In support of twinsen and open/polite debate

[Zavian]

Been there done that. For a typical game, prior to launching a satellite I only use logistics bots for resupplying the player and sometimes low volume constructions. (eg radars. But if I'm I playing a strict no logistics bots build, then I'll either route a belt, or handcraft the few radars I want before launching the satellite).

Even on my 0.16 map which is long past past launching its first rocket, the only part of science production that uses bots is radar and satellite production. It just wasn't worth routing belts to make a satellite, when I already had logistics bots moving solar panels, accumulators and radars to a solar train. Solar panels, accumulators, low density and rocket fuel are all built using belts, but radar is low volume enough that I couldn't be bothered to set that up using belt based production. (Iron plates, gears, and green circuits were already all available in chests, since they are something I have a permanent logistics request for).

[anarcobra]

Part of understanding which side of a debate is more or less correct is understanding both sides.

Every single pro-bot player uses the same arguments. Quantity of bots per roboport, research level, power usage, initial investment, ups, fun. I don't see a single such person conceding a single point. In fact, pro-bot players like to point out many of its advantages, such as inherent sorting and buffer space, no collision detection, or infinite research, as weak or obligatory.

This is the only reason I regard the pro-bot side as wrong. Your defense is petty. You literally do not concede any points without requiring an equal opposing concession. You fail to understand why belts are disadvantaged. I don't actually care whether the arguments you're making are right or wrong. If you were any proper defender, you'd be pointing out which parts of bots and roboports should change or stay the same. Not making stupid kiddie arguments like "You don't know me."

We concede that bots are stronger. How is that wrong? We just believe that they should be stronger, or that if you want belts stronger, then buff belts.

[oracleofepirus]

Yes, it's OP, and with it, endgame content is less of a challenge. But that's normal : it's the endgame content. Logibots and logistic network are endgame content. If they were less powerful than the belts or on par with the belts, it would be unfair.

Since bots are a late game item, they should to be superior to early and mid-game items (belts and trains) in at least some aspects.

We concede that bots are stronger. How is that wrong? We just believe that they should be stronger..

One of the repeated defenses of pro-bot players is that no one has the right to tell them how to play the game.

Who are you to say that your playstyle is supposed to beat other playstyles? Who are you to say that it would be unfair for another playstyle to be considered equal to yours? People do not go around saying poor people deserve to be poor, so why do you go around saying that your playstyle deserves to be the best?

[PaszaVonPomiot]

I was shocked to see post that said that Twisten should be fired and then there was another saying that he should apologise for what he wrote. What worries me the most is that he clearly stated that bots will not be removed yet some players took it personaly and started attacking our dev. I wish some players did a reality check and understand that most dev don't ask players for their opinion, they just don't. Twisten gave us an idea (in it's own way) and asked for our opinions - that's all there was. What else could you expect from great dev? Has the catchy title in FFF made you angry? I mean come on! Let's be grown ups and don't let the silly things hurt your feelings. I feel that devs are treating their community very well - they provide regular updates, they gave us modding platform, they ask our opinions and suggestions and that's all I could ask for. So when I see what haters write I feel ashamed.
Hence the appeal - Stop the drama... and keep automating.
Peace.