No change to Quality Science in 2.1 ?

[TheRailmaker]

I was really expecting a change to the ScienceValueMultiplier in 2.1.

The idea of making Quality Science (QS) looked interesting at first, but in almost every case, productivity modules outclass the benefit of QS by a lot. 10% free output is way more, than 2.5% quality (T3 module values).
Doesn't matter if on science production itself, or ingredients over longer chains. (yes, Q2-Q5 with thier values considered )

Since the 4 planets don't care about pollution and have free power anyway, the major disadvantage of red modules at start is lost. And with speedbeacons actually working against Quality, the endgame scaleability dies as well.

With the current ScienceValueMultiplier (1,2,3,4,6) barely anyone will actively use QS.

I know, there are some edgecases of Q2 usage for green and red (the cheapest sciences ) and some with Aquillo for the sake of transport, but im talking about the actual option to go for QS at a reasonable payoff anywhere.

A rought fair matchup by output between both module types in the last step would be factor 4 (1,5,9,13,21)

Even with that giant 4x, you end up with more work (more buildings,designing,recycling/voiding ,sorting,transport) , but you have the option to go down that path.

I hope for the Quality science factor to be raised to 4 -6 since its an interesting mechanic, but completly outclassed atm.

Here is the math, keep in mind, that its the same for intermediates and you need significantly less building with productiivity :

grafik.png (192.48 KiB) Viewed 2476 times

[DaveMcW]

Uncommon Aquilo science is actually better than common. It's so easy to make quality ice and lithium plates. It takes so long to make Cryogenic science packs (common or uncommon).

Uncommon Vulcanus science is also easy with quality modules in the mining drills.

Uncommon Fulgora science uses slightly less holmium ore than common. Though the production chain is a lot harder. (Hint: upcycle electomagnetic plants.)

[mmmPI]

Here are examples of other uncommon science, blue purple and yellow that weren't changed with 2.1 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gikrR2Xuvvs&t=689s

The space science was using space casino, though, so it is no longer usable in 2.1.

I think some players may have the same hopes for "quality science" to be balanced as a more viable choice in more situations, but could be unsure about what math would work for them or why (viewtopic.php?t=134869) .

I don't think satisfying those hopes is in the intent of the devs though , something about "quality being a ressource sink for marginally better machines".

But it's difficult to anticipate what a mass of player will settle on, i feel quality as an item has to exist, and has to have bonus attached, but it was choosen "low" to not be an incentive. Which leaves it as "edge case" as you mentionned. ( video shows a megabase ). I think the game could do with a less harsh penalty on quality science, for it to be tempting for more player.

You approach seems like it could work, and be more "moderate" than an exponential reward with each quality level, like in this mod : https://mods.factorio.com/mod/expon_quality_sci , which is the closest i found from what you describe, if it's more about lowering the threshold at which the optimizations considerations manifest, i feel it increase the depth of the game in a non-intrusive way, it's only for those who go seek for it, it's only positive from my side.

[TheRailmaker]

Here are examples of other uncommon science, blue purple and yellow that weren't changed with 2.1 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gikrR2Xuvvs&t=689s

Yeah, i know the video. Its not bad, but i reached 1M SPS with like 10% ? of his work. 99% of users wont reach close to mining prod 1000 to start the Qmining recycling. Especialy not with Science cost multiplicator.



hes using it for science space density and UPS reasons. The UPS is also irrelevant to 99% of users. They wont drop below 50 unless they spamm trash.

The science space transport density was increased brutal with the cargo docks and Plattform transfers in 2.1.

And skiping whole mining outposts and the whole liquid metal thing for such shitty rates just hurts.

[Tertius]

I don't think satisfying those hopes is in the intent of the devs though , something about "quality being a ressource sink for marginally better machines".

But it's difficult to anticipate what a mass of player will settle on, i feel quality as an item has to exist, and has to have bonus attached, but it was choosen "low" to not be an incentive.

For many players, gaming is a min/max challenge. Progression in a game is connected with getting higher and higher tiers of items. The player at the top maximized every item with its maximum tier. These players go straight to the maximum tier everywhere to get up to the best player.

