Friday Facts #375 - Quality

[NeveHanter]

I've had initially mixed feelings for this, but now I see so many possibilities that could be supported by game's API.
I'm very curious how it plays and what possibilities will we get with future mods using this quality feature

I hope everything from this feature will be moddable, for example we could get:
- more qualities,
- have custom stats that could enable genetic breeding of creatures and plants from Pyanodons or Bob's (maybe something akin to Forestry's bees or IC2 from Minecraft) so we could breed the plant with best stats, etc.

[JKv1]

In process engineering there are also often circular processes in which the degree of purity of a substance is increased. The reduction of the impurity of the desired substance is therefore the goal of many real processes. A multistage chemical reactor in continuous or batch operation always has a product quality and energy efficiency. That is what I would have liked to see at this point.

When I think of quality, I think of a lot of things, but not necessarily these features announced here. Simply coloring a text purple, changing a few numbers and then thinking that changes the immersion or improves the gameplay has always been a wrong idea.

Especially considering that their process of refinement (recycling) is only 25% efficient. Meaning your burning resources you put in energy (which you built) to get out of the ground, and processed to become a final product. All that for a portion of what you started with. Why even bother with Prod modules if your just burning most of it anyway? They say they've balanced the 25% return with 300% max prod OR somehow we're cheating the system, but I'm assuming that that is napkin math rather than an educated guess.

[kirkbauer]

I don't understand the people who are upset about this feature. The original post made it clear that this is optional. If you don't like it, don't use it. Nothing prevents you from ignoring quality and playing just like you did before.

Personally, I love the idea, and although I don't despise the names as many people do, I think better names would be, well, better. I always wondered why uranium processing was the only thing in Factorio with any randomness!

Here is what I'm definitely going to do: for my personal equipment (e.g. armor), I'm definitely going to automate a quality-refinement process. It's cool because I have never automated the build of my armor before, because I only need to build one. So it's something new to automate throughout the game.

Per the article's suggestion, I could see myself collecting higher-quality resources to be used for my initial space platform components. But I don't see myself worrying about quality for everything. Just for key items.

[kirkbauer]

People sure are overreacting over optional content. My first thought was also that this was some out-of-season April Fool's joke, but after some thought, the quality system is similar to production modules and beacon spamming. I've seen plenty of players who still don't use production modules and beacons to a great degree even though they provide a significant advantage. The same could be said here. Items tagged with quality will only enter your factory if you let it enter your factory, otherwise, it's just extra content to further min-max factory designs in the endgame.

Agreed! I'm probably not going to use beacons in my current playthrough because I don't like how they mess up my layouts. So people can do the same thing with quality.

Also, I think most people will be very selective on when they worry about quality, if they worry about it at all. Like your Power Armor.

[RocketManChronicles]

I love this! This adds a whole new level of the late-game. Like stated in the FFF, the end-game is all about horizontal expansion; this makes there be some level of verticality to the end-game. And with that, to have a factory filled with a lot of high quality production along with a substantial recycling loop justifies the vast horizontal expansion I tend to have hundreds of hours into each run.

[JKv1]

I don't understand the people who are upset about this feature. The original post made it clear that this is optional. If you don't like it, don't use it. Nothing prevents you from ignoring quality and playing just like you did before.

Personally, I love the idea, and although I don't despise the names as many people do, I think better names would be, well, better. I always wondered why uranium processing was the only thing in Factorio with any randomness!

Here is what I'm definitely going to do: for my personal equipment (e.g. armor), I'm definitely going to automate a quality-refinement process. It's cool because I have never automated the build of my armor before, because I only need to build one. So it's something new to automate throughout the game.

Per the article's suggestion, I could see myself collecting higher-quality resources to be used for my initial space platform components. But I don't see myself worrying about quality for everything. Just for key items.

Quite upsetting to me that the optional challenge is optimizing a random number generator, but I've decided that the challenge is stupid and mod out the trash and guarantee legendaries instead. Happy as happy can be!

