Idea for balancing crushers

[mmmPI]

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!

Congratulation, you have successfully demonstrated how a personnal opinion isn't a valid argument beyond any example i could have brought up. You don't have to make it a personnal attack though, the demonstration is valid for everyone.

Also the only design posted in here was made in anticipation of the proposed change, so it wouldn't be broken by the change, that sound particularly misguided to base your ad hominem attack on this particular point.

[coffee-factorio]

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.

h.q. droid gave me a fun puzzle to work on. This is what I think is applicable to the idea given here:

Asteroids are funny because the main driver of productivity is their huge productivity. It manifests in odd ways.

They are "dockworker fun" because that causes them to have jackpots of times scales in the 50 hour range before you start your recycling phase.

If you fix a drill at 5900 ipm and compare it to a single asteroid at 300% productivity, you get 1.3K uncommons for the drill vs. 1.3 uncommons for a single asteroid. In theory this balanced. Particularly since the drill can be made to move ~2.4 times as fast with a lot less effort. If you run the station for 250 hour you get slightly more legendary ores than you would with the drill. But that's... not ethical to characterize as a bonus. The game is meant to beaten in 100 hours.

But since each asteroid is ~100 items a second and you can recycle them, you can do abucmcnasty tried to do with his drills derricks but at massive scale. Where you just recycle every normal quality asteroid you see till you have only uncommons. So that will boost your upcycle up to 1.6K uncommon per ore station. On paper that's balanced because it's dead even with a drill with mining upgrade 100.

As for balance in practice... \o/ you need level 25 asteroid productivity to get this performance, it's a beautiful convenient layout. But that means it's a meta for megabasers and another psychological trap for people trying to be megabasers, which is a little depressing. Mainly works for iron ores. Carbon is done at a half rate, but you can join that with sulfur from some... odd sources. Copper you shuffle for or go LDS-item.

Now, that's if you take the most extreme case of "completely removing quality from the process". If you have any quality at all in there, then, you significantly increase the amount of legendary ores you get. You can simply use the station for a truly hilarious amount of legendary iron ore. Because any time a quality "simple asteroid processing" makes 4x asteroids it does so at quality. So if you say, have a 1 in 16 instead of a 1 in 8 chance by removing a module, that's still a 1 in 16 * 1/5 chance of getting 4 asteroids the next grade of quality higher.

And then re-rolling compounds that.

[mmmPI]

h.q. droid gave me a fun puzzle to work on. This is what I think is applicable to the idea given here:

I don't believe your demonstration is clear, it seem like you are trying to explain that crusher need to be balanced because they have a productivity research, but you compare them with mining drill to justify the point, those also having productivity research, the argument isn't convincing.

Besides the reasonning appear unrelated to the suggestion on this thread to give crusher a negative quality boost. It doesn't seem to include any puzzle either ^^

[coffee-factorio]

Oh, that's the neat thing. If you go into the production graph and hit all merged, you'll see I fixed the drill to move at the same rate as the asteroid, so it's a close comparison between 1 drill with 4 modules and one recycler clobbering asteroids and four modules (not a traditional crusher layout, but what you'll have in a post balance scenario).

The drill is a cheaper investment in the short term, but in the long term each asteroid ends up being an ingot of 100 ores. Since the asteroids are processed productivity world, you don't have to worry about speed but rather station dimensions. Since they have a low recycle time, a station like this could feasibly process ores till you ran out of belt dimensions.

There's an idea we'll balance this thing with a slight tweak and...

I'm being given any% chance of a jackpot asteroid. That's going to make it depart from the performance of something on the ground. I'm not being negative or saying that's right or wrong. I'll let someone else have opinions on that. But once you add quality to those stations it gets funny.

[mmmPI]

I still can't understand what you are saying,i'm not english native and maybe you are using syntax that is familiar to you but to me it appears non-sense. I agree quality is funny, i guess it's obvious players like to engage with the optionnal system, also given the many mods that exists. Unfortunatly i then can't give an opinion, yet even a rationnal argument about your creation.

[coffee-factorio]

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!

As for the other issue you mention, I think that tolerance is applied in the engineering sense. Lets not dwell too much on it.

