Minor grammar in "resource drain" and "spoil time" descriptions

[MinorBugReporter]

Resources are depleted more slowly at higher qualities and Spoils more slowly at higher qualities

Spoil time and resource depletion don't have any reductions to them by default*, so "more" didn't make total sense when I read it initially
Correct me if I'm wrong, but slower would be an appropriate replacement
*Except big mining drill

Resources deplete slower at higher qualities and Spoils slower at higher qualities
(I prefer these, brevity)

or following the theme of other descriptions (Decreases/Increases at the beginning)
Decreases resource depletion speed at higher qualities and Increases spoil time at higher qualities/Increases time to spoil at higher qualities

The crafting speed description doesn't need "the" in it,
Increases the crafting speed at higher qualities as it is right now
Increases crafting speed at higher qualities recommendation
It reminds me of a sentence I read once "The higher the fragility the faster the armour durability drops", wow, a headache to read, let alone understand

Feel free to critique any of my recommendations and/or make a better one, these are just ideas

Also, the fusion generator consumption and output quality descriptions have uncommon as "2.59999/s", with normal as "2/s" and rare at "3.2/s"

[Muche]

The numbers formatting resulting in unrounded decimal places is discussed in 119546 Yumako & Jelly spoils in 1h17m59s instead of 1h18m, currently deemed as acceptable.

[valneq]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but slower would be an appropriate replacement

It is not. In fact, only a few weeks ago it was changed from "slower" to "more slowly" because it was grammatically incorrect.
The word "slow" is an adjective and "slower" is the comparative version of that adjective: Some thing can be slow, some other thing can be slower.
The word "slowly" is an adverb and "more slowly" is the comparative version of that adverb. Some process can happen slowly, and another can happen more slowly.

Not all languages make such a clear distinction between adjectives and adverbs. My native language (German) for example uses the same form of word for both functions, but that is not correct in English.

[Aricitic]

With respect to valneq's response, I feel I need to add my "two cents."

Your explanation and your analogies are correct, however I believe you may be missing MinorBugReporter's point. Or, and this is entirely possible, I do not understand the origin of your explanation.

Yes, you are correct that the depletion of a resource or the spoilage of an "item" is a process by definition - as opposed to a "thing," and therefore the adverb is grammatically correct in that sense. Therefore the wording that MinorBugReporter used - and therefore the suggestion itself - is incorrect... but the premise that they were bringing up is not.

The implication of the description, as it stands, is that the process of resource depletion or item spoilage is slow "by default." Using your analogy, the two processes happen "slowly", and therefore, with enhanced quality, it can happen "more slowly." The problem here is the assumption (or assertion) that the original process happens "slowly." At a 100% rate baseline, something is typically not considered slow (unless the original intent of the measurement is "how 'slow' something is") and it is only with a reduction of the percentage that something becomes considered slow or fast -- when considering the baseline measurement of a process.
Example: The rotation of the Earth at its baseline (i.e. 100%) the speed of the rotation is considered "normal" at 200% it would be considered "fast" and at 50% it would be considered "slow" -- again, unless the "measurement" itself is in "how slow a process is".
Given this (I would argue) common understanding of the usage of these terms and their meanings the usage of "more slowly" in the descriptions (as it stands) is confusing at best and inaccurate (for the information it is trying to provide) at worst.

Conclusion: Yes, you are correct that because we are discussing a process (i.e. the process of depleting resources, or the process of items spoiling) using the adjective "slower" would be grammatically incorrect as adjectives are grammatically reserved for nouns (etc), and using an adverb is grammatically correct because... well, it's in the name isn't it? But describing it as thus at all doesn't make sense unless you are explicitly using "slow" as the baseline measurement. I do not see this as the intent. A stone furnace when compared to a steel furnace... when compared to an electric furnace... when compared to a modded furnace (of a higher speed - something greater than crafting speed 2) IS "slower" (the object IS slower as the process the object does it does "more slowly") but when referring to a stone furnace... or a steel furnace... or an electric furnace... by itself IT is the baseline, and anything else is compared to it. The same is true when referring to the quality of an item. "Normal" quality is the baseline, therefore anything beyond "normal" is compared to it. If you say that process (or thing) acts "more slowly" or is "slower" (regardless of whether it is the process or item being referred to) then you are saying the baseline is, itself, slow - without exception. And, again, I sincerely doubt that this is the intent.

