Friday Facts #376 - Research and Technology

[Tricorius]

I feel like you haven't read the posts you've replied to. Both examples we had were just a recycle loop on a single product. Concern is about implementing incremental quality increase through production chain utilizing quality at intermediate steps, as this is likely to be more resource-efficient than recycle looping the final product.

I feel like if you go back through my posts you’ll probably find I’ve read through and thought through this far more than most. I plan on using belts. And I think they will work better than logistics bots to work though the various quality upgrade phases. I’m also curious to see what the next 48ish FFFs unveil to make it even more of a design challenge. Since. Yanno. Factorio players SAY they like design challenges.

[Vector6]

The use of these triggers just seems to stall growth for no productive reason. It might make narrative sense(and would absolutely make sense in a campaign map of some sort), but there is no narrative to freeplay so it doesn't really track as a justification.

The appeal to an "acceptable weirdness threshold" also rings hollow in a game where you can take a 1000 degree nuclear reactor and just shove it in your pocket.

Which others did you find?

I think there are several important points. I should refresh my memory, but unfortunately, I lost motivation of spending time on re-reading entire discussion again. After the last FFF, I have feeling that kovarex is not going to change something, there's not a single sign saying he found something important for him, nor a support of other players. I give up.

The fact that the only thing changing between the previous FFF and this one is the presentation(from "gambling is fun!" to "well, if you scale it up") is quite telling. My biggest fear was that there would be no room for reflection and that seems to have turned out to be true.

I'll still keep an eye on this, but I can't say I plan on getting my hopes up.

[SweetPyxel]

• Normal
• Refined (Might be weird if there's an item name like "Refined Steel" already)
• Prestine (I like this one)
• Superior (I like this one)
• Masterwork (I also like this one)

New here and I'm not sure if the names are still being commented on but I had something similar to this in mind.

• Standard
• Improved
• Refined (A must have so couldn't replace)
• Optimized
• Masterwork (Couldn't possibly think of better)

Standard being run of the mill and just a better synonym for normal in my opinion
Improved simply being a better version of standard items
Refined portraying the further production improvements to achieve better quality
Optimized, which builds on concepts for refined items to further increase quality (and can give further emphasis as the first quality tier to be researched after reaching space)
Masterwork being the absolute cutting edge and hard to think of another word that end with 'd' besides "Perfected"

Galdoc has a really inetesting alternative to the quality naming scheme

With this comment including Galdoc's proposal, if tiers of quality can be split between intermediate and final products. The following would be my recommendation.

Intermediates

• Standard
• Improved
• Refined
• Enhanced
• Perfected

Final

• Standard
• Improved
• Refined
• Tuned (or Optimized)
• Optimized (or Masterwork)

The usage of Enhanced and Perfected creating a greater distinction between intermediates and final products with the thought of "how do you optimize a brick?" or "can I tune a copper wire?", or even "How/Why are such simple products all 'masterworks'"

Hope this isn't too long over a naming convention.

[blazespinnaker]

So, a core part of your argument for you not liking the system is “they got it and didn’t have to ‘work’ as hard as I did for it”?

Huh. Where did I say I didn't like it? I must have typed that without even knowing it.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure there is a cap on over all machine prod, so I'm not going to fret over this.

The amount of "I AM NOT A SPEEDRUNNER BUT SPEEDRUNNERS WILL HATE THIS!" is just comical XD

Also the amount of "we, the people"... Please, all, speak for yourself, don't project your opinions on others...

I, for example, like those changes and have no say in what others will find tedious.

Oh I suspect everyone is a speed runner to some degree in factorio.

And really, I think most folks are able enough to read everything here as a singular perspective without the added reminders.

[Earendel]

• Normal
• Refined (Might be weird if there's an item name like "Refined Steel" already)
• Prestine (I like this one)
• Superior (I like this one)
• Masterwork (I also like this one)

• Refined (A must have so couldn't replace)

I'm not looking to get in to a naming discussion right now, but I'll just point out that "Refined" is not an ideal quality term because there are other refined substances in the game.

[Mango]

...because you (hopefully) produce at a large scale and the law of large numbers will just transform probabilities into ratios. The more you produce the more it evens out.

