Friday Facts #375 - Quality

[pointa2b]

For an added sense of perspective to the devs, this new mechanic received unanimous approval on a poll a couple days ago on the Discord server. Not 80%, not 90%, 100%. Don't get me wrong I think it could use a few small tweaks based on my earlier posts (naming of the tiers, and added mechanics to reprocess/re-roll within the crafter itself at a lower efficiency of resources to get a given quality tier output), but this thread is witnessing a small minority of players who are acting like this ruins the game. Or even worse, like the devs did some kind of injustice to them or their family

All of this dramatic complaining over a "bad expansion" that we currently only know <5% about. Some of you people are acting absolutely ridiculous. Thanks for the entertainment though!

[KuuLightwing]

As you are ultimately arguing on a topic of your original first post, I'll reply to it instead of trying to convince you that it is indeed a proper defense to say it's optional against some delusional players who can't figure out common sense.

1) You don't know what do you want yourself. Anything apart your personal likings will be "bad" and you can't figure out what do you want. Yes, the new system is tiers over tiers and it's fine because building tier system can't be replaced with 0% - 150% quality range, some buildings has to have tiers which represent a higher stat range and/or other mechanics like module insertion. Perfect example is Assembly tier 1-3. It's like a bicycle with a front and back gears, which combine into your bicycle having X * Y gears total, and I don't see any problems with that.
2) You clearly have no idea how Factorio works internally if you ask for this. This will take 2 years of work of artists department alone. Also this is funny how the same people like you cry about "they spent time on making this feature". Yes, very little time compared to complexity and new content this change introduced.
3) Are you really comparing mods to the base game in a topic about a base game? What...?
4) Once again:

P.S. Once again a reminder that even if quality system affects science packs, and if it does the same x2.5 at max quality as in other spots, it is obvious even now that +100% from productivity modules at each intermediate stage will heavily outclass that potential bonus. And the whole quality system usage is going to be revolving around a small portion of the factory, which produces armor, equipment, building materials and modules. Quality is great in things which are made once (for large price) and then used for infinite production of something else - either it's components (produced by machines and their bonuses) or player experience (produced by better equipment).

3) It doesn't matter that you can't get close to 100% quality increase. You use the recycler. Ratios are there essentially just to increase production cost of your item. But things which are made once and used forever like modules/buildings/equipment are always beneficial even if they cost astronomical amounts of resources to make. Because they are just better, increasing UPS, resource consumption efficiency, space usage, player experience, and so on.

5) You are overthinking. You are supposed to use common quality items everywhere, occasionally storing rare ones for later if you wish so.

P.S. 6) is the only valid take.

Quite frankly I wanted to make a more thorough reply, but seeing how you mostly resort to insults and poorly thought-out arguments, I think that wouldn't be worth the effort. You said that you tried discussion and posted arguments, but that's a lie. You came to this thread and started insulting people you disagree with.

[Vector6]

When I started reading this, I was left wondering what they were rambling on about and what this had to do with Factorio, until they explicitly mentioned wanting to introduce MMO loot drops into the game. Yes, there's randomness with uranium, but U-238 and U-235 are completely separate materials with different uses and kovarex smooths out this randomness with very little waste. This, on the other hand, demands you waste extreme amounts of resources just for a small chance to get the best anything - something that's completely antithetical to the game as it is. And there's no hiding behind the "optional feature" shield: not engaging leaves the factory at a blatantly lower level.


I realize they've put plenty of effort into implementing this, but that doesn't make a bad idea good.

For an added sense of perspective to the devs, this new mechanic received unanimous approval on a poll a couple days ago on the Discord server. Not 80%, not 90%, 100%. Don't get me wrong I think it could use a few small tweaks based on my earlier posts (naming of the tiers, and added mechanics to process within the crafter itself at a lower efficiency of resources), but this thread is witnessing a small minority of players who are acting like this ruins the game.

One tiny minority of players doesn't invalidate the rather large amount of criticism this "feature" is receiving from a far broader range of players. There are probably more members of that "small minority" in this thread alone than voted in that poll.

[KuuLightwing]

For an added sense of perspective to the devs, this new mechanic received unanimous approval on a poll a couple days ago on the Discord server. Not 80%, not 90%, 100%. Don't get me wrong I think it could use a few small tweaks based on my earlier posts (naming of the tiers, and added mechanics to reprocess/re-roll within the crafter itself at a lower efficiency of resources to get a given quality tier output), but this thread is witnessing a small minority of players who are acting like this ruins the game. Or even worse, like the devs did some kind of injustice to them or their family

All of this dramatic complaining over a "bad expansion" that we currently only know <5% about. Some of you people are acting absolutely ridiculous. Thanks for the entertainment though!