One way to rewrite it and keep the grammatical accuracy would be to (partially) reverse the word order. Instead of "Resources are depleted more slowly at higher qualities" or "Spoils more slowly at higher qualities" word it as: "Higher qualities will deplete resources more slowly" and "Higher qualities will spoil more slowly." This (should) get the intent of the sentence across more clearly than the way it is currently written.

See spoiler for far too much "more" information...

-- And, a final example of English usage. Two objects can be compared as one being "slower" than the other even if the comparison is for a process being performed by that object. A blender blending something is the process of "blending" but two different models of blenders (or two different brands) that complete this process at different times would be compared (more commonly and more naturally) as one being "slower" than the other instead of one "blending more slowly" than the other. It is the same with vehicles traveling from point A to point B, computers running programs/games, etcetera.
You are correct that given the rules for the English Language set out by those who sought to construct and define rules for the language, the grammatical correctness requires an adverb to be used to define something that is a verb... however the thing about natural languages -- and Engish in particular -- is that they often don't follow any real rules and just make <insert word here> all the time. The same sentence can be phrased a hundred or a thousand different ways using, abusing or outright breaking any and all given rules... and still be (mostly) understood by a native speaker. It's both a blessing and (mostly) a curse for the language - and especially for those trying to learn it from another language.

Also, I think the problem we are running into here is that in the referenced sentences the "subject" of the sentence is neither the machine/item in question nor the process that "thing" is undergoing (resource depletion or spoilage) but the quality of the machine/item in question. In fact, the aforementioned machine/item and process are the "object" of the sentence. The subject of a sentence in English is supposed to be at the beginning, and the object is supposed to be after the verb: -subject- -verb- -object- or: "quality" "what it does" "how it affects what it does."
Additionally, if you want to go into further Grammatical rules for English, generally speaking, one should attempt to avoid using passive voice in sentences. By phrasing the sentence as it is, passive voice is being used. (<- like that, but I don't want to sound accusatory by saying "[...] you used passive voice" simply to be accurate). If, instead, my suggestion is used (and, again, passive voice... I *might* have to reread this ENTIRE thing before submitting it now...) it would avoid using passive voice by placing the subject first (reminder: Resources are depleted more slowly at higher quality is "object" "verb/adverb" "subject") it also avoids using passive verbs such as "are" and makes "depleted" the active verb -- making it "active" voice.
-- As an aside, and in case anyone wants to argue what, exactly, is the subject/vs/object of the given sentence, the ONLY reason this sentence even exists in the first place is solely and specifically/explicitly because "quality" exists and only appears to specify what quality does for the given item/machine. This being the case it is extremely hard to make the argument that the subject of the sentence is the spoilage or the resource (depletion) instead of the quality of the machine/item.
As a final aside, in case anyone wants to argue that the above is incorrect, I did look up the information before/during/(and)after I wrote it to make sure my memory of this information was accurate and up to date. It is. No, I am not a professor of Literature, of English, of the study of language (in general) or of any profession that would require me to know and/or understand this information; I simply remember it from High School and College (and when I tried being a writer) and noticed this thread while trying to find out if quality and its changes to resource drain did anything to oil/sulfuric acid etc - that, so far as I know, are infinite.

[valneq]

Conclusion: […] But describing it as thus at all doesn't make sense unless you are explicitly using "slow" as the baseline measurement. I do not see this as the intent. […]

Let me see if I understand your point here. You are saying that the comparative forms "more slowly" and "faster" can only be used when "slow" or "fast" is the baseline? So they cannot be used in reference to an absoltue or default value? So you are saying that the following examples would be incorrect?

Example 1 (adjective):
> A machine is able to produce 2 iron plates per second. A machine with speed modules is faster.

Example 2 (adverb):
> A stack of nutrients will spoil within minutes. A pile of bioflux will spoil more slowly.

[valneq]

Also, I think the problem we are running into here is that in the referenced sentences the "subject" of the sentence is neither the machine/item in question nor the process that "thing" is undergoing (resource depletion or spoilage) but the quality of the machine/item in question.

I strongly disagree with you here. None of the sentences in question mention the subject at all. The "quality" is not the subject here. The quality is not the actor. The subject in the first example would be a mining drill:

> A mining drill at higher quality will deplete resources more slowly.

In the second case, the spoilable item is the subject (i.e. what is spoiling):

> A spoilable item at higher quality will spoil more slowly.

The phrasing used in the game right now just omits the subject of the sentence altogether and thus has to use passive form.

