Quality level run-off poll

[FuryoftheStars]

The 'primary' poll to find the popular choices for quality level names seems to have stabilised (after a late run from 'Basic' to overtake 'Normal' for the first level). So here is a run-off.

Hey, should you maybe update the other poll pointing people here? (Can polls be "closed"?)

[Khagan]

Hey, should you maybe update the other poll pointing people here? (Can polls be "closed"?)

Good idea. I've added a post on the other thread pointing to this one. I don't think there is any particular need to 'close' the old one though.

[Qon]

I'm going to assume that almost everyone that voted Q1-Q5 are actually fine with the "Legendary" names since Q1-Q5 will be used and understood universally in conversation regardless of what they are called in game. No one actually needs the devs to name the quality levels that to be able to communicate those names. And a vote for Q1-Q5 doesn't really indicate a strong need for thematic names.

So combining Legendary + Q votes, the new names are actually not even that popular with a minority vote, in this thread where only the most vocal proponents gather. Doesn't seem like the names are such a big deal.

[mrvn]

(My own opinion is that even 'S', let alone 'SS' or 'SSS', is symptomatic of unplanned extensions to a range. You designed a range with, say, 'A' to 'D', and then find later that you need a higher grade than 'A', so have to improvise. Adding such things in at the start is pointless.)

You don't watch enough animes I guess

Or he does. That's exactly the problem animes always run into and have to improvise.

[Tooster]

This strange "S" grade system cannot be invented by engineers or technical orientated people, because it isn't following some intuitive scientific order of increasing importance or significance. Instead, it's arbitrary. There is no reason why an "S" is better than an "A", and "SS" better than "S". That's completely arbitrary and made up. And that's not something we should have in Factorio, because Factorio is something scientific and mathematical. Arbitrary rules have no place here.

well, well, well...


As well as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_Japan
It is literally Japanese grading system

And also a popular recently wave of "tier list" things, prevalent not only in anime but in many other subcultures:
https://i.imgur.com/17ZXcJw.png

Games using this would include:
Devil May Cry, Yakuza, Metal Gear Solid, games by Capcom, Osu! and others

Not C-B-A-S-SS, but a good example that engineers do indeed come up with weird scales like these with their A+, A++ It is only natural: first you assume that "A" is the best you can do, but then standards change and suddenly your "A" is just mediocre. So you either way want a scale that can be extended both ways. For example what would happen if someone wrote a mod that either adds 2 worse tiers (below "Common") and 2 best tiers (above... "Legendary"?). The letter scale seems to be the most flexible one, because you can go below D, E, F... and above A you can use either A+ with number of "+" signs or a number of repetition of "S" letters.

The letter "S" is most probably an anglicization in japanese from the "Exceptional" (S is the most vocal and accented letter in that word given how they pronounce it)

As for Q1-Q5 names, I still don't know if Q1 is the best or the worst on that spectrum

[FuryoftheStars]

I'm going to assume that almost everyone that voted Q1-Q5 are actually fine with the "Legendary" names

I'm not sure that'd be a correct assumption.

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but I would prefer straight numbering over words that many won't remember or even use. I realize there are some things in game where their tiers do use word labels (belts, inserters), but there are also some things that use numbers (assemblers, all of the different modules) so it's not like it'd be unprecedented.

That being said, if the devs (or community) were dead set against numbers, I'd prefer the proposed names from the other thread (except maybe have the Q1 level be without a name/label) over the rpg names they have now. I'd actually even be more ok with a letter grade system (that doesn't do stupid S/SS/SSS or A/A+/A++, etc) than the rpg names.

To summarize, my order of preference is: straight numbering > community proposed names > letter grade > dev proposed names.

[XT-248]

I'm going to assume that almost everyone that voted Q1-Q5 are actually fine with the "Legendary" names since Q1-Q5 will be used and understood universally in conversation regardless of what they are called in game. No one actually needs the devs to name the quality levels that to be able to communicate those names. And a vote for Q1-Q5 doesn't really indicate a strong need for thematic names.