Considering that this thread at least has some portion of people who don't like this system I would guess that 100% figure just means that the survey might not be entirely accurate. Unless you want to imply that Discord users for some reason are more qualified to make judgement than other factorio players.

[mmmPI]

I guess my main mistake was to seriously try proving to delusional people that they are delusional. Fighting windmills, happens.

Hey sorry if that sound patronizing but please allow me to share a reflexion i had that one time i didn't stop after the official warning from a staff member, (unlike my words that counts for 0 x) ).

If you say to someone that all his rambling is illogical, and shouldn't be taken into consideration for rationnal debate, that's not the same as saying the person is idiot. In the later case it is a personnal attack, like calling people delusionnal is going beyond answering their words (to which you may strongly disagree) to target them as person. It's no surprise if then people try to insult you as a person instead of developping their arguments or listening to yours, and then the debate is lost to the good will people that do not want to intervene in such sided controversial debate , which if one is convinced is right, i think make feel sad.

[IronCartographer]

Optional or not, many people will feel compelled to use the quality system by virtue of the fear of missing out. This whole debate is pitting one irrationality against another: The "excitement" of introducing a slot machine into a deterministic factory game vs. the frustration of dealing with so much random crap that could've been designed more meaningfully.

"Its optional, but actually it mandatory!"

It is optional if you are a casual who just wants to complete the "storyline". It is mandatory if you want to go bigger or more efficient. What's the problem with reading what you've quoted? My post says exactly that. If you dislike the system, okay, you can play without it. Problems?

People are mad because the quality system was designed to be a super exciting experience for everyone but for some it's like sifting through the trash, and that's supposed to be fine because it's "optional" and yet you point out very clearly why it isn't so cut and dry...

It's the same recirculation loop for every refinement process. If you liked sushi belt designs and enjoy the 5x multiplier on items to shuffle around that could be great, but not everyone wants that noise.

Don't invalidate the experiences of others. I've played WoW, I enjoyed its RNG because I went into its various experiences with that expectation. Factorio is a different genre and the expectations are not the same.

If the devs want it to be truly optional, they need to more fully consider what optional can mean. There need to be even more meaningful choices and tradeoffs around this system. Maybe a machine that recirculates ingredients internally but doesn't allow quality modules for the recycling effect. Maybe a deterministic way to upgrade stuff that crafts so slowly people will be waiting significantly longer on average but without the RNG.

The point is: There should be choices--an alternative to the skinner box--a "brain satisfaction tool" that respects the player rather than toying with them.

Quite frankly I wanted to make a more thorough reply, but seeing how you mostly resort to insults and poorly thought-out arguments, I think that wouldn't be worth the effort. You said that you tried discussion and posted arguments, but that's a lie. You came to this thread and started insulting people you disagree with.

The comments of the person you responded to along with most of the thread has sunk incredibly low with invalidation and insults to intelligence which have been let slide. I miss constructive consideration of possibilities for meaningfully increasing the depth and possibility space in the game.

One final note: To the people pointing out selection bias, remember that it has effects both ways. While this thread attracts criticism, there are people who are too exhausted by the idea's seeming finality to post about it, and a poll about whether people like it will be biased by the higher participation of those who are energized rather than turned off by it. I hope its polarization can be mitigated by even more creative design.

[Dfq]

As many others here, I have some concerns about this update.

Most seem to agree that the naming of the different quality levels are in need of changing, as the current naming reflects rarity rather than quality. What is not being discussed as much is that due to the RNG of producing higher "quality" entities, rarity is an appropriate naming of the different levels. If you see an issue with naming based on rarity, why don't you also have an issue with the execution being rarity-based?

One other point raised on both sides (those for and against) is that this is an optional feature. Sure, I can decide to not use it in my factories, but that doesn't mean that I won't be affectee by it. After all, the balancing in the game is done with this feature included, I would expect?

I fear that unless appropriately balanced, most people will either skip this feature entirely or optimize and go for the top tier quality. What about all the qualities in between? I know the recycler can solve it, but if they anyway are recycled do we really need that many tiers of quality? Would'nt 3 or 4 be sufficient?

And as others have already asked: will making an entity with ingredients of quality X guarantee an entity of at least quality X or how is that going to work?

To wrap up my post; I am looking forward to try it out and I hope that my concerns are misplaced. But from the blog post alone I would seriously prefer something less random/more predictable as well as fewer levels of quality.

[pointa2b]

One tiny minority of players doesn't invalidate the rather large amount of criticism this "feature" is receiving from a far broader range of players. There are probably more members of that "small minority" in this thread alone than voted in that poll.

