Idea for balancing crushers

[cyx2020f]

Decrease the base quality of asteroid crushers to -0.5 (internal value, displays as -5% in current game), so rare quality 2 modules or uncommon quality 3 modules are required to start a functional space casino while not decreasing the diversity of the game.

[angramania]

Interesting, when anti space casinos guys will realize that legendary copper, iron, plastic, etc are not problem at all with any method. Main shortage for legendary is holmium, tungsten, etc. Unique resources that are absent in space. Stop tilting at windmills and focus on real problems.

[CyberCider]

Interesting, when anti space casinos guys will realize that legendary copper, iron, plastic, etc are not problem at all with any method. Main shortage for legendary is holmium, tungsten, etc. Unique resources that are absent in space. Stop tilting at windmills and focus on real problems.

I don’t see how upcycling vanilla items is any easier/different from from upcycling Space Age ones. It’s the same process, so the complexity is the same. The reason space casino and LDS shuffle need attention is because they use a significantly simpler process and still have hugely good performance. That’s like if electric furnaces were more efficient than foundries, or if basic oil processing produced much more gas than advanced.

[angramania]

I don’t see how upcycling vanilla items is any easier/different from from upcycling Space Age ones. It’s the same process, so the complexity is the same. The reason space casino and LDS shuffle need attention is because they use a significantly simpler process and still have hugely good performance.

Direct upcycling of iron/copper plates is complex? Just assemble and disassemble copper cables and iron gears. Even blue science pack is more complex. I doubt that anyone care about complexity. Main question is about resource efficiency. But copper, iron, plastic are infinite. Both in space and on some planets. So there is no real difference between space casino and upcycling. Holmium and tungsten are different. They are very limited and you really should care about efficiency. But space casino can't help you with that.

[CyberCider]

Direct upcycling of iron/copper plates is complex? Just assemble and disassemble copper cables and iron gears. Even blue science pack is more complex. I doubt that anyone care about complexity. Main question is about resource efficiency. But copper, iron, plastic are infinite. Both in space and on some planets. So there is no real difference between space casino and upcycling. Holmium and tungsten are different. They are very limited and you really should care about efficiency. But space casino can't help you with that.

Well, if you want resource efficiency, then you should be using upcyclers such as blue circuits and LDS, because those can reach 300% productivity. And unlike gears and cables, those have multiple ingredients. This makes them a lot more complex that space casino, especially since the ratio between the ingredients is probabilistic. Space casino has no distinct ingredients or products, the recipe both inputs and outputs asteroids. You just put an asteroid through the same recipe over and over again, you don’t need to build anything besides different variants of that one recipe. If you have one asteroid, you can already put it in the crusher, there are no other ingredients to wait for. You have to sort the asteroids, sure, but you also do that in any upcycler that’s decently good. And if you have an excess of one asteroid, you can turn it into exactly the one you want, while with most regular items you can’t do that. You can’t turn a copper cable into a steel plate, you need to make logistics that will take it to its proper place. Space casino also only handles ores, it doesn’t require any logistical inputs. While an upcycler for a product requires a whole real factory to produce all of the common items that go into it.

I don’t find resources to be limited at all, in any situation. Space Age, for some reason, decided to make mining productivity so easy to obtain that all resources have basically become infinite. My guess is that the developers changed their minds about depleting resources being a mechanic in the game, so they soft-removed it by making it so easy to overcome. To me, the main figure of merit for a quality production line is how expensive it is to build, because that determines how quickly I can scale it up. That means the goal is high throughput, to minimize the number of machines. And that leads to interestint choices of recipe, such as blue underground belts for gears/iron, big power poles for steel, heat exchangers for copper, etc.

I doubt that anyone care about complexity.

Then what do you think the developers are even doing all day? What is a factory game about if not complexity? Factorio has always been about designing factories that become better and better as they become more complex to design. They produce more advanced science packs, are faster, and are more resource efficient (in the base game, where resource depletion is a real concern). But only if you extract more different resources, produce more complex products, change the ratios with productivity modules, change the layouts with beacons, etc.

