Survey: How do YOU feel about FFF #309 opinions?

[Brambor]

Hello there,
I wanted to make a survey to see what the player base thinks. Just make it was the quickest option.
Read #FFF 309

so there we go:
Actually, I cannot make a poll, I do not have the permission on factorio forums, so I created an account to make this one:
The Poll

EDIT: I don't know whether I was always able to make the pool. After 88 votes on The Poll^^ I am adding a Factorio Forums pool as well. Feel free to revote here. Once again, sorry for the graphics.

[Brambor]

I would like options Yes/No/I don't care.

But I think this is good enough :/

[5thHorseman]

Huh. It was only when I saw them in a list like that that I realized I only actually agree with the last two.

There are also a couple I don't really have a strong opinion on, like adventure mode and how liquids work.

[PTTG]

Why are people against inserters being more reliable and precise? And more computationally efficient?

And for all the complaints about bots being overpowered, you'd think more people would like the possibility of making them mechanically balanced.

[Oktokolo]

Why are people against inserters being more reliable and precise? And more computationally efficient?

There is some fear, that inserters would become statically animated like assemblers. Currently they show a lot of vatiety wich makes the game feel more organic.

[foamy]

With the bots, at the very least, put them in a queue on arrival at source and destination for delivery of items, just like is currently done for charging. I'm okay with them not having collision elsewhere.

I'd also like it if, concurrently with that, construction bots could lay down multiple things at once. Didn't think of it as a high priority until I started trying to lay masses of concrete and landfill, but once I did, oof.

[Koub]

I really feel we're restarting here the discussions that take place in the FFF thread. Should I merge both ?

[DerGraue]

I really feel we're restarting here the discussions that take place in the FFF thread. Should I merge both ?

No, please don't! If this thread was a post in the FFF thread I would not see it and I assume most people here on the forums do not read every post in there.

You don't always increase readability and accessibility by merging everything into a mega thread that is just remotely a similar topic.

[evopwr]

I am quite surprised by the Poll Results. None over 15%? Really? I expected at least one of the ~10 to be over 50% or at least close to it.
I actually question the validity of the poll results now.

[Oktokolo]

I am quite surprised by the Poll Results. None over 15%? Really?

Well, that options are controversial...
But i would have expected the "Give contained materials (including currently processing ones) back on deconstruction" to be a no-brainer "yes" too.

Most players probably don't really care much about that (me too, because i made myself a perfect and absolutely awesome Kovarex blueprint wich i always use and other materials aren't relevant enough to even remotely bother).
I only voted yes because it would be the right behaviour - the majority might be concerned about wasting developer time on unneeded functionality though.
All other options do cost much more developer time and change the feeling or difficulty of the game more (item weights) or less (inserter behaviour).

And having a lot of obvious bullshit options (like axing the blueprint library or making turret creep mandatory for most players by axing SMG autoaim) in the poll, might also bias the less bullshitty options towards negative infinity just because they are in the same list.
I would not be surprised if some options would have got a majority vote if they would have been presented in their own FFF without their bad cousins.

[Koub]

I am quite surprised by the Poll Results. None over 15%? Really? I expected at least one of the ~10 to be over 50% or at least close to it.
I actually question the validity of the poll results now.

The way the poll is made, you only get those yo are very much in favor of one of the changes.
But you can't tell apart those who would say "No, never, please die" and those who would say "meh, whatever, don't care".

[Brambor]

I am quite surprised by the Poll Results. None over 15%? Really? I expected at least one of the ~10 to be over 50% or at least close to it.
I actually question the validity of the poll results now.

Actually the percentages and visual representation of votes is horrible. The results are visualy and percentage-wise divided by number of selections.

To get the true results one must divide number of votes on particular answer by total number of votes.

I am sorry for lazyness, for not loking for better tool. Perhaps the moderators will allow surveys for general public so we don’t need to result to third party software as I did

[5thHorseman]

Yeah Ideally it'd be something like

Code: Select all

TOPIC                 Add it!    No Opinion       Don't Add It!
Miners need inserters   []            []               []
...etc

And the poll should know enough to only allow one box per line to be checked, and require all lines to have a check before allowing submission.

[Koub]

Perhaps the moderators will allow surveys for general public so we don’t need to result to third party software as I did

I've seen many polls created by not-moderators on this forum .

This way

2019-08-28 08_11_44-Window.jpg (68.76 KiB) Viewed 7213 times

But they are simple polls, the same structure as the one in the OP :

Poll options

2019-08-28 08_15_23-Window.jpg (32.29 KiB) Viewed 7213 times

[vedrit]

Maybe a Google survey or something would have worked better, with a link for people to see the results?

[Optera]

Among the few polls in general discussion to offer insight in what players actually think of dev ideas.

I'd reword most of those options to get rid of negations. "DON'T WANT: Inserters should not chase items" = "WANT: Inserters should chase items"

[Brambor]

Among the few polls in general discussion to actually offer insight in what players actually think of dev ideas.

I'd reword most of those options to get rid of negations. "DON'T WANT: Inserters should not chase items" = "WANT: Inserters should chase items"

I made it this way so that the sentence stays the same as it was in the FFF and to always keep the wording of the question same to ease the voting.

Btw. my Grammarly add-on suggests your phrasing to be like so:

Among the few polls in general discussion to offer insight on what players think of dev ideas.

[Light]

Maybe a Google survey or something would have worked better, with a link for people to see the results?

There's an option to see the results next to the vote button.

The results thus far have been what I've expected, though the one with bots was a bit of a surprise given the near equal result for both choices.

[vedrit]

Maybe a Google survey or something would have worked better, with a link for people to see the results?

There's an option to see the results next to the vote button.

The results thus far have been what I've expected, though the one with bots was a bit of a surprise given the near equal result for both choices.

I know that you can see the results here, but formatting of the poll doesn't really give a good quick view of how people feel

[b_d]

i thought this was referring to Space in the Inventory slot and should occupy the SUIT SLOT instead or the Deprecated Separate inventory like the ToolBelt. Only bots in the Toolbelt are the only ones Active. and not touch ones in the Inventory bag.

And Time to assemble things instead of dropping items? a mod to change Construction time or Auto Drop Items close by on an assigned blueprints.

Reducing size of bots and Queuing max 4~6 Bots in one square.