However, for quality science, this rule doesn't apply. The maximum tier of all-legendary-science isn't the best you can get in the game, since it is inferior to lower qualities due to extraordinary resource consumption. You need to find a balance between resource consumption and science research value. The maximum isn't all-legendary, it's somewhere lower. You cannot determine the maximum, so you cannot determine the best player. This seems to confuse many players.

In my opinion not the worst approach, because this way there is no upper limit you hit and then have nothing more to do in the game. The limit is somewhere lower, and you never know where exactly it is, and it's even a moving target as long as players find new ways to crafting quality items.

[mmmPI]

However, for quality science, this rule doesn't apply. The maximum tier of all-legendary-science isn't the best you can get in the game, since it is inferior to lower qualities due to extraordinary resource consumption. You need to find a balance between resource consumption and science research value. The maximum isn't all-legendary, it's somewhere lower. You cannot determine the maximum, so you cannot determine the best player. This seems to confuse many players.

No that has nothing to do with best players , factorio is puzzle game where you make science, which has a quality feature, legendary science is a proxy for the most complex puzzle, so there are players that will set that as their objective. At least that's how i read the suggestion and the further comment. Lamenting that currently if you do such things you are mostly punished, even regretting that there is no compelling reason in game to go for it. ( unless you have a large base and even then OP doesn't feel the need to go for it)

Yeah, i know the video. Its not bad, but i reached 1M SPS with like 10% ? of his work. 99% of users wont reach close to mining prod 1000 to start the Qmining recycling. Especialy not with Science cost multiplicator.

What's an SPS ? 1 million science per second ? That's fairly impressive ^^ now ususally people refers to the SPM without the science multiplicator, and otherwise eSPM for effective science per minutes if you account for modules, biolab and the research/science multiplicator.

hes using it for science space density and UPS reasons. The UPS is also irrelevant to 99% of users. They wont drop below 50 unless they spamm trash.

The science space transport density was increased brutal with the cargo docks and Plattform transfers in 2.1.

And skiping whole mining outposts and the whole liquid metal thing for such shitty rates just hurts.

You seen this one ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHrY1Rt ... _E&index=3

Cuz like that's the elephant in the room no ? you can't space casino anymore x) I guess it's the opposite of the direction you wished

[pkoynov]

I am kind of late to this discussion but I wanted to add my opinion. I believe both quality and productivity modules in science production are balanced. Balanced does not mean they have to have the exact same outcome, but none outperforms the other to the point where there are dropped from consideration.

Productivity module advantage:
* Most science progress per ingredient. More then quality.
* Does not conflict with the use of speed modules including in beacons, to allows some speed up.

Productivity modules disadvantage:
* Significantly increase power consumption.
* Doubles the slow-down compared to quality.

Quality module advantage:
* More science progress per rocket lunch / cargo capacity
* No power consumption increase and less slow down compared to quality.

Quality module disadvantage:
* More science progress per ingredient, but not as much as productivity.
* Incompatible with speed modules, making beacons mostly useless.

A few additional points:
* There is a third approach under consideration: don't use either quality or productivity, Instead use a combination of speed and efficiency.
* I consider T3 productivity modules prohibitively expansive compared to T3 quality modules outside of Nauvis, since you can't transport eggs in bulk due to their volatility. Also in my experience it is easier to obtain quality T3 quality modules the quality T3 productivity modules.
* To anyone who argues power is not a consideration because it is infinite, I would counter that ingredients are not a consideration either because they are just as "infinite"

With this in mind here is what I normally use:
* Red and Green science on Nauvis: speed and efficiency. Those are cheap enough that I have no reason to use either quality or productivity.
* Blue science on Nauvis: probably speed and efficiency. I care about speed the most since it is always short. Sometimes because ingredients are short, sometimes because it takes too long to craft.
* Black science on Nauvis: productivity. I find myself short on stone and coal, not because they are hard to obtain, but because they are always lower priority then iron and copper.
* Purple and Yellow science on Nauvis: definitively productivity. Those are expensive and I want to reduce ingredient usage.
* White science (over Nauvis): Efficiency or speed. I set this early enough to where modules are expansive and I always have more science then I need. Also power is more of a concern.
* Agricultural science, Electromagnetic science and Metallurgic science: Definitively quality. I care less about resource usage and more about progress per trip.
* Cryogenic science: This is a very special case as I care about both resource usage and minimising rockets. I build this in uncommon quality. In this is case it is more often limited by uncommon ice then uncommon lithium. Fulgora would produce and buffer way more uncommon holmium plates then I would ever need. Power is also a concern. I usually use quality modules, but sometimes would use speed and efficiency modules if I feel confident about the lithium brine production.

