Quality Ore Patch Support

Things that we aren't going to implement
OilyMac
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:57 am
Contact:

Quality Ore Patch Support

Post by OilyMac »

I'd like to create quality ore patches, but I haven't been able to make it work. I can think of two ways that would let me accomplish this.

1. Quality in ResourceEntityPrototype

local quality_iron_ore_resource = table.deepcopy(data.raw.resource["iron-ore"])
quality_iron_ore_resource.quality = "uncommon" <<<

2. Quality in ItemProductPrototype

minable = {
results = {{
type=item,
name="iron-ore",
quality="uncommon", <<<
amount=1
}}
}

Either would be sufficient, or maybe there's a better third option I haven't thought of.
nullevoy
Manual Inserter
Manual Inserter
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2025 11:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Quality Ore Patch Support

Post by nullevoy »

I agree that either this, or some way to specify the output quality of an assembler recipe should be added, because there is physically no way to implement this without adding randomness from quality bonuses to the mix.

Happened to attempt making a mod for this today as well, but even fixing the assembler's output quality on a no input recipe doesn't yield results.
Rseding91
Factorio Staff
Factorio Staff
Posts: 15894
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:23 am
Contact:

Re: Quality Ore Patch Support

Post by Rseding91 »

Sorry but no. Quality on the patch itself would mean additional data in save files and additional memory usage even when not used by mods - so it's out. Quality on the minable properties goes against how the entire quality system works in that the quality you get is the quality of the entity.

This is simply not a supported modding case.
If you want to get ahold of me I'm almost always on Discord.
OilyMac
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:57 am
Contact:

Re: Quality Ore Patch Support

Post by OilyMac »

Thanks for the response.

To clarify, my thinking was that the quality on minable results would serve as the baseline, and then whatever quality chance for better would apply from there. Similar to how using uncommon ingredients gets you at least uncommon output, but you could get rare, etc. So I'd argue that what I'm asking for is just extending the same mechanics backwards one step from miners to the patch itself.
Post Reply

Return to “Won't implement”