[Aricitic]

First, I feel the need to say the following: the previous post was written to and submitted at (or shortly after) Midnight last night (or this morning, depending on preferences). It being so late at night/early in the morning I likely didn't type it well - or even check it before posting. That is my mistake, which I will (and currently am) try to correct with/before this post.
Secondly, I do know that my posts (in almost everything) are LONG and for that I apologize, but when I state something as factual I try to provide evidence if not outright proof (most of the time). Doing this makes the posts long and wordy. Sadly, with my memory, there is no way around this as, though I may be "well spoken" that doesn't mean I always remember the meaning of the words/phrases I "try" to use and therefore often look them up before submission. -- So, PLEASE bear with me. I don't create "word walls" for the fun of it, but because I believe giving examples is necessary. If any of the related people simply don't want to bother, let me know and I'll go away.
That said:

valneq, with regards to your first post, not quite.
You said:

[...]
Let me see if I understand your point here. You are saying that the comparative forms "more slowly" and "faster" can only be used when "slow" or "fast" is the baseline? So they cannot be used in reference to an absoltue or default value?
[...]

What I am saying is that in a single sentence with absolutely no reference to any other context, your understanding of my comment is correct. Your examples, however, violate this necessity by adding context.

You said:

[...] So you are saying that the following examples would be incorrect?

Example 1 (adjective):
> A machine is able to produce 2 iron plates per second. A machine with speed modules is faster.

Example 2 (adverb):
> A stack of nutrients will spoil within minutes. A pile of bioflux will spoil more slowly.

Example 1 provides the necessary context adding sentence: "A machine is able to produce 2 iron plates per second." before the ambiguous sentence "A machine with speed modules is faster."
Example 2 provides the necessary context adding sentence "A stack of nutrients will spoil within minutes." before the ambiguous sentence "A pile of bioflux will spoil more slowly."

The game says the following: "Resources are depleted more slowly at higher qualities."
Nowhere does it give reference to how resources are depleted at lower qualities, as your example sentence for the speed change with a speed module does for what it is "faster" than. If, instead, it was phrased: "A normal quality Electric Mining Drill has a 100% chance to reduce the expected resources by 1 each mining operation." followed by "Resources are depleted more slowly at higher qualities." then it would be the same as your examples. But, it doesn't (I have the game open) so it isn't the same.

In this way I am not saying the examples you provided would be incorrect, but that is solely and precisely because you add context. If you remove the first sentence for either example, I would argue that - based on the meaning of our discussion - they would be considered "incorrect."


Further examples/reasoning:

Example 1 (adjective):
> A machine with speed modules is faster.

Ok, faster than what?

Example 2 (adverb):
> A pile of bioflux will spoil more slowly.

Ok, more slowly than what?

It is literally only the addition of (example 1) "2 iron plates per second" and (example 2) "spoil within minutes" that make them "correct" within the context of this argument. You added these things, the game does not. This is why I argue that the way the game says it "[...] doesn't make sense unless you are explicitly using "slow" as the baseline measurement." because there is no "other" baseline measurement in the context of the sentence, anywhere period. -- Of note: this is 'slightly' incorrect for the "Spoilage" one as "Spoilage" DOES provide a baseline within the context the sentence exists:
<under "fish">
"Spoilable"
"Spoil time: 2h5m50s"
Hovering over the blue star provides further "explicit" examples of the change in "spoil time" per quality.

This doesn't exist for "Resource drain." and we, as players, have to guess what it means. Obviously guessing isn't impossible, but it validates my argument (for resource drain).

[Aricitic]

[...]
I strongly disagree with you here. None of the sentences in question mention the subject at all. The "quality" is not the subject here. The quality is not the actor. The subject in the first example would be a mining drill:

> A mining drill at higher quality will deplete resources more slowly.

In the second case, the spoilable item is the subject (i.e. what is spoiling):

> A spoilable item at higher quality will spoil more slowly.

The phrasing used in the game right now just omits the subject of the sentence altogether and thus has to use passive form.

Ah, I see. So we are going to argue the rules of Grammar, are we? Ok. I will follow this argument and the rules provided...

<Response BEGIN>

You are welcome to disagree; and you are correct in that neither the sentence: "Resources are depleted more slowly at higher qualities." and the sentence "Spoils more slowly at higher qualities." contain the subject... Except, even if you argue that "a mining drill" is the subject of the first sentence and "a spoilable item" is the subject of the second sentence, you are incorrect based on the "Rules of English Grammar" as stated.
As per the Cambridge Dictionary's website's article on "Dummy subjects" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/gra ... y-subjects): "English clauses which are not imperatives must have a subject." (NOTE: I will not copy/paste the entire article here, anyone who cares to verify what I say can go to the provided link - or do their own search.)
The example it gives can be shortened to: "It's interesting to argue." with "It's" being what is called a "Dummy Subject" and the "Real Subject" being "argue."
So, to rewrite the sentence so that the subject is at the beginning of the sentence: "Arguing is interesting."