TLDR: use productivity modules on Nauvis and quality modules on the other planets.

[quineotio]

* Agricultural science, Electromagnetic science and Metallurgic science: Definitively quality. I care less about resource usage and more about progress per trip.
* Cryogenic science: This is a very special case as I care about both resource usage and minimising rockets. I build this in uncommon quality. In this is case it is more often limited by uncommon ice then uncommon lithium. Fulgora would produce and buffer way more uncommon holmium plates then I would ever need. Power is also a concern. I usually use quality modules, but sometimes would use speed and efficiency modules if I feel confident about the lithium brine production.

TLDR: use productivity modules on Nauvis and quality modules on the other planets.

I don't understand the "progress per trip" thing. Productivity is way faster (because you can beacon speed modules) and also more resource efficient, so you can make (and therefore send) more science per trip using productivity. Do your platforms have storage?

As far as minimizing resource usage on Aquilo, productivity is better. What are you doing with all the normal quality stuff?

As far a minimizing rocket launches, it's easier to just send more rocket part ingredients than to make quality science, and you get rocket part productivity from the research.

With regard to efficiency, you can just use efficiency in beacons.

[pkoynov]

I should have clarified that by the time I get to Aquillo I care more about reaching the edge faster to complete the run. I rarely prioritise infinites since the payout is not worth the investment in time and resource.

I don't understand the "progress per trip" thing. Productivity is way faster (because you can beacon speed modules) and also more resource efficient, so you can make (and therefore send) more science per trip using productivity. Do your platforms have storage?

Yes. Like everything else storage space is not infinite. I can get more, but it is not always worth the investment.

As far as minimizing resource usage on Aquilo, productivity is better. What are you doing with all the normal quality stuff?

Ice gets recycled into quality ice, lithium goes into quantum processors.

My Aquillo setup is also limited by the number of rocket silos since PUs and LDS are directly inserted from the landing pad. I want to get double science progress per rocket lunch over waiting for another rocket to be build.

Productivity is way faster (because you can beacon speed modules) and also more resource efficient, so you can make (and therefore send) more science per trip using productivity.

Why do you care about resource efficiency for Agricultural and Electromagnetic ? On Vulcanis maybe because new tungsten mines are annoying to setup, but on Gleba and Fulgora I build way more science and science ingredients then I need. I don't understand why would I ever use productivity modules.

Without going into too much detail to avoid hijacking the thread, my point still stands: the two approaches are balanced because I would chose either based on circumstances. It is unreasonable to expect for balance different approaches need to yield the exact same result. This would make a more boring game.

[quineotio]

Without going into too much detail to avoid hijacking the thread, my point still stands: the two approaches are balanced because I would chose either based on circumstances. It is unreasonable to expect for balance different approaches need to yield the exact same result. This would make a more boring game.

For the purposes of academic discussion, I disagree that the modules are balanced for science. The way you've described using quality modules in science, it sounds like you're only making a relatively low volume of science, in which case it doesn't really matter. If you "build way more science and science ingredients then I need" then you aren't maxing out your science production.

You could add more storage on your platforms. And it sounds like you've artificially limited your throughput on Aquilo. You could have more rocket silos.

I think what you're describing is a situation where you're being bottle-necked before the choice of module, so it seems like the choice of module is balanced, but actually it's just the bottle-neck making it seem that way. If you weren't limited by platform storage or rocket silos and you wanted to build science as fast as possible, as efficiently as possible, as productively as possible, the only valid choice is productivity modules.

This is not the same as you enjoying using quality modules, or quality modules being worthwhile for you because of particular design decisions you've made in a particular playthrough. Have fun. But that's different than balance. By almost every metric, quality science is worse than productivity science.

[mmmPI]

And yet there are links all over the thread of qualified players, sometimes megabase, that uses quality science to some extend because it is "more efficient" than regular science, and this is meant for UPS.