"Free belt system" versus "belt circuit"

[saykhia]

For those who are thinking of putting an upkeep on conveyor belts:

Real-life bulk materials conveyor belts (my day job is to design them) require two things:

1. Drives/motors to get the belt moving.
2. A method to keep the belt in tension, because a slack belt is a useless belt. A typical method is called a "gravity take-up" where a huge mass is hung off a portion of the belt, keeping it perpetually in tension - this is the method for most long conveyors (I have looked at conveyors several kilometers in length tensioned this way). Another method, suitable for short conveyors, is a "screw" type where one end is anchored to a spring (shaped like a screw) to keep it in tension.

I'm not sure if any of this can be translated to a fun gameplay feature (maybe added infrastructure for T2/T3 belts?). But there are many of you out there with greater imagination than myself.

Real-life materials conveyors are also difficult to curve. They typically go in a straight line and discharge into another conveyor (travelling in another direction) when needing to turn a corner. That would not be very fun to have in a game, I think!

[Robbedem]

I would give belts a small elektricity consumption. (more for faster belts).
You can produce elektricity very early in the game, so by the time you need belts, you can make elektricity anyway.

[hoho]

You can produce elektricity very early in the game, so by the time you need belts, you can make elektricity anyway.

What about making the cheapest belt run without any electricity but the longer it is the slower it moves?
You could make effectively longer belts by adding inserters every now and then that would pick stuff up from one and offload on another but it wouldn't probably pay off in terms of power usage/speed/pollution.

[Robbedem]

Well, that would work too, but it requires the implementation of a whole new concept (belts slowing down when longer). That concept would not only have to be coded, but it would also require to be taught to players and having them undersand it.
A simple small elektricity requirement wouldn't need additional coding and would be directly understandable by players.

[Ranakastrasz]

~Most recient existing post of this type.

The big concern i've seen for powered belts is that they are required to run before you have electricity, or something like that.
A solution would be to make t2 and t3 belts require power, but not T1.

[Coolthulhu]

t2 belts needing power could be workable, especially if they transmitted it themselves and their energy requirements were reflected in lower material cost.
It would give an incentive to connect far away mines with t2s instead of double t1s.

If t2 and t3 belts needed power, it would make sense for them to only slow down to t1 speed when it is cut off instead of stopping completely.

[Marconos]

t2 belts needing power could be workable, especially if they transmitted it themselves and their energy requirements were reflected in lower material cost.
It would give an incentive to connect far away mines with t2s instead of double t1s.

If t2 and t3 belts needed power, it would make sense for them to only slow down to t1 speed when it is cut off instead of stopping completely.

Or just make the T1 belts run on coal or steam.

[Coolthulhu]

Or just make the T1 belts run on coal or steam.

Coal belts would require either input points for insertion on the belts (thus tedious and hard to scale), the ability to fuel the entire belt tree at a single point (and possibly remove fuel at any other point) or the ability of belt to spontaneously consume fuels placed on top of it. All of those sound incredibly clunky.

I like the idea of steam belts, as long as they wouldn't be t1 (t1 needs to be accessible and easy to use early on), didn't use current steam engine mechanics (ie. eating hot water) and passed steam like pipes and not only through few localized belt stations. Flow-dependent hydraulic belts could be an amazing feature.
Of course not for t1 "it just works" belts, but still.

[jianadaren1]

Belts shouldn't have any slowdown or length penalty: it doesn't really make sense and it doesn't help the gameplay. Adding motors sounds like a nightmare.

They really just need an electricity cost, but have it so the belts connect to each other so as long as one is powered, all of them are powered. This provides the cost without introducing the headaches associated with attaching an electric network to it.

Some have noted that this would make belts impossible to use pre-electricity. There are two solutions: 1) deal with it - get electricity sooner, or 2) introduce an inefficient, low-power burner-generator.

[Colombo]

Some have noted that this would make belts impossible to use pre-electricity. There are two solutions: 1) deal with it

Or just stop being asshole and deal with current situation.

[DerivePi]

Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong! Instead of powering the belts with electricity, we could use power generated by hamster wheels. Of course we wouldn't use hamsters but the biters are plentiful. Think about it, for level one belts, you need to capture a small biter and place him in a wheel that powers say 20 belts. For the higher level belts you'd need medium and large biters. We'd probably need to feed them though. Now what do biters eat?