So combining Legendary + Q votes, the new names are actually not even that popular with a minority vote, in this thread where only the most vocal proponents gather. Doesn't seem like the names are such a big deal.

Currently, I am okay with using Q1-Q5 for communication's sake. I am not cool with the Wube 'canonical' names and would use the community-picked names instead.


It is not that much of a farfetched situation where most people who voted for Q1-Q5 would also not want to use the Wube 'canonical' names or community-picked names equally.

Your suggestion would deprive the opinion of both groups just because you were unhappy with the community voting pattern.


Anyone currently 'happy' or 'content' with Wube's 'canonical' names would be the only group who would take a liking to your suggestion, and they are a minority the way polls are going.

[mmmPI]

As for Q1-Q5 names, I still don't know if Q1 is the best or the worst on that spectrum

Maybe there should be some campain where the arguments for each list could be heard before people vote
Q5 is obvisously better than Q4 for me, because 5>4 ! but really for me the idea was to have the number in the name also be the number of dots representing the quality in game. So you could also say "Q0" to talk about the moment in game where you haven't unlocked the quality research. And you would know just by seeing it if it's a Q3 or a Q4 without having to learn the words in case.

[FuryoftheStars]

As for Q1-Q5 names, I still don't know if Q1 is the best or the worst on that spectrum

Maybe there should be some campain where the arguments for each list could be heard before people vote
Q5 is obvisously better than Q4 for me, because 5>4 ! but really for me the idea was to have the number in the name also be the number of dots representing the quality in game. So you could also say "Q0" to talk about the moment in game where you haven't unlocked the quality research. And you would know just by seeing it if it's a Q3 or a Q4 without having to learn the words in case.

The answer to this is 1 is "lowest"/"worst", 5 is "highest"/"best".

Why? Because this is the same logic already employed in the game with Assemblers and Modules. If you used a new system, it would just be confusing.

[mmmPI]

Why? Because this is the same logic already employed in the game with Assemblers and Modules. If you used a new system, it would just be confusing.

q4.png (1.76 KiB) Viewed 2153 times

q2.png (1.76 KiB) Viewed 2153 times

There is the visual information ! that's what i meant

[FuryoftheStars]

Why? Because this is the same logic already employed in the game with Assemblers and Modules. If you used a new system, it would just be confusing.

q4.png
q2.png

There is the visual information ! that's what i meant

Ah, yeah, missed where you actually mentioned the dots. I saw the part about a campaign to discuss before voting.

That said, as to the Q0/Q1 bit, while they do have a dot for the "normal" quality, they don't appear to ever actually use it. If you check out some of the vids from the Quality FFF, the items that get placed on belts with normal quality don't have an icon, while the ones being placed right next to them with a higher quality tier do have the icons. So I don't think this distinction (Q0 before quality is unlocked, Q1 after) is needed.

[fishycat]

I voted for Q1-Q5 simply because easy to understand at one look. That's it.

[cybersteve547]

voting for C, B, A, S, SS - i play beat saber
also, maybe we coul have a setting between the winning vote and Q#? (i still like just numbers)

[EustaceCS]

I see not everyone is familiar with the trend of making tier list for everything !

Why would I want to become familiar with concept as artifical as "tier list"?
Some thing is either worth wasting resources on it or not worth wasting resources on it.
Best things are usually best in their own unique way and/or its intended/unintended practical applications.
And you can't quantify mediocrity by definition.

In context of Factorio, since as soon as player would become able to increase item Quality reliably - player will probably strive to reach maximal Quality level available at at least most crucial production chains... I don't see any intersection points between Quality concept and "tier list" concept.

[Kyralessa]

Upon reflection, I like the original names (including "Legendary") as I find the alternatives pretty boring.

"Legendary" sounds much more enticing to me than "Perfect."

[Stringweasel]

Upon reflection, I like the original names (including "Legendary") as I find the alternatives pretty boring.