Babble, though more "wordy" agrees with this concept in its explanation of English sentence order.

The Grammarly website says it better. Under the 'header' "What is the subject of a sentence?", the first sentence of the second paragraph literally reads: "Every complete sentence has a subject." and continues: "Without a subject, you don’t have a sentence—you have a phrase."

Busuu (a website) lists 12 "rules of grammar" and number 4 is: "Use complete sentences." which it explains as: "A full sentence has a subject (who or what the sentence is about) and a verb (what the subject is doing)."
English Club (another website) lists 20 rules, and number 3 agrees with the above sentiment.
So does English College (yet another website), but with 11 rules and Rule 1: "Use Active Voice" specifies: "Active sentences have this formula: S (subject) + V (verb) + O (object):"
-== I could go on, but if the above doesn't make my point no amount of references will.

The point the above makes is as follows: "every 'proper' sentence contains a subject."

So...

Let us analyze the referenced sentences under this rule:
Sentence 1 (under the Factoriopedia for any "Mining Drill" and the "Pumpjack"): "Resources are depleted more slowly at higher qualities."

If we go based on the assumption that a "simple" sentence "consists of just one independent clause" which is "a group of words that contains at least one subject and at least one verb and can stand alone as a complete sentence" and has "no dependent clauses" (based on Grammarly's "Simple Sentence: Meaning and Examples" article), or that a sentence "at it's most basic" consists of: "A subject" and "A Predicate." (again, Grammarly: "Understanding the Subject of a Sentence: A Comprehensive Guide") then:

Subject: "Resources"; Predicate: "are depleted more slowly at higher qualities."

A "Predicate" is: "A predicate is the grammatical term for the words in a sentence or clause that describe the action but not the subject." (Grammarly: What Is a Predicate, and How Does It Work?") and can be explained as: "The predicate must contain a verb, and the verb requires or permits other elements to complete the predicate, or else precludes them from doing so. These elements are objects (direct, indirect, prepositional), predicatives, and adjuncts[...]" (Wikipedia on Predicate (Grammar), section: "Syntax"/"Traditional Grammar").

So, the Predicate: "are depleted more slowly at higher qualities." would be broken into: "are": Verb - specifically a "linking verb" (gallaudet.edu), "depleted": adjective, "more slowly": adverb, "at": preposition, "higher qualities": adjective. (all not specifically marked were gotten by entering "What type of word is:" into Google followed by the word or word pair.)

So...

What you are probably thinking of is the difference between the sentence (structure) "subject" and the (linguistics) "topic" or "theme" of the sentence. Wikipedia's article: "Topic and comment" defines this quite well within its first two paragraphs: (first paragraph, sentence one) "In linguistics, the topic, or theme, of a sentence is what is being talked about[...]" and (second paragraph) "The topic of a sentence is distinct from the grammatical subject. The topic is defined by pragmatic considerations, that is, the context that provides meaning. The grammatical subject is defined by syntax. In any given sentence the topic and grammatical subject may be the same, but they need not be. [...]"

What you declare as the "subject" of the sentence is, in fact, the "topic". The 'syntactical' "subject" of the sentence exists within the sentence, as all "complete sentences" must have one, and the sentence in question is a "complete sentence".
So, no, "[...] a mining drill[...]" is, as defined by English grammar's rules, definitively NOT the subject of the sentence in question, and (the word) "Resources[...]" is.

Further, you attempt to argue that: "The quality is not the actor." Again, I disagree. This sentence is a great example of "Passive Voice" where: "passive voice changes the position of the actor by using the verb to be along with a past participle. Past participles are past tense verb forms that are used as adjectives." (Montana State University's page on "Active and Passive Voice").
The key point to take away from the explanation is: "[...] by using the verb 'to be' along with a 'past participle'.[...]" and the explanation of "Past participles are past tense verb forms that are used as adjectives."

"Are" is the "present tense" form of the verb "to be." (Confirmed via Grammarly: "The Verb “To Be” Explained, With Examples") "Depleted" is the past tense of the verb "deplete" and is used as an adjective in this sentence.