[angramania]

Sorry but I do not see what is complex in brute force upcycling. All you need is upcyclers(EM plant, AM3, biochamber), recyclers, provider chests, request chests, bots. Repeat for intermediate quality levels. Bots do all sorting. As I said, blue science is more complex at the moment you get it. You do not have bots and chests in space, so casino looks more complex to setup. And of course all complexity is gone after you have created blueprints. From this moment only efficiency plays role. That's why I said, that almost nobody really cares about complexity of space casinos compared to brute force upcycling. And suggestion in this topic also talk only about reducing efficiency, not about increasing complexity.

[CyberCider]

Sorry but I do not see what is complex in brute force upcycling. All you need is upcyclers(EM plant, AM3, biochamber), recyclers, provider chests, request chests, bots. Repeat for intermediate quality levels. Bots do all sorting. As I said, blue science is more complex at the moment you get it. You do not have bots and chests in space, so casino looks more complex to setup.

Casino is just so simple, I think most people wouldn’t use bots for it even if they could. Don’t get me wrong, upcycling (and Space Age as a whole) was definitely designed at a level of difficulty accessible for the average player. It’s definitely not overhaul-level complex. But space casino is just complete baby mode, it’s even simpler relative to everything else.

There’s also the matter of the larger scale, outside of the quality build itself. Upcycling consumes common quality items, so an actual base needs to be scaled and interconnected to allow for that. It also produces byproducts which need to be routed (for example, you use big power poles to upcycle steel plates, and that also produces copper cable and iron sticks). But space casino generates everything for itself on board, and allows you to rebalance all three asteroids between each other freely, to always get exactly the ratio you want. So to build an upcycler, you have to expand your base and set up some logistics. But to build a space casino you just set up the platform and you’re already done.

And of course all complexity is gone after you have created blueprints. From this moment only efficiency plays role. That's why I said, that almost nobody really cares about complexity of space casinos compared to brute force upcycling. And suggestion in this topic also talk only about reducing efficiency, not about increasing complexity.

Of course, but I’m just talking about the design stage. Everything in Factorio is designed once and then copy-pasted, that’s a given. But the efficiency of every possible method determines which one you will choose when designing. And it’s good game design for the most interesting method to be the most efficient one. Because it rewards players for engaging with the game and solving a challenge.

[mmmPI]

But space casino is just complete baby mode, it’s even simpler relative to everything else.

No, the simplest is to just upcycle the minerals at the mines, that's the least complexity. It's much easier than space casino, and much more UPS efficient, just overall better in every aspect in late game once you have so much productivity level it trivialize the ressource cost. It just can't be done for space Age item like holmium easily making "space age" item different than "non-space" age item

Interesting, when anti space casinos guys will realize that legendary copper, iron, plastic, etc are not problem at all with any method. Main shortage for legendary is holmium, tungsten, etc. Unique resources that are absent in space. Stop tilting at windmills and focus on real problems.

Yes !

If you remove space casino, you can still easily upcycle in space, it's just not as ups efficient but you can copy many times the same space platform, it's not even more complex, you just throw offboard the things that weren't upcycled in quality when processed, it's very much possible to continue using what makes space casino strong, which is unlimited ressources and easy scaling

Having a penalty on crushers for quality doesn't change the situation to me, space platform that upcycle quality things are already a late game thing, wether you have to wait a bit more before using them or not do not change them imo, they are not a thing that's OP early game, it's just one way to do for late game

[CyberCider]

No, the simplest is to just upcycle the minerals at the mines, that's the least complexity. It's much easier than space casino, and much more UPS efficient, just overall better in every aspect in late game once you have so much productivity level it trivialize the ressource cost. It just can't be done for space Age item like holmium easily making "space age" item different than "non-space" age item

The key difference between ore recycling and space casino (and other exploits) is that ore recycling is terrible compared to upcycling. There are a few exceptions, but for the most major items like circuits, steel, gears, etc., it’s true. Ore recycling is simple but ineffective (ok), while space casino is simple and effective (not ok). In fact, that’s the exact way this post is aiming to adress the problem: By making casino less good, so its performance is appropriate for its complexity.