I've also come around to it. It's clear in meaning, and fun to say. And we shouldn't take Factorio so seriously in any case. There's already quite a few non-serious parts in that's easy to forget. Like the only way to replenish your health is to go fishing, and eat the fish. In an industrial automation game.

[mmmPI]

I see not everyone is familiar with the trend of making tier list for everything !

Why would I want to become familiar with concept as artifical as "tier list"?
Some thing is either worth wasting resources on it or not worth wasting resources on it.
Best things are usually best in their own unique way and/or its intended/unintended practical applications.
And you can't quantify mediocrity by definition.

In context of Factorio, since as soon as player would become able to increase item Quality reliably - player will probably strive to reach maximal Quality level available at at least most crucial production chains... I don't see any intersection points between Quality concept and "tier list" concept.

I was just trying to point out the reference for some of the naming proposed, so that player not familiar with them could understand.

"Tiers list" to me is merely a way to represent ideas or concept in a standardized hierachical form. I think it can help to nuance the "worth wasting ressources" to more than a "yes/no". Example i saw that i found valuable from youtube of this concept was to describe in the game Civilization, the different civs a player can pick. There could be "good/bad" civ. But the tier list allow to say, "very good in all area", "very good in certain area where they can win, but not in others" , "medium in all area, no particular strengh or weaknessess" , "very bad in most things, or so bad at certain things no-one wants to play them".

It's not really about quantify but giving qualitative description. Where it could have intersection with factorio and the quality concept would be someone deciding to rank the items of factorio in a tier list based on their quality bonus :

Top tier (S) : ( item that gain the very best bonus you want them always the max )
-personnal armor
-personnal nuclear reactor

upper tier (A): ( item that gain useful bonus, but you will only do after the top tier )
-robot port ( range and robot recharge )
-space platform things( cool things)

mid tier(B): ( item that gain bonus but you will only do after the upper tier )
-laser turrets
-power poles
-solar pannel

low tier (C) : item that gain bonus you don't really need but you can do them anyway because they are cheap and not numerous or item that are so numerous you will not give them priority compared to the others even if their quality increase give them good bonus
-radars
-solar pannel
-accumulator

trash tier ( E) : item that cost a lot of ressource and only gain HP when increasing in quality so to avoid if possible
-splitters
-belts

I am not saying that's how i want to have the quality named. I still think it's a useful concept to have in mind ( or be familiar with), because you can use it for many different things, i have made up my own "tier list" for "how i consider quality apply to item in Factorio", and i can take a picture and discuss with someone else easily about "which item would be on a different spot for you" ? " is your list very different ? you have more category ? different ones ? So when we play we will coordinate better. And when doing such tier list, one also can realize some item belong into a tier or another tier, it makes you question yourself. I don't forward every trend i hear about but this particular one i think is worth knowing.

[jackthesmack]

The first set of names sound much cooler than the rest. "Legendary Solar Panel" just sounds cooler than "Perfect Solar Panel". Number and letter grades are garbo.

[EustaceCS]

I am not saying that's how i want to have the quality named. I still think it's a useful concept to have in mind ( or be familiar with), because you can use it for many different things, i have made up my own "tier list" for "how i consider quality apply to item in Factorio", and i can take a picture and discuss with someone else easily about "which item would be on a different spot for you" ? " is your list very different ? you have more category ? different ones ? So when we play we will coordinate better. And when doing such tier list, one also can realize some item belong into a tier or another tier, it makes you question yourself. I don't forward every trend i hear about but this particular one i think is worth knowing.

Now if anyone would enlighten me on why that whole post isn't offtopic...
*sigh*
I do know a-plenty o-things a lot of people would find handy.
I don't use that knowledge to expel voluminous texts.
*sigh*
Not in current condition, at the very least.

Tier list of things which you need quality for the most? Yup, got it.
Tier list as quality level naming convention? Nope, still didn't got it.

[mmmPI]

Tier list as quality level naming convention? Nope, still didn't got it.

I can see you didn't get my explanation , since you said it was off topic. It was my best try i won't do another one.It seemm you rather disagree than don't understand and at this point i'm not sure why you are adressing this to me.