[DemRat]

I really like the potential for fun puzzles with the recyclers and quality levels, it introduces a new kind of setup that I am looking forward to.

My biggest fear is choice paralysis. Should I sort out the odd Legendary circuit for later use? Should I gun for high quality immediately? What should I build the loop for first? Once I do produce Legendary prod3 modules at a snails pace, where do I use them? It feels like those questions are too many, concentrated in too small a system.

I think it'll lead to a similar experience as I already have with modules, where I don't really want to deal with going through all 3 levels as upgrading piece by piece seems like a pain, and just going for tier3 feels like it should be the most efficient strategy (it probably isnt), so I go for those immediately.

Essentially, with all rarities being a possibility right from the start (of unlocking the system), I feel like I won't be able to decide what rarity to aim for and how to use the output, leading to a wall of choice paralysis.

Additionally, I will most definitely constantly check if a legendary dropped, and it will eat a lot of time, motivation and focus thanks to the gambling nature of it.

[XT-248]

I understand what WUBE is trying to do from the Horizontal vs. Vertical growth point of view. However, I do have mixed feelings on some mechanics.


I would advocate NOT using "Normal, Uncommon, Rare, Epic, and Legendary" labels as if Factorio is a Role-playing video game—especially the colorized dots from grey to green to blue to purple and orange.
I don't have a suggestion for replacing those labels/colors/dots.

A higher quality product that does better than a base quality concept and mechanics is something I can learn to like and love.


Quality Modules increase the chance/odd of better quality products as mechanics are interesting. I need to play Space Age with Quality Module to grasp it better if I like it as it is.


I absolutely adore and love the Recycler. Finally, a reason not to launch a rocket full of obsolete devices/buildings that I can not break down into raw material or re-craft into something else better.

There needs to be some tweaking/rebalance at first impression, as recycling back for at most 25% of the material seems extreme. I suggest tweaking the productivity module to have a lower effect and raising the Recycler's yield, which will retain the spirit of the Recycler not yielding more material than you put into it.



I have a question about the animated recycler screenshot, and I may not get an answer, which is fine.

Everything is quality-5, but the quality-5 assembler on the bottom right with an ALT mode image of a quality-5 green circuit doesn't have any quality modules. Why is that?

To be more specific, can't the quality-5 assembler with the recipe for quality-5 take in quality-4 products and use quality modules for a chance at a quality-5 end product? Or is it restricted to only quality-5 inputs to ensure a quality-5 end product?

[Atraps003]

Factorio largely centers around consistency, particularly for blueprints.

Sure. For brainless noobs that only know how to play the game by filling in someone else's main bus blueprint.

[KoblerMan]

People are way too upset about this quality feature, but are forgetting that it's an optional mechanic. If you don't like it, you don't have to do it.

I was skeptical when I first started reading, but I warmed up to the idea pretty quickly. I for one really like it. I think quality is an awesome way to introduce another fun layer of complexity to the game. As you mentioned in your post, once you scale things up, percentages become more of a statistic than RNG. We already have that for nuclear power. But nobody says you have to do nuclear power in the first place either, almost everyone I play with ignores nuclear and goes straight from steam to solar. I find nuclear power to be a fun challenge that pays off, and that's why I enjoy doing it.

Quality can be ignored too, but investing in it pays off, both in terms of utility and UPS. The fewer machines you have in your factory, the smaller your UPS footprint is. This is crucial for endgame and megabase setups, and it's apparently underappreciated by people who don't like this new system. Having a vanilla mechanic that you can leverage to decrease the UPS cost of your factory is a win-win. Yes, please!

I'm conflicted on the current naming convention, as other people in the thread have pointed out. On one hand, I agree, the prefix should probably be changed to be more immersive as an in-universe thing. On the other hand, I agree that the translation might be more difficult if this changes. Also, even if the names seem too RPG-like, at the very least they're easier to quantify than "crude/nominal/exceptional/pristine/etc." in my opinion. Games that have unique names for every quality of item are confusing, because the prefixes are more ambiguous and it can be harder to tell which one is better if you're comparing two things of similar quality. Rimworld is a good example of how confusing this can get. I think a nice compromise would be what one of the other people said, using Q(N) to display quality, like "Q1/Q2/Q3/etc." since numbered tiers are easy and universal.

