Factorio Forums

The problem is, I think the developers have locked themselves into a certain set of belt parts, and refuse to add any more (even when it would be a good idea) because they are too tired of "please add OP belt machine" suggestions. So when a good suggestion comes along they refuse to consider it.

Wouldn't surprise me.
Once you get a stream of bad ideas, it can become difficult to even want to read any ideas even similar to the rest of them, even if one of them is a good one.

I'm not really annoyed with the way it is (which is odd because I'm usually rather obsessive about such things), but I agree that this constitutes essential core functionality that currently is only possible in the game because of what is effectively an exploit.

This functionality absolutely should be implemented as its own object, and underground belts should probably be reconfigured to block both lanes.

The simplest way I can think of would be a single-square conveyor belt that runs in opposite directions in each half of the square, so you could simply side-load a regular belt onto it, and create a T-junction.
Thusly: That could be a hugely useful basic compenent that would probably have all sorts of interesting alternate uses too.

It would also have the benefit of being usable as a drop-in-replacement for the current underground belt exploit in a lot cases.

I love underground's splitting- it's a lovely bug I hope to be overlooked for a long time to come

brunzenstein wrote:I love underground's splitting- it's a lovely bug I hope to be overlooked for a long time to come

But would you mind if it was replaced with a dedicated piece that did exactly the same thing, looked better, and had additional uses? I would never suggest getting rid of the "bug" without first providing the same functionality using a different item.

I love seeing people thinking outside the box, coming up with ways to use things in unintended ways. ug belt lane splitting, magic splitters, abusing integer overflow on combinator logic and so on.
Adding dedicated entities for each such unintended functionality not only clutters inventory with rarely used items, it also takes out incentive for experimenting.

Optera wrote:I love seeing people thinking outside the box, coming up with ways to use things in unintended ways. ug belt lane splitting, magic splitters, abusing integer overflow on combinator logic and so on.
Adding dedicated entities for each such unintended functionality not only clutters inventory with rarely used items, it also takes out incentive for experimenting.

No reason why you can't just have it a setting on Conveyerbelts or Splitters. As in, Like circuit settings.

Optera wrote:I love seeing people thinking outside the box, coming up with ways to use things in unintended ways. ug belt lane splitting, magic splitters, abusing integer overflow on combinator logic and so on.
Adding dedicated entities for each such unintended functionality not only clutters inventory with rarely used items, it also takes out incentive for experimenting.

In general, I'd agree, but this really doesn't feel like introducing myriad minor-use item clutter... it feels like a very basic element that the game needs to provide. As I suggested above, it could be implemented using a single 1x1 generic item, which would fit in with the existing simplicity of the belt-laying system (moreso than the current exploit). That item wouldn't be a niche-use item, it would be useful in all sorts of the exact kind of experimentation you're suggesting is so important to the game.

True enough. You just need a tiny 1x1 entity that you place on top of a belt. It can be "Rotated" to block the left/right side of the belt (or top/bottom).

Easier if you could just take a splitter and customize how it splits, but w.e.

I got to thinking about "smart splitters" and realized that they would be very OP. I really like the single tile "split belt" idea though, simple and logical.

EDIT: Ever notice how even people in favor of leaving things alone refer to it as a bug?

milo christiansen wrote:I got to thinking about "smart splitters" and realized that they would be very OP. I really like the single tile "split belt" idea though, simple and logical.

EDIT: Ever notice how even people in favor of leaving things alone refer to it as a bug?

I learned to love some "bugs" dearly

milo christiansen wrote:Ever notice how even people in favor of leaving things alone refer to it as a bug?

I am in favor of leaving this as it is and do not refer to it as a bug.

You can play and win the game without ever splitting belt lanes. One of the nice thing about factorio is trying to solve logistic problems with the small number of tools available. Many players don't even know that underground belts work this way, it's like an easter egg a way to impress others with inferior factorio knowledge

Optera wrote:Adding dedicated entities for each such unintended functionality not only clutters inventory with rarely used items, it also takes out incentive for experimenting.

Exactly, every item adds some clutter, it is hard enough now to pick out the thing you want from inventory or find it in the crafting menus. I only have 20 slots on my toolbelt, already three of them are taken up just with splitters, ug and belt. I don't have space for a fourth belt-related thing, I have other stuff to put there.

How often would you realisticly use such a belt piece? 10 times in a 1 rocket a minute base? And it's already possible to do by using 1-6 additional tiles. The additional clutter introduced would outweigh the benefits imo.

mergele wrote:How often would you realisticly use such a belt piece? 10 times in a 1 rocket a minute base? And it's already possible to do by using 1-6 additional tiles. The additional clutter introduced would outweigh the benefits imo.

Personally, I would use it constantly in compact lane-balancer designs, which if it was implemented as the simple t-junction belt piece I mention above, could be made smaller and more elegant.

I really don't understand the "it would add clutter" argument. As I said before, normally I'd agree for fussy, single-use items. But this would be a simple, general-use item that would fit perfectly with the current toolset rather than confuse it, and would create more emergent possibilities for people to experiment with, which seems entirely in keeping with the spirit of the game. I really can't see a downside. If you would personally only use 10 of them in a game, don't reserve a toolbar slot for them! - Still no downside.

mergele wrote:How often would you realisticly use such a belt piece? 10 times in a 1 rocket a minute base? And it's already possible to do by using 1-6 additional tiles. The additional clutter introduced would outweigh the benefits imo.

It would also be a simpler and more compact drop-in replacement for the double-splitter feed you see people do in early furnace setups. Run a belt of ore into one of the input sides, a belt of fuel into the other, and get two half-ore half-fuel belts out.

Koub wrote:The real question is : why do you mix two different ressources on the same belt if you want to separate them later ?

To save room for aesthetic reasons. Also, increased complexity is always nice. It is practical especially in heavily modded games with hundreds of items.

And the subsidiary question is : why would you need a lane splitter, when you have means to do it with filter inserters ?

It is somewhat complicated to separate full lane capacity by inserters. And again, it looks like an ugly hack.

A lane splitter would be an additional convenience, but is by no means mandatory.

Exactly. I have both opinions. On the other hand, I like technical complexity and imperfections, like underground hack, but on the other hand I like clean and aesthetic systems. Maybe it would be a good trade off if you (devs) gave a possibility to make smart, small and very CPU effective belt handling entities with mods. I am not sure if there already are suitable mods. For example, in my opinion Bob's versatile inserters work excellently with complex logistics of his mods, but limits of vanilla inserters give nice additional challenge in simpler vanilla game.

According to the devs, it's not a gameplay bug. But why don't they fix the graphic then? Is it intended to make it a hidden feature (glitch / easter egg), or do they plan to fix it someday?
It's hard to believe that it's an intended behavior. To me, it looks more like a fun glitch they decided to not fix.
Some people prefer to play games without using exploits/glitchs because if they do, they feel like cheating.

FasterJump wrote:According to the devs, it's not a gameplay bug. But why don't they fix the graphic then?

That is by far the best point I've seen in this thread. If the feature is here to stay, the underground belt hood should be half-open.