I help small businesses manage reviews for a living (reputation management). The vast majority of people who are happy with a business won't leave a positive review unless prompted or directed to do so. People are much more likely to leave a review if its something they don't like. So on the surface, 90% approval actually means 99.X%+ approval. This is why this thread is largely just noise for the devs.

Don't buy the game if this single mechanic seemingly upsets you so much. Meanwhile the rest of us without self-entitlement issues will enjoy the expansion, and some will avoid the optional feature if they don't like it.

[morsk]

When I started reading this, I was left wondering what they were rambling on about and what this had to do with Factorio, until they explicitly mentioned wanting to introduce MMO loot drops into the game. Yes, there's randomness with uranium, but U-238 and U-235 are completely separate materials with different uses and kovarex smooths out this randomness with very little waste. This, on the other hand, demands you waste extreme amounts of resources just for a small chance to get the best anything - something that's completely antithetical to the game as it is. And there's no hiding behind the "optional feature" shield: not engaging leaves the factory at a blatantly lower level.

I don't think this is really going to happen. I expect we can go up +1 or +2 quality for things that matter, by skimming or looping, but won't be asked to burn huge quantities going +4 like the loop in the FFF. By that time, there will be new smelting methods that start at +1 or something.

It can also be used by mods to offer quality in different ways, instead of always having to be a new recipe that clutters the UIs. So I see it as a general feature that improves all building upgrades, not just RNG modules in vanilla.

[Korvelly]

I think this innovation implies the development of two parallel factories
On one we produce components without using quality modules for science, and on the other we produce components to improve the factory
It turns out that at some stage there must be a separator that will control the flow of basic resources depending on our needs

[XT-248]

A few common questions/misconceptions:

If you don't mind, I have a couple of questions. I don't expect answers to all of my concerns and questions.

• You only produce higher quality items if you use Quality modules
• Output is at least of quality of the input or better when using QM

Make sense.

• If your input is of mixed quality the lowest quality counts, higher items give no benefit

The answer makes sense, and I would have to ensure that everything on the bus belts is of the same quality, adding some complications but not a big deal.

• Higher quality machines do not produce higher quality items

That makes sense since higher-quality machines work faster but still require quality modules to be slotted for better results.

• Fluids are lost when recycling
• Recycling does not work for items produced in furnaces or chem plants

I was wondering if there was a liquid-based recycler or something like that, but at the same time. Mass-producing fluid is so cheap that there is no point in recycling fluid (specifically water and oil-deviated intermediate fluids).

• Different quality items do not stack in inventories

No surprise there.


Can Science packs be of higher quality, or is there a point or benefit in mass-producing science packs with higher-quality material?

If there is no higher-quality science packs, is there any point or benefit in using higher-quality raw input to produce science pack?
Example: quality-1 input will give you one science pack. Quality-5 input will give you extra productivity without using a productivity module.


I don't believe it was indicated one way or another. Can miners use quality modules? Or does the improvement in the quality process start during and/or after smelting?


I suspect the answer to the following few questions is negative across the board, but I will go ahead and ask anyway. Oil Derrick and quality module? Fluid mixing of different fluid quality in pipe/tank?

[gmtom]

Reasons why this is an absolutely awful idea

1. RNG should not be part of the core gameplay loop. Part of what made factorio so good was its deterministic nature. You can figure out exactly what throughput of inputs you need to get a precise amount of output and anyone else that has the same design will get the same output. Its the reason why productivity modules have a progress bar rather than a "X% to get a bonus when you finish an intermediate"

2. Every item having multiple versions with different stats is very confusing. Currently I can pretty easily work out how many assemblers ill need for a project, the ratio between intermediates, what level inserters I need etc. with quality that becomes very difficult. Do you use a common stack inserter or a legendary fast inserter? Do you plan your factory to have uncommon assembling machines and rare modules or rare assemblers and uncommon modules?

3. Makes blueprints more annoying. If you're somone that likes to share blueprints or use other peoples BPs you're going to struggle. Like do you just make the BP with all legendary machines, all default machines, a different blueprint for evert tier (which because they have different stats would be a completely different design) do you spend the time working out where you need a legendary inserter vs an uncommon one? and where you need a medium power pole vs your epic small power pole?

4. The absolute fucking tedium of having to create the same recycler setup for EVERY SINGLE ITEM IN THE FUCKING GAME. I cannot express how much i feel a visceral sense of boredom and frustration just reading about it, knowing that if I want to make legendary robots I need to set up a recycler loop for:

• The bots
  The frames
  Electric Engines
  Normal Engines
  Gears
  Batteries
  Sulphuric acid (I doubt liquids will have qualities right?)
  Sulphur
  Steel Beams
  Red Circuits
  Green Circuits
  Iron Plates
  Plastic Bars
  Copper Cable
  Copper Plates
  and Pipes

And because of the RNG and recycling being a low chance, most of your resources you spend on this will disappear into the ether, for no gain. And from the sounds of it, you might need several of these per factory as you start making uncommon items and then go through the process again to make rare items. I dont want to do that for all the hundreds of items in the game.