If the target of rng based crafting/assembling is to negate it by producing in high number then I don't see what is the benefit in the first place. We already have a game mechanism that accomplishes very similar results. Production module. If I have 10% production bonus, then I have a guaranteed bonus after 10 completed crafting cycles.

If the Quality bonus was implemented in a similar way, you would accomplish exactly the same thing without the drama over rng.

The names are the easiest thing to change. Maybe I don't take myself and the game too seriously and found it amusing, but if we had a very good counter-proposal which feels good and is clear when it comes to tiers, we can still change it.

The rpg naming just seems out of place. As somebody wrote in the previous FFF - What has the legendary iron plate done to become legendary? Did it slay a dragon?

I will repeat the proposal I had last week:

• -
• Fine
• Improved
• Exceptional/Excellent - cannot decide what is better
• Perfect

Just to address other naming proposals here are my comments to some of them:
Advenced - This sounds like it was achieved through some research. I had to change the base design of the item to get some advenced properties and I have different item now.
Refined - I like it very much, but it is already used for Refined concrete and I'm not sure it is a good idea to have the same word being quality name and also part of some name. But I wouldn't shut it down just yet.
Masterwork - I think masterwork implies it was done by hand. There had to be some master crafter who did the thing. I don't like it in the context of Factorio. Sounds better in DF - Craftsdwarfship is of the highest quality.
Pristine - I'm not native english speeker, but isn't this a state? If you buy a new table it comes in new, clean, pristine state and by using it for a long time it gets old, dirty and used?
Optimized - Same think as perfect, I just like perfect more for some reason... subjective preference here.
Good - I think having Good as an improved quality implies base items are not good which is not the case (I hope ).
Ideal - Ideal is the best. There is no such thing as 'more ideal' so it would need to be top quality. Again, subjectively, perfect just sounds better.

I'm not looking to get in to a naming discussion right now, but I'll just point out that "Refined" is not an ideal quality term because there are other refined substances in the game.

Sorry

[Mendel]

<quote>
The core of what makes Factorio good is that the horrible huge grind you would need to get all the resources can be mitigated by automation.
</quote>

The most annoying/grindy part of Factorio for me has always been the act of plopping miners to a new resource field as old ones dry out. Can't even use blueprints really because the fields are of random size and shape.

Is there going to be anything to make this more easily automated? (provided I have the means to expand to new area through all the enemies and what not.)

[Tertius]

The most annoying/grindy part of Factorio for me has always been the act of plopping miners to a new resource field as old ones dry out. Can't even use blueprints really because the fields are of random size and shape.

Is there going to be anything to make this more easily automated? (provided I have the means to expand to new area through all the enemies and what not.)

This is already possible in the current game. Create a sandbox map and enter map editor mode with /editor in the console. In map editor mode, you're able to spawn resource patches of rectangular or circular shape. Create one with size 60x60 tiles or circle with 30 tiles radius (this is the regular max size of real resource patches), then build your template mine on top of it, then take a blueprint. Voilà, if you put this blueprint on a real resource patch, the outskirts are empty but every real ore tile has its miner. If you want to create a special uranium ore mine template with sulfuric acid supply, they're smaller. Create a 30x30 patch.

Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to oil mines. You can create every structure of an oil mine as template except the pumpjacks.

[SweetPyxel]

• Refined (A must have so couldn't replace)

I'm not looking to get in to a naming discussion right now, but I'll just point out that "Refined" is not an ideal quality term because there are other refined substances in the game.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it only 3 items that would cause an issue there: Refined Concrete, Refined Hazard Concrete and Oil Refinery.
Refined Oil Refinery just sounds silly at best so I don't think it is as big a deal, though it would appear as "Oil Refinery [Refined]"
I can agree that Refined Concrete is the outlier unless changed (I.e. Smooth Concrete and Smooth Hazard Concrete). Both "Refined Refined Concrete" and "Refined Concrete [Refined]" are clearly problematic.
So really, the final proposal that I can think of to avoid conflict with "Refined" (if refined concrete remains unchanged) is this.