If you remove space casino, you can still easily upcycle in space, it's just not as ups efficient but you can copy many times the same space platform, it's not even more complex, you just throw offboard the things that weren't upcycled in quality when processed, it's very much possible to continue using what makes space casino strong, which is unlimited ressources and easy scaling

There’s not really any advantage to doing quality in space besides the OP efficiency of space casino. If that were to be nerfed, and space casino suddenly had to be built 5x larger, that would no longer be “easy scaling”. And in Space Age, resources are always practically unlimited. Theoretically only in space and on Gleba, but in practice everywhere.

[crimsonarmy]

No, the simplest is to just upcycle the minerals at the mines, that's the least complexity. It's much easier than space casino, and much more UPS efficient, just overall better in every aspect in late game once you have so much productivity level it trivialize the ressource cost. It just can't be done for space Age item like holmium easily making "space age" item different than "non-space" age item

The key difference between ore recycling and space casino (and other exploits) is that ore recycling is terrible compared to upcycling. There are a few exceptions, but for the most major items like circuits, steel, gears, etc., it’s true. Ore recycling is simple but ineffective (ok), while space casino is simple and effective (not ok). In fact, that’s the exact way this post is aiming to adress the problem: By making casino less good, so its performance is appropriate for its complexity.

I'm seriously doubting if you have ever made a space casino. Considering simpler than a basic upcycling setup is crazy.

[mmmPI]

If that were to be nerfed, and space casino suddenly had to be built 5x larger, that would no longer be “easy scaling”.

Maybe for you x)

Pro-tip : you can make 5 copies of the same platform once you figure out the logic. There you go easy scaling.

The suggestion in OP would just prevent players to use one amongst several late game strategy in early game, which i feel misses the point for why it's proosed. Point with which i disagree with too.

I'm seriously doubting if you have ever made a space casino. Considering simpler than a basic upcycling setup is crazy.

Maybe it's the opposite, maybe it comes from not ever having tried others means of doing quality.

When you can use quality module in mining drills, and mine directly in recyclers, to only filter out the desired quality level. There isn't another system that can be "simpler" i think. It's almost like mining quality ore directly. The "unlock" for this is just a lot of mining productivity, which is just purple science.

Making an upcycling platform, whatever the tech used, means you can easily scale it, maybe not efficiently, but easily. Creating one is a challenge in itself. It requires an understanding of the system that means you could also have done the upcycling loops, or the quality mining.

I know devs said they would rebalance / nerf or remove the space casino, by removing the ability to put quality module in asteroid crushers, which won't remove the ability to do space casino though , if they maintain the decision, to me, it will just make the challenge of creating a platform that can dump quality material more complex, requiring smarter logic to produce the right materials in the right quantities , efficently, but you could still make 5 copies of the same platform once you have figured out the logic.

Overall i think the consequences are adressing in a nuanced way what the sensible complaints were about

[CyberCider]

Pro-tip : you can make 5 copies of the same platform once you figure out the logic. There you go easy scaling.
…
Making an upcycling platform, whatever the tech used, means you can easily scale it, maybe not efficiently, but easily.

By “easy” I don’t mean simple. I mean, I’ve been calling casino simple this whole time, that’s my entire problem with it. I know this is how casino works. Like, look:

There’s also the matter of the larger scale, outside of the quality build itself. Upcycling consumes common quality items, so an actual base needs to be scaled and interconnected to allow for that. It also produces byproducts which need to be routed (for example, you use big power poles to upcycle steel plates, and that also produces copper cable and iron sticks). But space casino generates everything for itself on board, and allows you to rebalance all three asteroids between each other freely, to always get exactly the ratio you want. So to build an upcycler, you have to expand your base and set up some logistics. But to build a space casino you just set up the platform and you’re already done.

To me, simplicity of design and use is no advantage by itself. The way I compare the effectiveness/scalability of quality methods is their speed: How much throughput of value they produce out of a given investment into building them. If I dedicate x of my existing legendary items to this build, how many legendary items per minute/second will it produce? And the build which produces the most with the same investment (or produces a target amount with the lowest investment) is, to me, “the best”. Because it determines how quickly I can put down more of them. I could put down an inefficient build very many times, but that would take a long time to actually be built in game. A build that’s slow will only produce another copy of itself very slowly, after all.