Looking forward to getting my hands on the new quality system so that I can see for myself how fun it is. I always like new logistical challenges in the game, which is one of my favorite things about the Space Exploration mod. If you're in here nixing the idea, consider trying it first, or just don't do it in the first place since it's entirely optional. I would imagine people might change their mind if they see some popular YouTuber implement quality farms in their factory and see how powerful the difference is.

[Keepeas]

This addition sounds fun and I’m glad it’s optional like Modules/beacons.

I think the community reaction is a bit over the top on this one. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills because I’m having a hard time seeing why people are having such a negative reaction.
The quality naming scheme is so well established in all of gaming that I think it’s a good choice. I’m always upset when a game feels they have to reinvent the wheel, however this is such a small choice that it could be modded easily.

Loot box naming scheme?
Lootboxes stole that naming from older non-exploitive games

Random chance doesn’t belong?
The Korvax enrichment cycle is random chance and adds some optional variety to the game play.

I hope the devs are able to see past the very vocal initial reaction. I made an account just to post on this topic, been lurking for years and this is the first time I hard disagree with the community.

[Smallsplat]

I love the concept, I think the thing that scares me the MOST about this is the word "probability"

When I think "% chance to obtain a byproduct," I think Factorio modding. Vanilla Factorio is very cut and dry. Put in X, get out Y. The only place that adjusts output is production modules, and even they are set in stone when they activate. The idea that getting high-quality goods, which is going to be the end goal of long-term factories, will make chance-filter-machines mandatory which sounds frustrating at worst and "why would I bother" at best. Especially when this isn't just end-products but intermediary ones too meaning the steps to make a T3 Legendary quality crafter a visual nightmare. it would be, what, 10+ reclycing steps?

I understand that the post says multiple times that "using it is completely optional." And, while this is designed to calm people like me, to me I think it's missing the idea of what vanilla Factorio deems as "optional". Optional things in Factorio to me are "What power generator do I use?" or "What turrets do I have available?" or "How should I make my factory this time?" or "Coal Liquefaction or Liquid management?" or even "Do I use Modules this playthrough?" where using one thing over another produces the same results, just at different costs, speeds and efficiencies.

This roulette wheel seems to be the only way to make objectively better items. Faster inserters? Faster crafters? Wider power poles? All the amazing upgrades that I want!100% productivity? In this economy!? 100% more rocket for your rockets (or whatever the resource syncs will be) is considered "optional"!? Doubling ANY Intermediary at EVERY step in the production process? Any base even considering a post-game would seek this immediately and it sounds like a logistical nightmare.

Also, the fact that speed modules lower crafting quality makes this feel even weirder from a theory perspective as it implies quality isn't even intended for when beacons enter the game. I feel like we're looking at an end-game where factories have one corner of their base where they "deal with" the quality mechanic for their Malls and Modules, and then abuse the new upgrades with common-quality science blocks (especially as they are notably absent from the quality list despite being the goal of the game, and, if they do have a bonus, has to beat out 100% productivity!?)

I'm undecided. I'm still very excited for the expansion but this feels like a "go in the corner and craft me my max level gear and I'll forget about you until it's done" mechanic more than a new way to experiance the game.

[MazorNoob]

People are way too upset about this quality feature, but are forgetting that it's an optional mechanic. If you don't like it, you don't have to do it.

Except it's an opportunity cost in terms of game features. They spend a bunch of time adding an optional feature I won't be using instead of spending that same amount of time adding another feature that I would.

[toman]

Radars have larger reveal ranges.

This is pushing the limits. Currently radar reveals to 14, and players generate 20 chunks into the black area, slowly. It leaves 0-6 chunks of black, depending on how much time the player spends on the edges of the factory. Most people think "about 3 chunks" is some kind of mechanic, and don't know how it works.

