to summarize my posts since I have been thinking about this while reading other replies...
belts are 1 dimensional. they are either lines or dotted lines on the plane that you play the game on; being normal belts or underground belts.
if you want to make belts more interesting make belts that can intersect on that plane and move upwards into the 3rd dimension of the game.
that would make them a constant rubix cube logistical problem to solve of how to manage those intersections and merges.
I want to build a layered base of belts. please make this possible.
nerfing bots, solar power, laser turrets in no way improves the game and how you interact and solve these interesting puzzles.
there is no solution like creating a new mechanic that provides content.
don't go down the road that other devs go down by alienating your player base by re-aranging existing content instead of creating something new.
as someone mentioned undergrounds belts are not really underground, and they for no reason have a distance limitation imposed upon them.
I think elevated belts that do not allow the player to walk on them and require some kind of support structure to be held up would be a much more interesting mid game, and bots can be pushed further back and it would seem only natural.
also, bots and belts are inferior to trains in every way in late game anyhow. while bots vs belt fight is going on the trains are doing all the work.
I agree beacons are too simplified as well. I would welcome an update.
to continue on this idea of 3 dimensional belts...
there would need to be a splitter for going up and down on a layer of belts, and the top belts could easily drop onto a belt below and merge or overflow with that belt.
timing the merge would be the tricky part.
in my mind this seems like the logical step forward for the game.
by having layers you can have different belt priorities and interject items that are not needed as often onto a primary belt, maximizing the use of your space and the use of your high-speed belts.
for recipes that have lopsided ratios like blue circuits of 10:1 it makes sense that you would not want to dedicate even half a belt to that one resource and giving up 1 more tile to make the assembly wider is unnecessary. with 3 dimensional belts you wouldn't need to waste the space you already have. its time to build up, not out.
I was thinking there would be two ways to do it. one with wires and circuitry magic and the other with some new dedicated technology like a hopper. with this it would be possible to hack together something that worked temporarily before you research it and can begin planning on where to place things.
its more like managing an existing road network by only adding highways.
more on the idea of a 3d belt factorio...
there could be 3 "elevator" objects (more like spiral staircase) that have internal belts that spiral upwards these are 2x2 objects.
one is a single belt version. the belt starts on the left of the 2x2 spiraling to the right, the other version is right spiraling to the left. these input and output 1 belt.
then you have another version that is a helix with two belts on the inside, one going in each direction. these input and output 2 belts
these can all be stacked again allowing you to have hanging belts like hanging train rails.
of course there would need to be something like scaffolding added to support the belts every few tiles, and the upgraded belts weigh more and require more support more often.
this support would be on the lines between tiles to exist with the current belt sprites.
of course the higher you built it, the more expensive it is...but in this way belts would never take more than 2 spaces for input and output and would be an order of magnitude better than they are currently.
that would be pretty neat
ropeway conveyors would solve the big problems such as belting ammo around the entire perimeter of your factory, as well as repair packs, and would be a good alternative to add to the game leading up to trains. though I still do not think they can replace bots, then can push them farther down the tech tree.
sparr wrote:re "stacked belts"
I would love to see this. Give me a whole new category of belt where each individual "item" moving along the belt can actually be a stack of 2+ items. If an inserter tries to drop an item on top of another item of the same kind, they get stacked. If you pull an item from a stack, the stack gets smaller. This wouldn't just change total throughput, but would allow new and more complex things to be done with "smart" circuit+belt designs, etc.
woo, we are like 4 people now.
huh, thats not actually what I meant by stacked belts, but is still intriguing idea. maybe red belt can handle 2 stacks and blue can handle 3?
we would need a machine we can put onto a belt and organized the stacked resources vertically. this way we can still place things on top of other things, making blue belts go from 6 to 18 items per belt, but the UPS should not be really affected because 3 items hold the same position on the belt.
I meant literally a belt on the ground with a box around it supporting a belt above it so that you have 1 tile but 2 belts. inserters would still be able to grab from both.
stacking higher would require you to merge the top belt to a lower one or just have them be dumped into an assembler. but if the assembler doesn't need that many items per second it would be required to regulate it with a circuit network or a hopper.