Maybe it's the opposite, maybe it comes from not ever having tried others means of doing quality.

When you can use quality module in mining drills, and mine directly in recyclers, to only filter out the desired quality level. There isn't another system that can be "simpler" i think. It's almost like mining quality ore directly. The "unlock" for this is just a lot of mining productivity, which is just purple science.

I do actually recycle ore like this, for coal. It’s one of the exceptions to the general rule of ore recycling being very slow compared to intermediate upcycling. Since all of the recyclable recipes that use coal or plastic have very slow throughput for coal/plastic, so ore recycling manages to beat them all. And I can tell you it’s very simple and entirely uninteresting. In fact, I recently got the idea to investigate bioflux or capture rockets as an alternative way to get quality coal, just to see if I can do anything else for it.

Creating one is a challenge in itself. It requires an understanding of the system that means you could also have done the upcycling loops, or the quality mining.

No, I don’t think this is the case at all. Space casino and quality mining are fundamentally simpler than upcycling. There are things you need to do in upcycling that you don’t need to do at all in order to make these two. That’s kind of the basis of my entire argument. Because these things are on a lower level of complexity to design, they should also be on a lower level of effectiveness. Ore recycling currently is (mostly), but space casino is not.

I know devs said they would rebalance / nerf or remove the space casino, by removing the ability to put quality module in asteroid crushers, which won't remove the ability to do space casino though , if they maintain the decision, to me, it will just make the challenge of creating a platform that can dump quality material more complex, requiring smarter logic to produce the right materials in the right quantities , efficently, but you could still make 5 copies of the same platform once you have figured out the logic.

Well, at that point, there would be nothing really wrong with it, from a game design perspective. What you describe sounds decently balanced. Moderate complexity, moderate effectiveness. Just so we’re clear, I would be completely on board with making casino more complex instead of removing or simply nerfing it. To me it just sounds like a lot more work: Effectively designing new content instead of only patching an exploit. So I find it less realistic to expect it from the devs for 2.1.

[mmmPI]

By “easy” I don’t mean simple. I mean, I’ve been calling casino simple this whole time, that’s my entire problem with it. I know this is how casino works.

I agree with the other 2 persons that expressed a different opinion than yours on this. You said there was no difference between non-space age item, and space age item, which was puzzling to me, as space casino can't be used for "space age item" that contain tungsten or holmium, so maybe you fee like you know how they work, but it doesn't sound like you've actually used one.

Space casino and quality mining are fundamentally simpler than upcycling. There are things you need to do in upcycling that you don’t need to do at all in order to make these two. That’s kind of the basis of my entire argument. Because these things are on a lower level of complexity to design, they should also be on a lower level of effectiveness. Ore recycling currently is (mostly), but space casino is not.

You said space casino was baby mode and simpler than eveything else, which is wrong imo as quality mining is simpler than space casino. That was the point of my initial intervention.

And i feel the underlined part is incorrect, since space casino can't do space age items, if you use one you still need to pick at least one other method of upcycling, for tungsten and holmium. And if you understand how to make space casino that doesnt jam, there's no reason (to me) you couldn't do a regular upcycling loop or just upcycle at the mning drills, since those require the same understanding in terms of math and extra system if not less. They are required to be used together in a real game when someone tries to rely on space casino anyway.

I don't think there's a NEED for removing or even altering the space casinos because they are already quite balanced, they still require players to use other method of recycling, they are more difficult to make than mining quality, but also easier to duplicate once you have a working platforms. ( no exploration very little manual interventions, no taping ore patch ) . I understand devs have announced a change, and i tried to play as if it was already there.

Well, at that point, there would be nothing really wrong with it, from a game design perspective. What you describe sounds decently balanced. Moderate complexity, moderate effectiveness.

