Ban quality modules from asteroid crushers

[CyberCider]

As I understand it, you want for there to be one clear method of upcycling.

Decreasing the variety of builds seem to be the goal of the proposition,

Conveniently, I’ve already clarified that this is not the case in a previous message. So all I need to do is quote myself:

Again, it’s not my primary goal to make quality less diverse, all I want is good game design and balance, which these exploits are in the way of. If patching them decreases the variety of quality, that’s just a side effect, one I’m personally ok with. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect the devs to drastically remake the quality mechanic to include more options than upcycling. Maybe the devs will surprise me and do a lot more than just patching the exploits, but I don’t think it’s fair to expect or demand that of them at this moment. If they had any intention to do that, they probably would have before the expansion released. If you want more content, you might find it in mods.

It is a question, it is meant to convey my interrogations, more specfically : How would you make legendary sulfur if your proposition is implemented ?

I don't think it is correct to ignore the gas input when making legendary plastic and feel the reasons becomes obvious when considering the case of quality sulfur for blue science. Particularly for those ( this ?) player who think it's important to optimize fluid consumption.

Quality sulfur for science? You mean quality science? Well now, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the game to accomodate every possible meme/challenge tactic players can come up with. Besides, isn’t the ridiculous difficulty the reason someone would attempt such a challenge to begin with?

Also, I disagree that quality sulfur and plastic are the same in the context that I’m describing. The method I described creates quality plastic from already high-quality coal. Meaning it uses a comparable amount of gas to simply making common plastic. While sulfur doesn’t have a solid ingredient that can inherit its quality from. Any method to generate quality sulfur would have to create large amounts of common sulfur and then process it, while making plastic from quality coal does not require that. It’s simply not comparable.

Although, now that you’ve made me think about quality sulfur for possibly the first time in my life, I think there may be another way? Vanilla sulfur doesn’t have a solid ingredient, but Space Age added biosulfur, an entirely solid-based recipe. It requires bioflux and spoilage, and spoilage can be derived form bioflux. And if you’re attempting a quality science run, you might already have something in mind for quality bioflux, as it’s required for quality lime science. Maybe look into this alternate path, if you haven’t already?

By the way, the whole grenade upcycling thing isn’t really a part of this argument. I simply saw someone say they’re having trouble finding a good metod to make quality plastic, and thought I could give them some helpful advice. I had recently pursued the same problem myself, so I had some knowledge on the topic that I thought the other user might find helpful. A suggestion is all it was, arguing about it was never my intention.

Say in the way that uranium ammo out of a turret compares to regular ammo out of a pistol.

I don’t think that’s a good analogy. Uranium ammo is stronger than yellow ammo, but it requires more advanced resources and a longer process to produce. If I had to make an ammo analogy, I would say upcycling is the regular uranium ammo recipe chain, while asteroid rerolling is an exploit that allows you to make uranium ammo from water instead of the usual process. Does this illustrate my thoughts more clearly?

[CyberCider]

You can still show it or what ?
…
That's just what i'm waiting for btw !

I told you, I cannot post it at the moment because I don’t have access to my PC. If you must know, I’m out of town. It’s not up to me, and it’s definitely not up to you either. I will post it when I’m able to, which should be in a little less than a week at this moment.

I don't feel much thought put into this either x)

Are you going to say anything of substance, or just this?

[Shulmeister]

Although, now that you’ve made me think about quality sulfur for possibly the first time in my life, I think there may be another way?

You seem so unfamiliar with the thing you propose to remove that it's hard to take you seriously.

Both plastic and sulfur are similar in that your proposition removes current ways to make them in higher qualty and offer no satisfying alternatives.

By the way, the whole grenade upcycling thing isn’t really a part of this argument. I simply saw someone say they’re having trouble finding a good metod to make quality plastic, and thought I could give them some helpful advice. I had recently pursued the same problem myself, so I had some knowledge on the topic that I thought the other user might find helpful. A suggestion is all it was, arguing about it was never my intention.

I can get that, you only thought about removing stuff from the game, because you don't like them, probably haven't used them at all, and you haven't thought about how people would play the game with what's left, like how to make make sulfur or plastic, because you can't accomodate all the meme, or because you think recycling grenades for plastic is "more complex" than asteroid shuffle, or more desirable as the way to make quality plastic. I'm just going to say i'm not convinced.

[crimsonarmy]

Both plastic and sulfur are similar in that your proposition removes current ways to make them in higher qualty and offer no satisfying alternatives.

Tiny point that doesn't invalidate your argument at all LDS upcycling (with or without foundries) at high productivity can give a decent amount of plastic.

[coffee-factorio]

Say in the way that uranium ammo out of a turret compares to regular ammo out of a pistol.

