Loader Poll - Trying to get an idea of what the opinions are

[Hexicube]

I've noticed a few differing opinions on loaders, almost unanimous agreement that they're OP but a lot of variety in how they should be fixed. It's a little hard to gauge how much people agree with a given idea, so I've made a poll to consolidate the data for both myself and the devs if they happen to look here.

If possible, I'll try to add extra options that don't fit into the poll.

[Klonan]

Good idea,
Stickied it for everyone to see

And i added a poll option of my own which is an idea i thought might be balanced

[Hexicube]

Good idea,
Stickied it for everyone to see

And i added a poll option of my own which is an idea i thought might be balanced

Thanks, I appreciate the sticky.

Personally, I think going that far with limitations is a bit too far and would severely impact the usefulness of the belt piece. It also doesn't really make sense that it would only be able to unload when it's a loader.

Also, you kind of trashed the old poll replies, but last I checked there were only 3 (and I was one of them).

[sillyfly]

As said before in these forums - polls are not always the best way to get a good idea of the masses' thoughts, and always _always_ have shortcomings. I'm sure ssilk-bot ( whom I appreciate immensely) or someone else can find the post I'm thinking about. It was in another poll, is all I currently remember.

Still, I have voted for the option I most agree with, even though my exact opinion isn't one of the options.

[Melfish]

I think making it only usable for trains is a good option...

Oh wait, you wont have a buffer that way.
Guess there is no use that makes it blatantly OP.

[Hexicube]

Still, I have voted for the option I most agree with, even though my exact opinion isn't one of the options.

You're welcome to elaborate on that option, the poll was mainly to cluster opinions since I saw a lot of repeated statements in the FFF thread.

[sillyfly]

I have posted all of my current opinions in the FFF thread. I think I will take more time to think about it before making any more comments. I'll give the idea more time to mature, and my thoughts as well.

[provet]

I'd like to see the loader as a mod if it isn't implemented or to heavily nerfed (expensive to build, not working with most things etc). If "make them as is but implemented as a mod" were an alternative in the poll i'd taken it.

[kovarex]

I'd like to see the loader as a mod if it isn't implemented or to heavily nerfed (expensive to build, not working with most things etc). If "make them as is but implemented as a mod" were an alternative in the poll i'd taken it.

Yes, there is no reason to not leave them definable but mods even if we decide to not allow them in the full game.

[Zeblote]

It should probably require the same electricity as 10-20 inserters or however many it takes to grab a fully compressed belt.

Lubricant needs pipes and is way too annoying to get to them.

[MeduSalem]

Could the poll be changed to be able to select mulitple options?

Also a link to the Friday Facts in OP wouldn't hurt too, because otherwise I think that some people might not know what the poll actually is about.

[Koder]

Hi, decided to post on here as I have strong feelings about the Loader (I have a strong passion for this game! Thank you for making something so awesome!).

Loader looks extremely OP.

However, currently it seems the current game is a race to robots.

Below are my suggestions if it is implemented:
- Should be a research item of its own, and require late game research (alien science pack, automation 3, logi 3, can't think of others off top of my head etc)
- Should be very expensive to build, require the same amount of electricity, and a constant supply of lubricant (Yes, there needs to be a pipe connection on the sides of these that will consume lubricant). Lubricant already sees a pretty limited use in the game, so this would be perfect.
- It must be used with a train to express belt connection only. This will drive incentive to use trains in the late game instead of a robot army, and forces the use of at least a couple express belts. Chest interaction is a major part of the loader being OP.

TLDR: Train to express belt only, expensive, require pipe connection to lubricant, electricity, late game research/tech

[Zeblote]

Your suggestions just make it completely useless.

[Koder]

Your suggestions just make it completely useless.

I just don't want to see the engineering side of this game trivialized by these loaders. Is there something specific about my suggestions that are too much? Or are all my suggestions too much?

The major game breaker I see is the chest interaction. Make it interact with trains/belts only, and there is potential. Hoping for more players to chime in to this thread.

[MalcolmCooks]

Your suggestions just make it completely useless.

no, actually, restricting use to trains is the only way (imo) that it would be a good idea.

[Koub]

Sadly the poll restricts a lot in the opinion one can express.
I wanted to vote "only from chest to train, and only for raw material (ore/coal/stone)" , which would have the double advantage of :
- limiting seriously its vanilla opness
- adding the mechanic so it can bo modded for whoever wants it

I'd like to see it for example researched via a new branch of Logistics like a "high scale logistics" that would require logistics 3, and would embark all the fast & big scale operations like :
- Boxing/unboxing stuff (level 1)
- Loading/unloading train (level 2)

[torham]

I wanted multiple choices Namely No. 2 + 4

[Hexicube]

Sadly the poll restricts a lot in the opinion one can express.
I wanted to vote "only from chest to train, and only for raw material (ore/coal/stone)" , which would have the double advantage of :
- limiting seriously its vanilla opness
- adding the mechanic so it can bo modded for whoever wants it

I'd like to see it for example researched via a new branch of Logistics like a "high scale logistics" that would require logistics 3, and would embark all the fast & big scale operations like :
- Boxing/unboxing stuff (level 1)
- Loading/unloading train (level 2)

It's my fault for not considering those options, but in my opinion that would be excessively limiting. Why use an unloader on a train when 7 fast inserters can do the job in maybe 20 seconds without needing lubricant?

I wanted multiple choices Namely No. 2 + 4

I'll see if I can set it to 3 choices.
[edit] I think changing the poll will remove existing votes.

[Koub]

Sadly the poll restricts a lot in the opinion one can express.
I wanted to vote "only from chest to train, and only for raw material (ore/coal/stone)" , which would have the double advantage of :
- limiting seriously its vanilla opness
- adding the mechanic so it can bo modded for whoever wants it

I'd like to see it for example researched via a new branch of Logistics like a "high scale logistics" that would require logistics 3, and would embark all the fast & big scale operations like :
- Boxing/unboxing stuff (level 1)
- Loading/unloading train (level 2)

It's my fault for not considering those options, but in my opinion that would be excessively limiting. Why use an unloader on a train when 7 fast inserters can do the job in maybe 20 seconds without needing lubricant?

The lubricant consumption is only something that some people proposed to limit OPness of the (un)loader as it was presented in the FFF. I personnally don't think it is mandatory if the base item is not unbalanced. Just imagine how the hell you'd be able to get lube to your outposts, where it would be mostly needed ?

[Supercheese]

The lubricant consumption is only something that some people proposed to limit OPness of the (un)loader as it was presented in the FFF. I personnally don't think it is mandatory if the base item is not unbalanced. Just imagine how the hell you'd be able to get lube to your outposts, where it would be mostly needed ?

Barrels.