I believe it's a shortcoming from your end, you may be very disappointed when you realize how "easy"/"simple" it is to make a space casino without quality modules in the crushers compared to the current space casino there's isn't much of a difference. In the end you still have a blueprint of a platform that can dump some legendary material in arbitrary amount as you can duplicate them. You may need 5x as much, but the platform design itself can be very simple, as mentionned , just throw offboard what isn't upcycled by the furnaces / chem plantss / foundries instead of crushers. It still scale endlessly with asteroid productivity.

I believe the removal of quality module from crushers will work in the same direction of the suggestion from this thread, making it a "laterer" tech, but it doesn't address all the complaints about space casinos. Some imo don't need to be adressed though because they are unfounded, and i feel that include some of what i tried to point out earlier about your comments that goes beyond the suggestion from this thread about complexity in particular.

[CyberCider]

I agree with the other 2 persons that expressed a different opinion than yours on this. You said there was no difference between non-space age item, and space age item, which was puzzling to me, as space casino can't be used for "space age item" that contain tungsten or holmium, so maybe you fee like you know how they work, but it doesn't sound like you've actually used one.

You seem to have slightly misremembered what I said. Here’s the quote:

I don’t see how upcycling vanilla items is any easier/different from from upcycling Space Age ones. It’s the same process, so the complexity is the same.

You said space casino was baby mode and simpler than eveything else, which is wrong imo as quality mining is simpler than space casino. That was the point of my initial intervention.

Ok, I assumed it was obvious, but I could have been more specific: Space casino is much simpler than other things with good performance. Ore recycling generally doesn’t need to be adressed or discussed in balancing discussions, because in the majority of cases it’s so weak that it’s irrelevant.

And i feel the underlined part is incorrect, since space casino can't do space age items, if you use one you still need to pick at least one other method of upcycling, for tungsten and holmium. And if you understand how to make space casino that doesnt jam, there's no reason (to me) you couldn't do a regular upcycling loop or just upcycle at the mning drills, since those require the same understanding in terms of math and extra system if not less. They are required to be used together in a real game when someone tries to rely on space casino anyway.

I don't think there's a NEED for removing or even altering the space casinos because they are already quite balanced, they still require players to use other method of recycling, they are more difficult to make than mining quality, but also easier to duplicate once you have a working platforms. ( no exploration very little manual interventions, no taping ore patch ) . I understand devs have announced a change, and i tried to play as if it was already there.

It’s not so much about things the player has to know or understand, but what they have to use, and in what quantities. Space casino doesn’t produce every resource, of course, but it produces the ones that are used the most. Modules are made 99% of circuits, with only a tiny addition of Space Age items. Beacons are exclusively vanilla. Even Space Age buildings themselves are only partially made of Space Age resources, in some cases they are more than half vanilla. So in terms of volume, space casino still produces the large majority of all quality products if used, compared to upcycling.

I believe it's a shortcoming from your end, you may be very disappointed when you realize how "easy"/"simple" it is to make a space casino without quality modules in the crushers compared to the current space casino there's isn't much of a difference. In the end you still have a blueprint of a platform that can dump some legendary material in arbitrary amount as you can duplicate them. You may need 5x as much, but the platform design itself can be very simple, as mentionned , just throw offboard what isn't upcycled by the furnaces / chem plantss / foundries instead of crushers. It still scale endlessly with asteroid productivity.

Well, at that point you are just making a normal upcycler (including a whole factory from ore to product) but on with a spaceship. You could have done that on the ground and had it work the same. There are a few differences, but in my opinion they overall even out. If someone would like to do that, they are free to, I guess.

[mmmPI]

I agree with the other 2 persons that expressed a different opinion than yours on this. You said there was no difference between non-space age item, and space age item, which was puzzling to me, as space casino can't be used for "space age item" that contain tungsten or holmium, so maybe you fee like you know how they work, but it doesn't sound like you've actually used one.

You seem to have slightly misremembered what I said. Here’s the quote:

I don’t see how upcycling vanilla items is any easier/different from from upcycling Space Age ones. It’s the same process, so the complexity is the same.