• Standard - The baseline
• Altered - Lightly but not drastically changed
• Improved - Improved further above the standard
• Enhanced (*Tuned) - Additions made for even further improvement
• Perfected (*Optimized) - Best product possible
  *Applied to final products or machinery if separate from intermediate

Altered showing that a change/changes have been made but there is ambiguity with the name itself (though the improvement is observable).
An alternative for Altered may be "Reworked", implying a positive change but may also imply that it is built on an existing product rather than an standard.

[Panzerknacker]

standard quality
better quality
high quality
extraordinary quality
ultra quality

[Abarel]

The most annoying/grindy part of Factorio for me has always been the act of plopping miners to a new resource field as old ones dry out.

Besides the excelent answer from Tertius, check this possibilities:
1- At game start, adjust map settings for maximum Richness (600%) for each ore type.
2- If that is not enough, you can check Resource Spawner Overhaul, by orzelek.
3- Alternatively, use a mod to get infinite resources, there are several in the mod portal. For example Infinite Resources, by sonaxaton (including in description several links to other similar mods).
4- Another mod that you might want to check is Outpost Planner for 1.1, by ChucklesTheBeard. This mod allows you to automatically blueprint a mine over any entire or partial ore patch depending on different settings, to adjust it to your liking, including miners, belts / bot boxes, power poles, and miners.
5- Above all, you always could use infinite chests (from the map editor or from a mod), to allow you to get fun focusing on the parts of the game you like more.
6- You also could get more fun in multiplayer, distributing tasks depending on what each player likes more.

I hope one or more of these ideas help you.

[FuryoftheStars]

Yeah, unfortunately, nothing that was said about Quality puts my mind at ease about it. I don't understand why you want to introduce a major RNG feature into a game that, until now, only had one very minor RNG thing in it, but whatever. It's obvious that, just like many of the other changes you all did, you're going to stick with it. But, you also have a split player base on this one, too, so I understand. I may not like it, but you're not making the game for me. I guess once the expansion releases, sales and further feedback then will be the determining factor, which is not something that can be figured out here.

As for the research triggers, the idea and concept is good, and especially now the introduction of the mechanic for mod makers to use, but I'm not sure I'm sold on the current uses. For the new planets and everything to do after reaching the new planets, yeah, ok. But like others, I agree that locking oil the way you have doesn't seem any better than before. Actually, marginally worse. Ultimately, though, I kind of agree with this poster:

I would like to proffer the suggestion that oil and perhaps some other unlocks could/should be the *discovery* of oil by revealing a chunk which has oil sources in it, rather than actually pumping some.
As a bonus, when your radar station detects some oil, you'll get a Ba-ta-da! sound effect and know to check the map

On the other end of the scale, poison capsules are a thing that ought to need some biter corpses to be produced before you can unlock and research it.

I feel like the key difference may be "things that Everybody Knows" and you only have to realize you need it before you can direct your research to all the starter stuff, contrasted with things you'll definitely need samples of because its an unexplored alien world.

For some things, like oil, if you want to lock down the research until a condition that makes more sense, then discovering it would be a better trigger vs mining it. Although, this would just add some additional overhead to chunk reveal for something that isn't already tracked. If minor enough, then great, otherwise these types of things should probably just be left as is/given some other method of unlocking, because it makes less sense to research how to pump it before finding it and then pump it before you can research how to use it, than to research how to pump and use it at the same time before finding it. Technically speaking, oil is a known resource and should be expected on any planet with well established life.

---------------------------------------------

I'm still not sold on the implementation of quality. Primarily, in what world is a 90% failure rate acceptable when manufacturing a product?

There is no failure rate in quality/factorio. No DOA. so, it's 0% failure rate, not 90%.

As for variance in quality, getting it exactly right is nearly impossible.

Think about recall rates on vehicles.

What you generally have in manufacturing is everything that gets produced falls within some standard range of specifications. Getting something perfectly right, would be 'epic' (ugh) indeed.

Technically speaking, anything that does not meet the required specs and either goes back to be recycled or is rebranded as a lower tier product is a "failure" for the specs that it was being manufactured for.

For vehicle recalls, there's a couple things to consider, like the total recall count vs the total manufactured of all vehicles, the fact that vehicles are complex contraptions (end product) that is an amalgamation of many different things, and that not all recalls are for actual defective parts but rather defective design (it's still quality in a sense, but not in the same sense as the Factorio Quality system).