I feel like a game of quality golf. It's a bit like combinator golf if you're familiar with that. I've got a metric for productivity. Do you think you can fix asteroids at a rate of 1 asteroid per second and show what "simple asteroid processing" on iron ore would produce with the proposed balance adjustment at asteroid productivity level 25. Edit: and to be clear, you have every tool in the map editor, speed and beacons available to you.

Another player might do that with a full 12.8% crusher doing simple processing on 1 ips asteroids. And if you think an American with ADHD would bungle a combinator timer, how you spend your time is up to you. I am not here to judge and we are infamous for our sense of humor. Americans, or people with ADHD... it's like the damage on turrets, it compounds in the most hilarious way.

The point of this exercise is that we'll have a bracket from productivity 300% through a recycler. 250% @ 6.9-7.2% quality. And 250% @ 12.8%. If you can't find it in your heart to say "well, if no other option is given someone will just through 60 ips of recyclers that will be bailed overboard anyways into a recycler". I don't know what to say.

Metrics make for more interesting arguments I think.

[mmmPI]

Metrics make for more interesting arguments I think.

I think your argument is confused and unrelated to the proposition, it appears you are trying to start another conversation, i don't think all people who say they have ADHD actually have it , a bit like OCD, but it's unrelated to the topic.


Maybe you were trying to show something with your creation but it appears difficult to understand , may i suggest you pitch your ideas to an AI and you tell it to summarize them in a clear and concise way ? because it appears you could be doing the opposite x)

To stay on the actual topic of the suggestion to provide the crusher with a negative quality boost, it still doesn't appear like it would achieve the result of preventing players to use space to have legendary material in a simple and scalable way.

It appears that you can make very simple system, using recycler in space to mimick ore recycling, you can make them fast and efficient if you recycle the asteroid directly instead of using the crusher, therefore a penalty on the crusher won't change the balance of the game all that much imo.

[coffee-factorio]

Metrics make for more interesting arguments I think.

It appears that you can make very simple system, using recycler in space to mimick ore recycling, you can make them fast and efficient if you recycle the asteroid directly instead of using the crusher, therefore a penalty on the crusher won't change the balance of the game all that much imo.

You understood perfectly, outstanding.

Anyways. Since we can put say, 60 ips of asteroids through a set of recyclers. We can swap that out for an asteroid reroller and use it as a full cycle or a booster stage. And that's the same as say, 25 turbo belts of ore if productivity on crushers is our only option.

The proposed change is that we have quality with a penalty. Which would let me put the quality modules into the crushers. The proposed change deserves to have a measure to back up that it is worthwhile enough to evaluate it.

The proposed change won't effect the regime that much, because the "Simple Iron Processing" station can take quality. And every asteroid out benefits from both quality and productivity. And that makes the station do 50.7 ores per minute legendary quality up from, unethical on a cycler to 1-2 ores on a drill. At 5.3% quality and 275% productivity on the demo provided. You'll notice the timescale is over ten hours.

In theory I get so much iron out on one asteroid I deadlock. In practice I have recyclers for that.

Speaking of recyclers, since we can still do something like 25 turbo belts of work on 2 recyclers in theory and one turbo belt. As a recycler can process 33 asteroids per second. In practice asteroids don't stack. So the station, yes, it will have the legendary fast ones. And the curvy belts. But it's something where I can tune it to fit, and the only reason why I shouldn't is a break even point that occurs somewhere in 30 levels of asteroid productivity which is variable and undocumented.

Granted this is an adhoc change just to demonstrate how tweaking quality down, rather than eliminating it, effects the scenario. It models a more steep cut of 7.5%.

Sorry, about the last demo by the way. Noticed I left the speed at 64x on the save.

[mmmPI]

You understood perfectly, outstanding.

I'm sorry but there seem to be a misunderstanding, i was just reformulating the point i was making couple message earlier to Cybercider.

Sorry, about the last demo by the way. Noticed I left the speed at 64x on the save.

It's ok i haven't opened it, it appeared like a random save in the middle of a incomprehensible message, that's why i asked for reformulation from your end. I don't see the point if i can't understand anything you say x)