What you said again is still wrong imo, it doesn't sound like a misrememberance. Things that contain holmium can't be obtained from space casino nor tungsten, that's what was pointed out because you seemed unaware space casino can't be used for everything and thus require players to use also another method of recycling. It's not the simplest method ore recycling is , and it can't even do all the item. Which items ? Rethorical question, the answer is "space age' vs "non-space age item".

Ok, I assumed it was obvious, but I could have been more specific: Space casino is much simpler than other things with good performance. Ore recycling generally doesn’t need to be adressed or discussed in balancing discussions, because in the majority of cases it’s so weak that it’s irrelevant.

I don't think your arguments are relevant but i still adress them

ore recycling is relevant, you said it yourself for coal (at least ), besides if you argue for removing one way to do things comparing with the ways that are left is making sense, if you think it's irrelevant it's because in your mind you compare space casino and recycling loop if you think it's the only relevant point to compare then i think you are doing the balancing wrong, focusing too much on makings rules to enfore a certain playstyle.

Well, at that point you are just making a normal upcycler (including a whole factory from ore to product) but on with a spaceship. You could have done that on the ground and had it work the same. There are a few differences, but in my opinion they overall even out.

I'm fairly sure you are underestimating the few differences

[CyberCider]

What you said again is still wrong imo, it doesn't sound like a misrememberance. Things that contain holmium can't be obtained from space casino nor tungsten, that's what was pointed out because you seemed unaware space casino can't be used for everything and thus require players to use also another method of recycling. It's not the simplest method ore recycling is , and it can't even do all the item. Which items ? Rethorical question, the answer is "space age' vs "non-space age item".

I underlined “upcycling”. I think I should have been more clear with that, just in case. I was referring specifically to upcycling when I said that, not quality production in general by any method.

ore recycling is relevant, you said it yourself for coal (at least ), besides if you argue for removing one way to do things comparing with the ways that are left is making sense, if you think it's irrelevant it's because in your mind you compare space casino and recycling loop if you think it's the only relevant point to compare then i think you are doing the balancing wrong, focusing too much on makings rules to enfore a certain playstyle.

That’s why I made sure to say “generally” and “most cases” every time. Because naturally there are exceptions. Anyway, I have gone and checked how good ore recycling could be for every material, and found out that it’s outclassed in nearly all cases (definitely all of the most important ones). That’s just how it is in the game. And in my opinion, given its simplicity, that’s a good and balanced position for it to be in. And it’s not the topic of this thread, anyway.

[mmmPI]

I underlined “upcycling”. I think I should have been more clear with that, just in case.

Yeah even maybe recognize it is wrong when people pointed it to you x)

And it’s not the topic of this thread, anyway.

Agreed, it was unclear / wrong and unrelated to the specific proposition from this thead on which you haven't even expressed an opinion.

Thank you for your contribution though, it gave me an idea on how to demonstrate another unrelated previous claim was i feel incorrect more in details :

Well, at that point you are just making a normal upcycler (including a whole factory from ore to product) but on with a spaceship. You could have done that on the ground and had it work the same. There are a few differences, but in my opinion they overall even out. If someone would like to do that, they are free to, I guess.

i underlined the part that i feel is incorrect, to make it clear what i'm saying, it's a shortcoming on your end if you think one will have to redo a whole factory from ore to product but on a spaceship. Instead what player will have to do is similar to ore recycling , a very simple, or easy setup, or both you choose :

legendary space probe.jpg (230.99 KiB) Viewed 158 times

Anyway, I have gone and checked how good ore recycling could be for every material, and found out that it’s outclassed in nearly all cases (definitely all of the most important ones). That’s just how it is in the game. And in my opinion, given its simplicity, that’s a good and balanced position for it to be in. And it’s not the topic of this thread, anyway.

I think you have missed the point. it's a logical flaw that you are comiting here, if you are discussing balance and you remove space casino, then you are left with less method to do quality, ( your proposal) it's not the same as the proposition on this thread that aims at delaying space casino , those leads to different state of what's possible to do in game if implemented. On such hypothesized future state the relation of "worthyness" between different methods will also be different so your current research are useless, specifically the conclusion that you discard a method because it's outclassed by another method that you argue should be removed is off topic, as you mentionned, but also flawed in a logical sense to me. If space casino are removed then ore recycling will become more relevant than it currently is, and it currently is already relevant and shouldn't be discarded otherwise balancing is very similar to making rules to enforce a certain way to do imo, you only focus on "one true method" and remove all the others.