---------------------------------------------

I'm still not sold on the implementation of quality. Primarily, in what world is a 90% failure rate acceptable when manufacturing a product?

I don't know if it applies equally to all product types, but the whole quality mechanic makes me think about microchip manufacturing. It's fairly common for microchips to have manufacturing defects, especially at the smallest, bleeding edge sizes. But single defect doesn't necessarily make the whole thing valueless. In many cases they can test what's working and what's not, disable what's not working, and sell it in a different product category depending on how much of it is working.

You know, with semiconductor/microchip manufacturing being pulled out so much, does anyone have some source numbers showing high failure rates? Because a limited, cursory Google search is coming up with results that suggest the failure rates are often measured in (single digit) parts per million.

---------------------------------------------

Not sure I follow? Is it supposed to argue for or against the way wube wants to do quality? I don't think it provides support for either side of the argument, the way NASA build's rockets is different from the way one would build something for mass manufacturing like we do in Factorio.

From my reading, it's not about NASA but the European Space Agency. They also send rocket to space, like we do in Factorio. And it's written that to launch the James Webb telescope they didn't use a low quality engine in the rocket, not even uncommon or a rare, but at least an epic or legendary, probably because it is the James Webb telescope, and not just another satelites that would cost 1/10 or 1/100 of the price. That's probably not what one would expect for gears or copper wire, but it seem that for rocket engine they generally make many prototypes, and discard most of them to keep maybe the 1% or the 10% that performed the best which sounds pretty similar to how quality was explained.

Maybe the engine was made using quality modules that is not specified.

I feel like "modern day" space travel manufacturing is a bit different, simply because everything about it is freakishly expensive and there are often times actual lives on the line, so you always want to make sure you get it right the first time. But honestly, without reading the article and just going on your synopsis, this sounds more like the design phase and handcrafting the final product because you don't need them massed produced. If it ever becomes a more mainstream thing likes cars of today, I can totally see the attention to "only the best of the best" going to the wayside.

---------------------------------------------

It was a waste of time (for improving the system), because:

• The 35-page discussion was very low quality, mostly talking about unimportant things like the name and useless critique based on misunderstanding of the quality system. And it was mostly redundant. It wasn't really 35 pages of discussion, it was 35 pages of the same post redundantly posted in copies over and over from people who hadn't even read the thread (or blog post properly) to see that their view had already been shared by others.

Sooo... we should have one person that posts in favor of the system and one that posts against and just leave it at that? That doesn't seem helpful. I mean, there's no poll or anything, so even if several people share the same exact view, how else do you measure the quantity of likes vs dislikes? I can also understand not wanting to read through several pages to see if someone else posted the exact same thing that you're thinking.

• Wube already knows how to design game systems better than more than 99.9999% of the player population (they made Factorio after all, the best game).

This isn't a valid point. Not an attack on Wube, this is just a generalized statement, but the ability to program (and do it well) or lack there of has no correlation to the ability to have a good idea or not.

---------------------------------------------

Tech should requite tech that makes sense and not tech that unlocks what i need to make the items.
Basic example:
Red ammo tech should only require yellow ammo tech not steel.
Red magazines costing steel is irrelevant.

I disagree with this specifically. If a technology requires a specific something to make it, then it completely makes sense to have to research how to make that something before being able to research the subsequent tech. Otherwise, by your logic, red ammo tech shouldn't even require yellow ammo tech first. In fact, all techs should be researchable whenever instead of having a tree in the first place. That would be, in my opinion, much more confusing and overwhelming to new players than the idea that the devs are trying to fix for the early game.

[exi2163]

The whole point of manufacturing is to produce an item of exacting, consistent, and reproducible specifications with as little cost as humanely possible.

Fixed that for you. Also: sometimes exact, consistent and reproducible are optional.

[quineotio]

It's common to see a production line with people/machines checking the products for defects. It's not much of a stretch if they also check for the rare, particularly good item. And maybe one day those production line workers will tell the tale of the legendary copper wire that was so good they used it in their best machine.