For multiplayer, we could introduce biter trading routes... - TIC

[bakkaa]

It is very illogical that the belts dont need some sort of power supply. If belts dont need energy to create a force, they could be used to generate unlimited free energy and coal would be worthless.
I think belt energy consumption should be added to the game, because the fact that it breaks the game logic is very annoying and unaesthetik.
There could be fired belts, which have a small burner port at the beginning of the chain that powers up to 100 belts or so. and normal belts which just need one pole somewhere to power the chain.

Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong! Instead of powering the belts with electricity, we could use power generated by hamster wheels. Of course we wouldn't use hamsters but the biters are plentiful. Think about it, for level one belts, you need to capture a small biter and place him in a wheel that powers say 20 belts. For the higher level belts you'd need medium and large biters. We'd probably need to feed them though. Now what do biters eat?

For multiplayer, we could introduce biter trading routes... - TIC

Very cool idea for a mod.

[Coolthulhu]

Basic belts don't use energy for an extremely good reason: it benefits the gameplay.

Realism is good and all, but unless someone provides a good, workable, usable solution to "free energy belts" that actually adds something to the game, belts will stay free to use.

Free energy belts aren't perfect, but they are the best proposed so far.

[bakkaa]

Basic belts don't use energy for an extremely good reason: it benefits the gameplay.

I can't see how my suggestions would worsen the gameplay. If the player has no electricity it would be no big deal to put some wood or coal in only one fired belt to power a whole chain of many belt segments. And if the player has electricity it would hardly be noticed, that the belts use energy at all. Of course it requires a bit of balancing, but it would make the game even nicer.

[DerivePi]

I can't see how my suggestions would worsen the gameplay.

It is indeed a question about gameplay. Currently, I enjoy focusing on the organization of production and modular expansion. If some power requirement were added, I would need it to change how I play the game in a positive way. Currently, the electric distribution system is more of a hassle that gets in the way of fun. It rarely impacts my design and it doesn't become "fun" until I use it for circuits and switching systems on and off.

To add a power requirement to the belts would just be more tedium. It would take away from what I enjoy, organizing a tight modular factory, and add a modicum of realism.

A goal of encouraging the use of railroads over belts for long distance is a good goal, but I think there are other answers that work better.

[Coolthulhu]

If the player has no electricity it would be no big deal to put some wood or coal in only one fired belt to power a whole chain of many belt segments.

It would be no big deal to not put that wood and have it run on magic instead.
Basically, you trade some lack of realism for tedium. Yet another menu to open, more "manual inserter" work, more "oh fuck I forgot", just for some pseudo-realism (steam engines are big and bulky, too big to drive belts - for actual realism burner belts would need liquid/gas fuel).

[bakkaa]

it isnt the realism that bothers me. it is just the fact, that the belts dont need energy at all. why do the other machines need energy then? and you can not tell me that it would be annoying to put some wood in an early small belt system what you just need to do once. you have electricity very early and you even dont need to build belts befor that. and when you have electricity the belts would run by that, so you wouldnt have to put something into the belts. it would be ok if the belts need just a very very small amount of energy. but free energy ruins the concept of the game. it just seems not right.

[Colombo]

So, there should be drastic changes in early gameplay because you "have a bad feeling"? Seriously?

[Sander Buruma]

I think a simple solution would be to make it so that one part of the belt must be powered and that from there every other connected part of that belt is also energized. Every belt part becomes a transmission line to power directly connected belts, without becoming a transmission line to non-belt structures.

Some people enjoy realism, believe it or not. Having a bad feeling is bad, that is pretty much a reason to improve a game if enough players have bad feelings about something.

[ssilk]

Exactly this and the whole discussion has been already made now in the third iteration. Ok, this is the biggest.

Result of the previous: it doesn't bring anything new, any advantage into the gameplay.

That doesn't mean, that me, the big ssilk, says "it won't gonna happen". But, when I calculate the amount of work, that must be put into it, to make that working in some way, then if me would be a developer, I would see only one answers: not worth the afford.