How do you outclass infinite ressources with no manual intervention that you can scale just by "adding another space platform" ? It's a qualitative difference with any other method, i think the way you checked what is a good method is just the reflect of your own opinion, it's not a broader more general objective approach, It fails to understand what other players than you value in what could replace the space casino if they were removed or altered.

In the end, it's It's a good thing it can't be used for space age items, otherwise it would need to be nerfed x).

[CyberCider]

Agreed, it was unclear / wrong and unrelated to the specific proposition from this thead on which you haven't even expressed an opinion.

Well, maybe not explicitly, but I would say it’s fairly obvious that I do support it.

i underlined the part that i feel is incorrect, to make it clear what i'm saying, it's a shortcoming on your end if you think one will have to redo a whole factory from ore to product but on a spaceship. Instead what player will have to do is similar to ore recycling , a very simple, or easy setup, or both you choose :

But that is a whole factory from ore to product. Except the “product” chosen here is an ore itself . If you wanted something that operated at a more useful speed, by being based on some more advanced recipes, you would in fact need more than that. Also, I will say that ore recycling is definitely best performed when there are quality modules in the mining drill. Doing this in space seems to forfeit that advantage, making it even slower.

I think you have missed the point. it's a logical flaw that you are comiting here, if you are discussing balance and you remove space casino, then you are left with less method to do quality, ( your proposal) it's not the same as the proposition on this thread that aims at delaying space casino , those leads to different state of what's possible to do in game if implemented. On such hypothesized future state the relation of "worthyness" between different methods will also be different so your current research are useless, specifically the conclusion that you discard a method because it's outclassed by another method that you argue should be removed is off topic, as you mentionned, but also flawed in a logical sense to me. If space casino are removed then ore recycling will become more relevant than it currently is, and it currently is already relevant and shouldn't be discarded otherwise balancing is very similar to making rules to enforce a certain way to do imo, you only focus on "one true method" and remove all the others.

My tests were between ore recycling and upcycling, not ore recycling and space casino. If something happened to space casino, the relation between these other two would not be affected: Upcycling would still be on top for the large majority of uses.

How do you outclass infinite ressources with no manual intervention that you can scale just by "adding another space platform" ? It's a qualitative difference with any other method, i think the way you checked what is a good method is just the reflect of your own opinion, it's not a broader more general objective approach, It fails to understand what other players than you value in what could replace the space casino if they were removed or altered.

Well, anyone can value anything and play how they want. But in my opinion it’s pretty clear (from the entire history of the game, both before and after Space Age) what kind of gameplay the freeplay mode is designed for by default: Optimization and efficiency, not simplicity. The more complex way is pretty much always the more efficient. That’s just the kind of game Factorio is. I’m just saying that’s how it should also be with quality.

[mmmPI]

Well, maybe not explicitly, but I would say it’s fairly obvious that I do support it.

I believe that's what you should have started with and most likely keep it at that given the various off topics or misleading claims requiring subsequent clarifications. It appeared on the contrary that you were opposed to the idea of preserving the gameplay diversity that resides in the possibiilty to use space casino expressed in the OP, thanks for clarifications.

But that is a whole factory from ore to product. Except the “product” chosen here is an ore itself

oh so it's not wrong or baseless, it's just misleading and unclear , thanks for the clarifications again x)

[Panzerknacker]

There he is again, mr. wall of text opposing any balance changes to the game that would logically make the game better but would probably break his personal blueprints thus are these valid arguments disrespectfully dismissed as 'misleading', 'unclear' and similar terms that he uses when he fails to even understand what the smarter people are talking about.

Only because any change to the game would break his little way of doing things. It's not worth it to even respond to this person guys, learn from me.

Ontopic: Good suggestions in this thread, I'm sure the devs will look at them for 2.1 and I hope they will change the game massively!