I don’t think that’s a good analogy. Uranium ammo is stronger than yellow ammo, but it requires more advanced resources and a longer process to produce. If I had to make an ammo analogy, I would say upcycling is the regular uranium ammo recipe chain, while asteroid rerolling is an exploit that allows you to make uranium ammo from water instead of the usual process. Does this illustrate my thoughts more clearly?

The analogy is functioning as intended. I was looking for some common ground. It illustrates your thoughts perfectly, and in the case state you'd be correct.

A well designed upcycle would require more complexity to do things at a better rate.
This would be like bioflux

-> (capture rockets, yumako soil)

-> sulfur, it's worth it to work out if that's a worthwhile route.

I was playing the devil's advocate when I was asking about that. I hadn't really worked it out either (I have a pace ).
I don't see it as harmful if a player has to solve a puzzle in the way it was intended. I'll have to check to see if that solution scales, my business. There's intermediate components to check.

How do I put it... if a player is deprived of a game by settling for less.
It's as bad as if they where handled a poor game.

So if a player where handled a reroller that was as you say, and printed resources too easily.
It'd be as bad as if a player where handed a reroller that was as I say, and just looks like a solution. But doesn't stand up to other mechanics.

"Ban, because I wouldn't use it" would be a tautology because if you realize a method is poor, you don't use it. If you realize someone is stooping their back to pick something up, you tell them not to do that because they'll slowly break their spine.

That's just what i'm waiting for btw !

A benchmark would create several questions of validity.

When I provided this person benchmarks and demonstrations of rates equivalent to an article he advanced as a source. He questioned their validity, mocked me and continues to say I speak gibberish.

[CyberCider]

You seem so unfamiliar with the thing you propose to remove that it's hard to take you seriously.

Both plastic and sulfur are similar in that your proposition removes current ways to make them in higher qualty and offer no satisfying alternatives.

First of all, you can’t lump plastic and sulfur together. Quality sulfur is 100% useless in normal gameplay. That’s why I’ve never thought about it, and why there doesn’t need to be an effective way to produce it. And as for plastic, I happened to describe a satisfying alternative in this very thread. What is it that you don’t like about it? It’s not the one and only one either. You can directly recycle coal for improved throughput, or upcycle LDS or blue chips for superior resource efficiency. You can check some other plastic containing recipes for their performance, maybe you will find something that particularly suits you. And as always, if you are not satisfied with the developers’ direction or balancing of the game, you are free to mod the game to your liking. Many such mods exist today and are widely used. Adjustable inserters, large chests, fluid voids, buffed bots, no spoilage, free items… Easy quality from asteroids could simply join this group, remaining accessible to all those players who find vanilla too hard.

I can get that, you only thought about removing stuff from the game, because you don't like them, probably haven't used them at all, and you haven't thought about how people would play the game with what's left

You’re contradicting yourself. How is it possible that I haven’t thought about how people would play the game without quality exploits, when I myself am already playing the game just fine without using them? You must admit that makes no sense.

you think recycling grenades for plastic is "more complex" than asteroid shuffle

Adding quotation marks to it doesn’t make it any less true.

[crimsonarmy]

you think recycling grenades for plastic is "more complex" than asteroid shuffle

Adding quotation marks to it doesn’t make it any less true.

Repeating a false statement doesn't make it any more true. How does it add more depth to the game to slap down another upcycling setup?

[CyberCider]

Repeating a false statement doesn't make it any more true. How does it add more depth to the game to slap down another upcycling setup?

Asteroid rerolling doesn’t add more depth either, but it also breaks the balance by being incredibly overpowered. That’s all there is to my whole argument, really. Asteroid rerolling has comparable performance to upcycling, but has dramatically, dramatically less design substance, and this qualifies it as broken. I don’t like to repeat myself, but there’s really no better way to describe it other than “too simple for how strong it is” and “less complex than upcycling”.

[Shulmeister]

Both plastic and sulfur are similar in that your proposition removes current ways to make them in higher qualty and offer no satisfying alternatives.

Tiny point that doesn't invalidate your argument at all LDS upcycling (with or without foundries) at high productivity can give a decent amount of plastic.

It seemed to me that both asteroid AND LDS shuffling are not used by OP that wants to remove them from the game.

First of all, you can’t lump plastic and sulfur together. Quality sulfur is 100% useless in normal gameplay. That’s why I’ve never thought about it, and why there doesn’t need to be an effective way to produce it.

That's not because you say it that it's true. It's just your opinion with which I disagree. I take your words as an answer though that's enough, when i asked "How do you make the sulfur?" the answer could have been straightforward, you don't and you don't care, and people shouldn't do it either, for no particular reason just you think it's useless. Players should only do plastic. There is therefore no explanations needed for sulfur. No thought was put into it beforehand, and no more after it was mentionned, it's discarded as invalid. It's not very convincing to me either, but at least it's clarified. And i see no contradiction in mentionning those btw.