5. The "you can just not do the research!" is not a good answer for people who dont like it. Because using high quality items gives you a big advantage. Thats the entire point. So making a big megabase with quality turned off is pointless because you're just making a worse version, like trying to make a megabase with only yellow inserters. Why would you limit yourself like that?


And the worst part is that no matter how much people complain or say its a bad idea, its not going to change more than some balance tweaks and name/icon changes. They have said its the most mature feature and theve been working on it since before 1.1 so there is 0% chance of them scrapping it outright.

[AirForce1]

One tiny minority of players doesn't invalidate the rather large amount of criticism this "feature" is receiving from a far broader range of players. There are probably more members of that "small minority" in this thread alone than voted in that poll.

I help small businesses manage reviews for a living (reputation management). The vast majority of people who are happy with a business won't leave a positive review unless prompted or directed to do so. People are much more likely to leave a review if its something they don't like. So on the surface, 90% approval actually means 99.X%+ approval. This is why this thread is largely just noise for the devs.

Don't buy the game if this single mechanic seemingly upsets you so much. Meanwhile the rest of us without self-entitlement issues will enjoy the expansion, and some will avoid the optional feature if they don't like it.

OMG stop saying that its optional because its not. If you want to build decent endgame factories then you have to use it or you will get huge disadvantage. So no optional!

[MazorNoob]

I guess my main mistake was to seriously try proving to delusional people that they are delusional. Fighting windmills, happens.

I'd still like you to make an effort. Responding to a wall of text with "you're just delusional" is indeed fighting windmills, except you're the windmill. Doubly so for quoting a literal s**tpost as any sort of argument.

Meanwhile the rest of us without self-entitlement issues will enjoy the expansion, and some will avoid the optional feature if they don't like it.

Entitlement would imply demanding something with nothing in return. Here it's not the case, someone's offering a product and if someone doesn't like it they don't buy it.

[sekanz]

I can't wait to play with this new feature! This looks great! Fall 2024 is so far away...

[IronCartographer]

avoid the optional feature if they don't like it.

Coal liquefaction is optional. I'll leave the rest of this thought process up to you.

[pointa2b]

OMG stop saying that its optional because its not. If you want to build decent endgame factories then you have to use it or you will get huge disadvantage. So no optional!

My man, horizontal scaling and all of the other modules/beacon setups still exist. The FFF from a couple days ago says there are still unannounced mechanics/items that further boost productivity, and plus who knows what other stuff the expansion is going to add around this. I've said this a few times, and I'll say it again: we currently know <5% of that the expansion offers, so we're missing huge chunks of greater context for these individual mechanics. Just chill out and see what else is revealed over the next year. And at that point, feel free to have whatever opinions/feedback/grievance you wish.

[IronCartographer]

Just chill out and see what else is revealed over the next year. And at that point, feel free to have whatever opinions/feedback/grievance you wish.

Are you suggesting waiting for it to be finalized before pointing out unintended consequences and possibilities to address them before time runs out on the development cycle?

Let people provide feedback rather than trying to undermine efforts at constructive criticism. There are opportunities for improvement here.

[Pirate_Rance]

I guess my main mistake was to seriously try proving to delusional people that they are delusional. Fighting windmills, happens.

I'd still like you to make an effort. Responding to a wall of text with "you're just delusional" is indeed fighting windmills, except you're the windmill. Doubly so for quoting a literal s**tpost as any sort of argument.

Meanwhile the rest of us without self-entitlement issues will enjoy the expansion, and some will avoid the optional feature if they don't like it.

Entitlement would imply demanding something with nothing in return. Here it's not the case, someone's offering a product and if someone doesn't like it they don't buy it.

No they have demanded it removed so others cannot have it.

[Necronium]

Just chill out and see what else is revealed over the next year. And at that point, feel free to have whatever opinions/feedback/grievance you wish.

Are you suggesting waiting for it to be finalized before pointing out unintended consequences and possibilities to address them before time runs out on the development cycle?

Let people provide feedback rather than trying to undermine efforts at constructive criticism. There are opportunities for improvement here.

we are already 25 pages into a topic and only constructive criticsm that I saw here was when it came to blueprints and visibility of different quality buildings.

Rest is literaly
People have problem with new mechanic cause they are creating problems themselves.