I think this is part of the problem that Twinsen is trying to talk about. There are people who occasionally show up in the support forums who get to bots, and seem to think "Bots are the new hotness. All my new production is going to be bot based". So then they build an assembler with a requester and provider. Make that a blueprint and stamp it down repeatedly. No thought or planning to it, just add more copies of this same blueprint anytime they want more production of something. To me that's a really boring way to play the game. They occasionally show up in the support forums complaining about bots not recharging or wanting smarter bot charging/pathing etc. They have missed the point about bots being just another tool, made bots their only tool, and haven't understood the way they charge and path. Some of them show-up asking for help and advise, some complaining that the existing bot mechanics are broken, none of them understanding that the root cause of their problems is in the design (or lack of design) of their base. It's probably impossible to know how many casual players end up getting to robots and then playing this way, but it's likely that only some of them show up in the forums.HerpicusMcDerpington wrote:I once tried to setup a smelter array with bots. It turned out to be less effective as if i just had build it with belts, no matter how many bots and ports i threw it it.
As ive seen in others peoples bases, bots, for a high end efficient base, actally take alot of thought too.
The best idea I can think of is to give the players another belt type, with new mechanics, that is also unlocked around the same time, and says "Here's a new toy with new capabilities you should be using as well".