Legendary Radar will be revealing to 18, leaving only 0-2 chunks of black. It's always been possible to exploit this on purpose, and you can be silly by using Spidertrons or Artillery for exploration since they generate only what they reveal, unlike a player. But the smaller the margins are, the more likely people start hitting it accidentally at large scales.

I believe the people smart enough to abuse chunk generation mechanics are also smart enough not to put top-quality radars in places where it confuses them

[toman]

I don't understand this part: "the legendary items are 56 times more expensive than normal items".
Isn't it the case, that (with 300% productivity recycling) the material cost is the same and you just use more time and electricity?

In the setup in the picture, there's no productivity, only chance modules.

[KoblerMan]

People are way too upset about this quality feature, but are forgetting that it's an optional mechanic. If you don't like it, you don't have to do it.

Except it's an opportunity cost in terms of game features. They spend a bunch of time adding an optional feature I won't be using instead of spending that same amount of time adding another feature that I would.

I disagree with this mentality. You can talk about opportunity cost all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Wube is going to do whatever they see fit with their game. I'm not saying they're perfect in their decision making, since there are aspects about the game that I don't like, such as locking away the research queue behind some arbitrary hoops to jump through, or making the rear locomotives on double-headed trains not contribute power causing speed and fuel inefficiencies. At least with this new feature, it's opt-in so you aren't stuck playing the game only one way.

In one of the previous two FFFs, Wube explained that "everything will be done eventually". So regardless of time, there is no opportunity cost, since new features will keep getting added anyway.

[Gergely]

Factorio largely centers around consistency, particularly for blueprints.

Sure. For brainless noobs that only know how to play the game by filling in someone else's main bus blueprint.

Well a big part of the game is blueprinting your own designs.

[juh9870]

People are way too upset about this quality feature, but are forgetting that it's an optional mechanic. If you don't like it, you don't have to do it.

Sadly, there is no such thing as an "optional mechanic". Sure, a casual player may ignore it, but they may also ignore modules and beacons. If you want your factory to at least resemble something optimized, you MUST use everything at your disposal, and otherwise it's crippling yourself. So this will lead to me (and many other players) being forced to set up an RNG loop for all items of any significance, even if we don't like it. Optimizing the factory is a major part of enjoying Factorio experience, and when the only new way to push the boundaries is to do RNG grind, then enjoyment drops drastically.

The only way I can see this working is being a world creation option that people can turn on or off, like research queue or worldgen options.

[GrandMasterB]

People are way too upset about this quality feature, but are forgetting that it's an optional mechanic. If you don't like it, you don't have to do it.

Except it's an opportunity cost in terms of game features. They spend a bunch of time adding an optional feature I won't be using instead of spending that same amount of time adding another feature that I would.

Worse. I would like to have a good implementation of Degrees of quality. And they certainly won't implement two optional mechanics to account for quality.

[__Sirius__]

I don't like the change.

First of all, I don't like the randomness. It doesn't fit in the game. The normal upgrading system is totally fine as it is. Also, it could happen, that a Asemmbling Machine 1 is better then a Tier 2 because of the quality.

Also, it will bring the problem that your Inventory will be filled up very quickly if the higher quality stuff requires an extra inventory slot. For Example, if you have 30 normal and 20 uncommen steel furnances with you, it'll take 2 inventory slots instead of the normal 1 (I'm assuming here that 50 is the stack size of steel furnances).

Also, Bots will have a problem with this. If you for example build a 50 steel furnance (I know, not optimal) furnance stack and you have the furnances as in the previous segment, then your bots will only build a part of it and you'll have to place the remaining 20 furnances yourself without your bots. Even worse is this for something like inserters, when you'll have to place them yourself. This can get even more annoying if you consider the randomness of in which order bots place stuff. You don't know when you've got all the inserters placed.

Long story short, I think, this doesn't belong in the game at all!