Therefore... The sentence is irrifutably an example of "Passive Voice."

To change it into "Active Voice" the position of the "actor" has to be changed. The only word in the sentence that is (or 'can be') a noun other than "Resources" is the word from the adjective in the phrase "higher qualities"; in other words: "quality."
Quality: (Oxford Dictionary) Noun: Definition 1: "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something." That definition seems to match Factorio's usage of "Quality" perfectly, does it not?

Therefore, according to the "Rules of Grammar", to make the sentence: "Resources are depleted more slowly at higher qualities." It must become: "Higher quality depletes resources more slowly."
This only changes a few things: "Qualities" becomes "Quality" and goes from part of an Adjective Phrase to being a noun that the "comparative adjective" "higher" modifies. "Depleted" becomes "depletes" going from being a past tense verb - or, in this case, an adjective - to the present tense verb and sentence's main verb. "Are" is removed (removing the "to be" passive voice). And, finally, the position of the sentence's "Actor" or "Subject" and it's "Object" are switched.


Finally, I'm not saying that the sentences you "constructed" for your response are 'incorrect', per se. What I am saying is that by literally reconstructing the sentence away from what it is within the game you are invalidating your own argument.
You cannot take a definitive, distinct, absolute example and change it to fit your argument's needs as an example of why your argument is correct. Under any circumstances where arguments are being "graded" in any way (debate, scholarly, Logic, etc) your argument would be ripped to shreds and thrown out.

The original sentence (written directly from the in-game Factoriopedia page on "Electric Mining Drills" with the window open so I can write it character for character) says: "Resources are depleted more slowly at higher qualities."
It absolutely does not say: "A mining drill at higher quality will deplete resources more slowly" ... or any variation thereof.

No. This absolutely doesn't mean the sentence as written in-game cannot be read or understood as the sentence you constructed. It merely means that "what it says" and "what you assert it says" are two very different things. And... if you want to argue with the "Rules of Grammar" as the basis, your argument is incorrect.

It isn't "The phrasing used in the game right now just omits the subject of the sentence altogether and thus has to use passive form." That's not how grammar works. True, sentences "in English" can and sometimes do omit the "topic" or "theme" of a discussion/sentence. But that isn't what my argument is based on, and if you are replying to my argument, then it also isn't what your argument is based on.

My exact wording is:

[...]

Also, I think the problem we are running into here is that in the referenced sentences the "subject" of the sentence is neither the machine/item in question nor the process that "thing" is undergoing (resource depletion or spoilage) but the quality of the machine/item in question.[...]

I've effectively proven this by laying out the rules of (English) grammar above. Your argument against me doesn't follow the rules (as defined), makes unfounded assertions that disregard the rules (as defined), and adds context that doesn't exist within the related sentences.

<END>

Finally, finally...
If you believe that I am wrong, with regards to Grammar as defined for the English language, please, feel free to 'prove it.'
Cite your sources (I tried to. I'm painfully aware of a potential "character limit" otherwise I would have provided direct links to ALL sources.) And don't change the definitive, distinct, absolute examples provided to us by the Factorio team to suit your needs.

[Sharparam]

All of these walls of text that can be answered with: There is implied context for the "baseline". It's more slowly/slower than normal.

[valneq]

[…] that is solely and precisely because you add context.

Let me explain why I added context in my examples. I'm convinced that the game does provide sufficient context for the phrases in question. And because I did not have the game open when I wrote my previous post, I could not take screen shots. Let me share the phrases as they appear in-game. From what I can tell you can only see the phrases in question when hovering the diamond icon in the Factoriopedia like this:

grafik.png (130.99 KiB) Viewed 103 times

grafik.png (42.31 KiB) Viewed 103 times

So you can only see them in the context of "Resource drain: 100%" and "Spoil time: 5 m".

Where I do agree with you is that "100%" for resource drain is not technically a time (in seconds) nor a rate (in 1/s), and thus not an absolute reference point. However, it is still a reference point that provides context for the "more slowly" phrase, especially considering there is a "Mining speed: 0.5/s" just a couple lines above that can help with the conversion to a speed. It is unfortunate that the game uses a temporal adverb with reference to a probabilistic reference point, but that is not what the OP was complaining about.

What you declare as the "subject" of the sentence is, in fact, the "topic". The 'syntactical' "subject" of the sentence exists within the sentence, as all "complete sentences" must have one, and the sentence in question is a "complete sentence".