[__Sirius__]

The trigger technologies are amazing. I like the way how the problem of researching processing before mining the resource got solved. But there are some questions: What happens, if I touch Oil before I have researched its requirements?
Also there is the question on how the planet mining outpost problem is getting solved. Can you only do the processing on the other planet?

[Qon]

It was a waste of time (for improving the system), because:

• The 35-page discussion was very low quality, mostly talking about unimportant things like the name and useless critique based on misunderstanding of the quality system. And it was mostly redundant. It wasn't really 35 pages of discussion, it was 35 pages of the same post redundantly posted in copies over and over from people who hadn't even read the thread (or blog post properly) to see that their view had already been shared by others.

Sooo... we should have one person that posts in favor of the system and one that posts against and just leave it at that? That doesn't seem helpful. I mean, there's no poll or anything, so even if several people share the same exact view, how else do you measure the quantity of likes vs dislikes? I can also understand not wanting to read through several pages to see if someone else posted the exact same thing that you're thinking.

Are you missing the point on purpose?
Yes not everyone reads all 35 pages before making their post. But you don't have to be that extreme to see that naming is commonly talked about.
Also you don't have to be that extreme about limiting the copies to one single time. You are just exaggerating because you have no argument.
Just read a few posts or pages, if something trivial has been talked about 7 times already then consider if you adding an 8th post on it really adds much value to the discussion or not.

• Wube already knows how to design game systems better than more than 99.9999% of the player population (they made Factorio after all, the best game).

This isn't a valid point. Not an attack on Wube, this is just a generalized statement, but the ability to program (and do it well) or lack there of has no correlation to the ability to have a good idea or not.

I'm not saying that everything they do is perfect, I'm not saying being better at games design always makes you get the 100% superior design idea every single time. I'm just saying that they are better at it (overall) and have actually tested it and also understand the system so 35 pages of mostly low quality posts don't indicate that Wube should change anything. The argument made by coppercoil was that the quantity of pages of responses should change Wube's opinion on their design.

[AvengerStar]

• Wube already knows how to design game systems better than more than 99.9999% of the player population (they made Factorio after all, the best game).

This isn't a valid point. Not an attack on Wube, this is just a generalized statement, but the ability to program (and do it well) or lack there of has no correlation to the ability to have a good idea or not.

I'm not saying that everything they do is perfect, I'm not saying being better at games design always makes you get the 100% superior design idea every single time. I'm just saying that they are better at it (overall) and have actually tested it and also understand the system so 35 pages of mostly low quality posts don't indicate that Wube should change anything. The argument made by coppercoil was that the quantity of pages of responses should change Wube's opinion on their design.

Seasoned veterans make mistakes too. What makes them veterans is learning from their mistakes time and time again, but they'll never be immune.

Sometimes it takes a fool's perspective to see the bigger picture. Though here, it's more like a sea of dissenting opinion, in which case you'd best be ready to defend creative decisions as a designer. I just don't think quality as it stands is a hill worth dying on.

[adam_bise]

You know, there is a lot of potential added game time with Quality and Per-Item productivity upgrades.

In the end, it may be the difference between becoming bored with your map and still having plenty to do.

[mmmPI]

I feel like "modern day" space travel manufacturing is a bit different, simply because everything about it is freakishly expensive and there are often times actual lives on the line, so you always want to make sure you get it right the first time. But honestly, without reading the article and just going on your synopsis, this sounds more like the design phase and handcrafting the final product because you don't need them massed produced. If it ever becomes a more mainstream thing likes cars of today, I can totally see the attention to "only the best of the best" going to the wayside.

Ah maybe you would have had a different impression if you had read the article ! But if you are still ok to argue on side topics, then i could say than cars in factorio are not mass produced ! That would be more similar to F1 car, and they also take "only the best of the best".

