upgrade. Consider the random shapes you need to create at stage 8. They require 1000 shapes, exactly. If you've fully upgraded your trains, a single packet carries 1080 shapes. Fully upgrading trains and using them forces me to produce 80 extra worthless shapes because I have to wait for them to be made before the train can carry them.

I like the idea of smaller "packets", say 100 shapes each, which get formed. A train slot carries up to [some research-determined number] of packets, but it always loads/unloads as many as are available as a unit.

For visualization, anywhere you currently see a shape indicating what's in a train unit, just put a number next to the shape indicating number of packets. Simple.

Regardless, allowing me to upgrade to where I'm forced to overshoot the goal is just silly.

[keen quail]

honestly by far this is probably the best approach solution.
It doesn't hinder the player but still allows larger cargo compacity thus maintaining the Upgrade being viable.
This essentially resolves the whole problem with the Upgrade being pointless.