You are indeed correct! I apologize for conflating technical terms with colloquial ones. I don't have a degree in English, nor am I a native speaker. I'm trying to make a point. And my point still stands that "at higher qualities" is not the actor in the passive voice phrases in question. It describes circumstances.

Let me give you an alternative phrase in passive voice with some arbitrary circumstances:
"Resources are depleted more slowly at night time."

When trying to re-phrase this into active voice, I don't think anyone would deem "night time" the actor.

From what I do remember from my English grammar, the actor in a sentence with passive voice is typically introduced via the word "by". If I understand your suggestion correctly, then you see "Resources are depleted more slowly at higher qualities." equivalent to "Resources are depleted more slowly by higher qualities." or my above example equivalent to "Resources are depleted more slowly by night time."

But we are truly and utterly deranging from the original point the OP was trying to make. They were asking "more slowly" to be changed to "slower". And I still don't see that happening. Be it in active voice or in passive voice.

[edit:] In fact "spoils more slowly at higher qualities" is active voice without explicit subject. That might not be great. But again, this is not what the OP was asking to be changed.

[Aricitic]

[...]
[edit:] In fact "spoils more slowly at higher qualities" is active voice without explicit subject. That might not be great. But again, this is not what the OP was asking to be changed.

First, I need to apologize for (some of) my phrasing (last night/early this morning) in my previous post. It became "combative" which is inexcusable...
I'm sorry.

With regards to the first half, I've already agreed that with the "Spoilage" text: a baseline is present (I was wrong). When I first posted, while I did have the game open at the time I didn't bother checking the text for that instance. For that, I am solely at fault, and I made an attempt to point this out later.
With regards to the "Mineral Drain" we've basically come to a consensus, but I feel that I should add/clarify one thing: I was pointing out that the sentence "itself" didn't provide enough context for what it was referencing to. ... YES, Absolutely! Anyone with half a brain and (importantly) who is paying attention will know to what the text is referring (be it "mining drill" or "pumpjack"), but as it went on, it became less about the context as a whole and more about the "Grammar" of the sentence alone. -- my point still stands, and you've agreed, that nowhere does it explain what 100% means (explicitly) in words, but most people who play Factorio for any length of time *should* be able to figure this out...

---

With regards to your second point, simply: "Night time causes resources to deplete more slowly." "Night time" is what is "causing" the resources to change their "action". In either case, what is being changed is what's happening to the "resources," and I don't think anyone will try to argue this... my point is that what is important is what "causes" that change. Or, written in a more "literary" or "textbook" manner: "A sentence written in passive voice shifts the focus from the subject doing the action to the recipient of the action."
What is the action? "Depletion". More specifically a "decrease in depletion." (Even more specifically/accurately: a "decrease in the probability of depletion"). IF this is true, then it is not the resources, nor the Mining Drill/pumpjack itself that is causing that decrease, but the quality, is it not? In fact, the ONLY instance where the "decrease in the probability of depletion (of the resources) IS caused by the machine itself is for the "Big Mining Drill" and that is STILL acted upon by "Quality."
If the "actor" or "subject" of the sentence is "what is doing the 'action'" then - while the resources are what is being "depleted," they themselves are not what is "doing" the "decrease in the probability of" depletion, but what is being acted upon - it must be the quality that is "performing" the action, and not the 'resources', nor the 'drill/pumpjack,' for this context.
AND, If the "object" of the sentence is "the recipient of the action" then, because the "recipient" of the "decrease in the probability of resource depletion" is the 'resources' or the 'drill/pumpjack,' then, again, the "subject" MUST BE the "Quality."

Am I wrong? If so, how?

Honestly, while rereading this to make corrections I've realized

even more that the phrasing is extremely confusing... Because the main verb of the sentence is/should be "deplete" (and not "are") it makes it seem like the intent of the sentence is how the resources "are" depleted... But, is this really the case at all? Is it not more accurate to say that the intent of the sentence... the intent of the entire section on "resource depletion" is actually the reduction in "probability 'of'" resource depletion?

Consider the following idea: "Any resource gatherer/provider, whether it is a mining drill, a pumpjack or an offshore pump, gathers resources at a rate described by the equation: N*O, where "N" is the quantity of resources gathered and "O" is the number of operations (per cycle if such a thing exists, such as with Productivity Modules). In the case of resources that have a set quantity in the world, each operation will reduce that quantity by Q*O, where "Q" is the quantity reduced per "O" as the operation, the exception for this being any operation that is purely from "Productivity" via either research or "Productivity Modules"."
Yet... THIS isn't what we're talking about. The ratio changed dramatically with the introduction of "Quality" and "Space Age" (the latter adding the "Big Mining Drill"; the former being obvious). With quality involved the equation changes... and here my lack of knowledge in Mathematics becomes apparent as I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how to write the formula... embarrassing... but the idea becomes: "Quantity reduced IF probability PER operation." And that definitively ISN'T what the sentence says, or even implies.