Is it realistic to expect the highest quality everywhere as a standard ? That's never the case in real life where for most things you have more of "normal quality" or even "low quality" than you have of "high" quality. And in real life there exist some process where the result is not fully predictible and tests are done to select the "highest quality" amongst the production. ( semi conductors , rocket engines )

Concrete too funnily enough is very difficult to know beforehand how it will "live" leading some countries to have legislations that tell builders to make sample carrots of concrete to submerged in pool whenever there is public work done like bridges or dams, and they monitor the chemical reaction and corrorion on the test sample kept in water for decades to have an idea on how the real thing is evolving and is also one way how you can select a "better" composition for the concrete next time

There could have been in the game a notion of "low quality" or "defect" as a "scrap" mechanism that yield randomly bad product, there are mods like this ( and it is a redundant alternative propositions in the comments ) but i think the quality feature presented has more gameplay value, it's not something any mods could have done. The RNG is used not to punish player with "bad" product but to reward them with "better" ones. That i think is mostly for gameplay reason, and when seeing all the complain about the chance of getting a free goody sometimes i think it'd be worse with the random trash.

Robot attrition mod included in Space Exploration ( some bots have a random low risk of breaking apart and falling to ground ) comes to mind as something related that has some very strong detractors and many players don't see it as a problem or as something significant, which can lead to a disproportionnate negative feedback in a overly simplifed situation : only a few notice and hate it and flood the channel of negative feedback , while for most players it's a little nice addition that doesn't get all much attention and isn't even mentionned as something they like. ( this maybe can adress some of your other concerns about the 35 pages of discussions, and the weight that is given to a non-representative sample ).

In my perception the "quality" feature could be rated as something like 80% gameplay 20% realism, where really it's more symbolic, or abstract, than meant to represent exactly what happens in a process but if ones wants to nitpick it is possible to find situations where what happens in real life is like in factorio or the reverse i'm not sure at this point.

What makes me think this is a good thing is that i spent many times playing with many differents mods, it's often going to yield a more "niche" experience, that will make some player at the other end of the spectrum dislike it. Which is fine for a mod, you don't like it, you don't install it. However for a feature in a game, i think it really fits really well where it is placed. Optionnal as non-blocking, not-mandadory, not too early in game, adding so many equivalent of small QoL mods when considering all the different entities that receive a specific bonus. ( the more i think of it the more i think i over estimated the footprint of quality-producing part of the factory in average game).

I know i could propose an alternative, like when i choose mods and tweak their settings i can feel like i'm a game creator myself because i unlock legendary combos. But reality is that it is very unlikely to be as well thought out in the amount of time and with the ressources of just 1 brain than a real video game made by a team of people who sort of dedicated their life to doing this .

If all the complain on the forum where unanimously criticizing the same thing, the same way, maybe that could show that at Wube they overlook something. That could also be concerted trolling but I don't think the rejection associated with the names is faked. Apart from that many of the differents critics of the "quality" feature seem to come from creative people that just post their own idea they got while reading the FFF. Which may be a very good idea. Just not something they spent a few month tweaking to make sure it fits their 3 million + potential customers and try to find a way to announce it to the 1% ? of them that ever registered on the forum.

I think you may have a clue to where this is going, factorio is a video game of high quality, they had many many ideas, but they only keep the "best" which is not all the ideas, just sometimes randomly, one of them has a lot of potential and needs to be refined and turned into a finished product. Unfortunatly many of the ideas must be discarded or recycled into something else. The whole process is random, but when you put a bunch of dedicated person in a loop where they generate ideas, test, keep the best, recycle the rest... eventually it yields a high quality product with a good enough probability that it's almost as if there is no RNG ?

[Anachrony]

You know, with semiconductor/microchip manufacturing being pulled out so much, does anyone have some source numbers showing high failure rates? Because a limited, cursory Google search is coming up with results that suggest the failure rates are often measured in (single digit) parts per million.

You’re Googling the wrong key words. That’s the defect rate of products delivered to customers, where the product doesn’t conform to its listed specs, and it indicates a failure in their QA process to detect defects. The rate of defects in manufacturing is much higher, but they usually catch it rather than shipping defective chips. A cursory search shows an article about Samsung reducing the defect rate on their 4nm process to below 25%. 25% is a far cry from 90%, much less 99%, but conceptually it’s reminiscent of what they seem to be going for with this mechanic. They will often stamp out a whole bunch of chipsets on the same wafer, and statistically some of them just won’t work, it’s just a question of how many, detecting which ones, and if they are salvageable or have to be trashed.