And as for plastic, I happened to describe a satisfying alternative in this very thread. What is it that you don’t like about it? It’s not the one and only one either. You can directly recycle coal for improved throughput, or upcycle LDS or blue chips for superior resource efficiency. You can check some other plastic containing recipes for their performance, maybe you will find something that particularly suits you

this ?

Grenades are the only recipe that balances resource efficiency and throughput. Raw coal recycling has moderately higher throughput than grenades, but it’s very resource inefficient (which you may choose to ignore, depending on your level of mining productivity). While LDS, blue circuits, red circuits and tesla guns are more resource efficient, but they’re so horrendously slow that scaling them up would be very difficult, due to needing a lot more legendary quality modules to meet a desired throughput. I did in fact math it out using a tool, and I can tell you that grenades are definitely faster than all of these methods.

There are several things i don't like there. The obvious one is that you first said one method was best in a quite insisting manner, and then you contradicted yourself pretending "maybe not" , maybe the suggestion opens up several possibilities; I found that's fairly dishonnest to mention LDS upcyle or blue chip as viable method after you said it was horrendously slow and the scaling of them up would be very difficult.

It would not be very difficult imo, no more than grenade recycling which is just slapping another upcycler, it would force players to do that a lot, which i feel is a decrease in complexity and in variety of builds possible in the end when comparing with the asteroid shuffle.

[crimsonarmy]

Both plastic and sulfur are similar in that your proposition removes current ways to make them in higher qualty and offer no satisfying alternatives.

Tiny point that doesn't invalidate your argument at all LDS upcycling (with or without foundries) at high productivity can give a decent amount of plastic.

It seemed to me that both asteroid AND LDS shuffling are not used by OP that wants to remove them from the game.

LDS shuffle and LDS upcycle are different things. When I said LDS upcycling I was referring to doing something like blue circuit upcycling (you don't get free quality byproducts). Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[crimsonarmy]

Repeating a false statement doesn't make it any more true. How does it add more depth to the game to slap down another upcycling setup?

Asteroid rerolling doesn’t add more depth either, but it also breaks the balance by being incredibly overpowered. That’s all there is to my whole argument, really. Asteroid rerolling has comparable performance to upcycling, but has dramatically, dramatically less design substance, and this qualifies it as broken. I don’t like to repeat myself, but there’s really no better way to describe it other than “too simple for how strong it is” and “less complex than upcycling”.

It does add more depth. Maybe you would be satisfied with having idle crushers, lower asteroid numbers, etc. but that doesn't mean that everyone is. You say it is “too simple for how strong it is” and I wonder why you aren't complaining about something like fusion power. You say it is “less complex than upcycling” and I wonder if you have ever tried making one (especially in the mid game where it is significantly more powerful than alternatives).

Your claim that it is "broken" doesn't make much sense to me. It can be very strong, but when you reach that point you also would be able to do battery upcycling, blue circuit upcycling, etc. all of which are very strong.

[CyberCider]

That's not because you say it that it's true. It's just your opinion with which I disagree. I take your words as an answer though that's enough, when i asked "How do you make the sulfur?" the answer could have been straightforward, you don't and you don't care, and people shouldn't do it either, for no particular reason just you think it's useless. Players should only do plastic. There is therefore no explanations needed for sulfur. No thought was put into it beforehand, and no more after it was mentionned, it's discarded as invalid. It's not very convincing to me either, but at least it's clarified. And i see no contradiction in mentionning those btw.

I mean, I’m open. What uses have you found for quality sulfur, besides your quality science run? After all I did specify “normal gameplay”. The remaining recipes that use sulfur are explosives (consumable, also upgraded by tech) and coal synthesis (would need a very good source of quality carbon to work). If there is any way you made either of these two work, I would like to hear it. Maybe there are simply things that I still haven’t found out about.

There are several things i don't like there. The obvious one is that you first said one method was best in a quite insisting manner, and then you contradicted yourself pretending "maybe not" , maybe the suggestion opens up several possibilities; I found that's fairly dishonnest to mention LDS upcyle or blue chip as viable method after you said it was horrendously slow and the scaling of them up would be very difficult.

Hey, all I did was say which one I prefer personally, and for what reason. I prefer it based on what I value, but different people value different things. I never meant to assert it as the best. I know some people who value resource efficiency far above anything else, who would prefer the methods that I consider terrible. Perhaps my wording in the older post should have been more neutral.

[mmmPI]

Asteroid rerolling is less complex than grenade upcycling

I don't feel much thought put into this either x)

Are you going to say anything of substance, or just this?

grenade upcycling is not more complex than asteroid recycling, that seem fairly obvious, if you copy paste many upcycler for many different item that doesn't increase complexity

[mmmPI]

That's just what i'm waiting for btw !

A benchmark would create several questions of validity.

And the operation control resort to unecessary boolean complexity, briliant mind think fairwell forward to the next step !