I could "deep dive" into this, but I won't waste everyone's time, unless asked.

... anyway...

Let us assume, for a moment, that there was a page in the Factoriopedia specifically about "Quality" that wasn't directly associated or attached to any one item or machine. If the 'star' that created the popup instead linked to this page, and the information was found within a table on this page, would it not be plausible to argue that the "subject" of the "page" was "quality"? Then, the "subject" of each row of this imaginary table would be whatever item/machine/process was being modified.
I'm not saying that this is exactly what is happening, but, similarly, within literature, a "book" may be about one "topic," a chapter about a more specific topic, a paragraph about an even more specific topic, and "sentence's 'subject' based on grammatical syntax" something completely different.
What I was talking about was the "subject" of the sentence itself. I, in no way, ever, said that the "subject 'in question'" wasn't what the Factoriopedia page was about. These are two different things. One is Grammatical "Syntax" and the other is a "Literary" 'construct'.

SO, in general, you were always correct that the "subject 'at hand'" is the "Mining Drill" (or pumpjack), and this makes the "subject 'at hand'" implicit in the sentence in question (and, yes, the one about "spoilage" as a passive voice is either an "incomplete sentence" or requires "higher qualities" to be the subject... Remember, the first word in the sentence is not always the "subject" of that sentence, this is not, and has never been a requirement for English.) But my point was never about the "subject 'at hand'" but, instead, about the (syntactical) "subject" of the sentence itself. This is

a syntactical issue and not purely an English language one. If this were any other "Natural" language there "could be" a similar issue with "syntax" (unfortunately, despite my 'best efforts,' I have utterly failed to learn a single other language so I am basically incapable of providing a "Natural Language" example beyond English...) There are three other types of "language": formal language, constructed language, and machine language. Especially in any machine language "syntax" is critical as any deviation in the "correct" syntax makes the... not quite a... sentence fail completely. Rarely do Natural languages have this failure...
The sentence "Dog I are" is grammatically atrocious and syntactically incorrect... and yet... it can be understood. There are any number of "word combinations" that are grammatically and syntactically "wrong" but still "understandable." I'm sure this is as true for German as for English (although considering English is effectively a "b@st@rd" language where "anything goes" it may be more true of English...

The subject, especially the "true syntactical subject" of a sentence isn't always clear, but it is absolutely always there (for "complete sentences"). Neither of us are Linguists

, and, ultimately, arguing about this - and to this extent - is meaningless except as a "thought exercise." The ONLY reason I went through the trouble of looking any of this up (again, I did this years ago in an arrogant attempt at writing a program about language... yeah, that didn't happen...) is because I was responding to the phrasing of your argument utilizing the same phrasing and the rules that made up its basis.

A final addendum to the above point: I have found no such rule that requires the "actor" or "subject" of passive voice to be introduced via the word "by." The only requirement is that passive voice places the subject (or actor) toward the end of the sentence and the "recipient of the action" to the front. (https://www.hamilton.edu/academics/cent ... isciplines). Fist paragraph, first sentence.) -- Of note, I'm not blaming you for/as "being wrong" or "not knowing." Heck, I doubt most native speakers of English know (or care to know) this. Again, the only reason I care is because I researched this "years ago" and because of this argument/debate...


Finally! Once again, you are absolutely correct. We have moved so far away from the original poster's original comment that this (would) deserve its own thread... I have no interest in creating a thread merely to suggest the wording be changed to: "Higher qualities deplete resources more slowly" and "Higher qualities spoil more slowly" -- hijacking someone else's thread? Sure... but the dev's don't need the harassment of new threads being created for something this simple/mundane/arbitrary...
The OP's original sentiment was that the current phrasing is grammatically incorrect, which is, technically, incorrect. Honestly, either phrasing would be more than passable as a "correct" sentence within this language; I have verified that externally and am willing to provide sources. However, I still believe that both the suggested phrasing and the phrasing as it is are confusing.
...

I could go into an explanation of how "quality" is the actor and "resources" is the recipient of the action... but I can tell I'm already starting to annoy people (I'm looking at you Sharparam... "normal" isn't a baseline. Implicit or otherwise a "non-numerical, non-explicit, abstract 'concept'" isn't a baseline. Under damn well nearly any circumstance if you were following instructions and one instruction was "a little less than 'normal'" you would be confused at first, then infuriated because you would have to look up what "normal" was to continue the instructions. Please, provide a circumstance where you are "required to follow instructions" and my statement is NOT the case. If I'm wrong I'll gladly admit it... -- P.S. to all: If this website "hid" the "spoiler" text, I would use it more frequently so that no one HAS TO READ/SCROLL PAST my paragraphs. It doesn't so I can't... sorry...)

Two final notes: If anyone knows of a way (on this forum) to actually "hide" text, such that it doesn't "take up space" until clicked (etc) -- rather than simply being "redacted" -- Please, PLEASE tell me. Yes, they are "walls of texts" (also known as "paragraphs") and no one should be forced to scroll past them if there is a better formatting option...

Second to last comment: valneq, follow the link provided above - and I'm certainly willing to provide more examples - to see why "spoils more slowly at higher qualities" still has an explicit subject. It's not perfect for the example, but if you utilize the "by zombies" method they provide you should be able to see what I'm saying... and why...

Final comment (period*): This will be the last time I touch on this topic*... unless anyone "tries to prove me wrong" (if they succeed, I'll admit I'm wrong... if they don't I'll explain why... uh... in depth...) or if anyone "wants" to continue this line of reasoning. However, with regards to that final 'part' (wants to...) if there are any "better" places to do this, point me/us in that direction and I'll gladly move there as there really isn't any reason to extend this thread out further when the original point has effectively been lost/resolved.

[Sharparam]

If anyone knows of a way (on this forum) to actually "hide" text, such that it doesn't "take up space" until clicked (etc) -- rather than simply being "redacted" -- Please, PLEASE tell me.

If you give your spoiler tag a title, it will generate a collapsible block instead of blacked out text, like this:

Code: Select all

[spoiler=Test title]
This text is contained inside the collapsible "spoiler" element.
[/spoiler]

Results in this:

Test title

This text is contained inside the collapsible "spoiler" element.

Yes, they are "walls of texts" (also known as "paragraphs")

You can use paragraphs in your posts without them turning into walls of text. "Wall of text" is about the sheer amount of text, and usually only when it includes a bunch of needless words that make it just take long to read. Simply using paragraphs and properly formatting your text does not a "wall of text" make.

[Aricitic]

If anyone knows of a way (on this forum) to actually "hide" text, such that it doesn't "take up space" until clicked (etc) -- rather than simply being "redacted" -- Please, PLEASE tell me.

If you give your spoiler tag a title, it will generate a collapsible block instead of blacked out text, like this:

Code: Select all

[spoiler=Test title]
This text is contained inside the collapsible "spoiler" element.
[/spoiler]

Results in this:

Test title

This text is contained inside the collapsible "spoiler" element.

Yes, they are "walls of texts" (also known as "paragraphs")

You can use paragraphs in your posts without them turning into walls of text. "Wall of text" is about the sheer amount of text, and usually only when it includes a bunch of needless words that make it just take long to read. Simply using paragraphs and properly formatting your text does not a "wall of text" make.

First half: Thank you! I didn't know that. I will do so in the future (maybe even retroactively apply this...).

Second half: I do try to not add truly needless words. I do, however, try to phrase things in ways that can be taken with... perhaps... excessive politeness (at times). Or things that further point towards something I'm getting at, etc.
Some of this may be unnecessary. Sadly I have been diagnosed with a memory deficiency (below-average memory) so it is actually quite likely that I may go in circles (even within the same sentence) at times. That's unintentional and I try to catch it by rereading... but, one person rereading something doesn't mean an issue will be caught if that "issue" is simply the way they process information. (and I don't have others who would be willing to "proof read" before I post things like this.)

With regards to "formatting"... There are limits to the ability to format on forums depending on the system the forum uses. I try to get around the lack of indention with an additional "carriage return" to break up the paragraph(s). The ability to center or align to the right would further help with this, and adding "--" is an attempt to compensate.

Really, it isn't that there is "no solution" but that "I don't know what that solution is..." Suggestions are most welcome.

(To prevent extending an effectively finished thread further - especially with information well beyond the scope of the thread, perhaps we should do "direct" or "private" messages in relation to the above? Or whatever system this forum has for such things?)