mmmPI wrote: Thu May 09, 2024 5:28 amI disagree, twice, the most obvious : I know some people use "literally" when the thing is not "literal". That doesn't mean "literally" means the things they use it for. They just use the word wrong. To me that's the same thing here with "in fact".
https://www.wordnik.com/words/in%20fact
If you want me to be more specific, the intended meaning of "in fact" in this idiom is "frankly speaking", and the thing that is "more factual" is my description of my position. It's like saying "I don't like yellow. In fact, I think it's the worst color." The second part is more
matter-of-fact, which is mainly to say, blunter. It's a very well-established usage in English, complaining about it is pretty pointless.
I invite you to meditate on the fact that your 2nd sentence can be described as inconsistent with the first one.
If you pretend explaining what is an acceptable use of the expression "in fact" in the english langage, it means you refers to some kind of rules that goes beyond one's opinion, the rules of english including the meaning of the words and the way you feel validated using them.
Those, unlike speculations on the future beacons, you consider them more "factual", in your words, as it wouldn't make sense otherwise for you to explain me some rules . If they didn't existed somewhere else than just in your opinion.
I was merely pointing out that there exist such difference. And If there is such difference between facts and opinions, then repeating facts is not the same as stating an opinion and as such it is possible to pretend saying facts while instead giving an opinion but "presenting it as a fact". Be it voluntarily or not.
It is also possible to say a lot of things that are not "opinion" like repeating multiplication table is NOT expressing an opinion, or repeating the % of transmission and energy consumption of the beacon is NOT an opinion. It is only an opinion if you do not have factual data and are making things up according to ... "opinion"..
Nope, not at all. Maybe I made them up! It's your job to figure that out. It's only my opinion that quality modules would probably work the way the devs said they would - an informed opinion based on the previous statement, but it could be changed without my knowledge at any time, or I could even have dreamt the previous statement.
Do i sound like someone who gets the joke ? To me a jokey is someone who ride a horse with a typo.
That's not really my problem, is it? I didn't make the joke just for your personal consumption.
I think the same people who do not use literally literally also can't see the wrong in using the term "min-max" when they just mean the "max" of everything no-brainer big-number style. Max of everything is not min-max. When min-maxing you should also minimize cost and waste. I think it's fairly obvious from the curve that more beacon is always going to produce more transmission effect.
No, no, "min-max" comes from RPGs like D&D and it refers to maximizing the stats you want to use at the expense of the stats you don't so that your character is highly specialized. You minimize your ability to do the things you don't want to do in order to free up chargen points to maximize your ability to do the things you want to do. The key point is that they're both positive things, so some other viable character build might maximize exactly the opposite set of things, like a fighter and a wizard working together - it would be weird to apply it to "cost and waste" because the "min-" part is supposed to be a domain in which you're
bad, unless, I suppose, we reverse the polarity and minmax something to be really good at one thing with the drawback of being very expensive or wasteful. Which people do, but it still doesn't really count because there's just not a lot of reason to care about cost or waste in Factorio. I don't really think RPG-style min-maxing is something that could exist in Factorio, where everyone is perfectly interchangeable and there's never any use for complementarity.
But, uh, nobody said "min-maxing" as far as I know so I'm not sure why we're discussing it anyway.
But also it look like at some point you need 16 beacons around a single machine where you could instead have 4 beacons and 4 machines for the same production i suppose much lower cost. If half of the factory need quality and the other half doesn't that will create several different "optimal build" i suppose. If you compare to a RPG or a MMO, everyone know the best character is the max level character, but a big part of the game is to get there. I see the same for the max beacon setup. And like for RPG there would be different class or optimal build.
But try to think it out - what would those "different classes" be? Already, now, there are some places you put prod modules and some places you can't put prod modules, and it's generally agreed that the optimal build is to put prod everywhere you can, and stuff everything else full of speed. This is technically not all the same, because there are two different module sets you're using, but I think most people will agree that it's samey in the sense that it is exactly one
pattern expressed as a very simple rule (the previous sentence).
In particular, since modules are strictly monotonic with no clear thresholds, then in the long run, if beacon A (say, prod) is better than beacon B (say, speed) in a given machine, then another beacon A is always still better than another beacon B, so it's better to use all one kind, never a combination. Nothing we've
seen has changed this calculus and it seems highly unlikely to change. That's really the biggest factor keeping the module distribution patterns simple.
Sure, not everyone in practice goes with the best solution, but that's just a personality difference - we're already waist deep in "people complaining that other people are using samey optimized blueprints", so the question of whether everyone does it seems moot.
I may be wrong though, i'm curious to see the expansion, that would answer things , but it's unlikely my opinion be changed by something else than logic at this point.
Well, that's, again, not really my problem... you can keep your opinion if you want.
XT-248 wrote: Thu May 09, 2024 3:21 amI went back and looked up the bonus from quality to various items (FFF #375). One thing that stood out was that beacons have lower energy drainage, which may or may not be enough to get me to use them.
Well, you can see in this new post that they're changing it so that quality now makes the beacon transmission stronger and the module effect bigger, so using top quality is now substantially better at doing the things beacons are meant to do - certainly enough to get me to use them.
What I found more interesting from #375 is that speed modules will have a quality malus; if that's bad enough that speed modules will reduce rather than increase production of the desired product overall (ie, it outweighs the speed increase), then I wouldn't have any reason to use bacon at all anywhere I wanted quality... which obviously solves the present question a lot more thoroughly than tweaking the bacon effect.
green modules for miners.
I mean, you do you, but... why? Put prod mods in there, you get more ore per ore, meaning you get more production from a particular ore patch before you have to move on to the next one... which may be thought of as better or worse, depending on perspective (I get a little bored with no player action needed), but at least it's a tangible benefit. Greens just reduce the energy consumption, but energy's so cheap I never run out of it even with a
major nerf on solar mod, and the amount of pollution, which I guess would matter if all the bugs in the county weren't already dead by then (because I got bored and needed something to do).
I don't use beacons unless I need higher throughput from speed modules, which I don't often do since you can accomplish the same thing by adding more machines.
Yeah, that is the tradeoff. In the long run, beacons tend to be easier because they just sit there and give passive bonuses. It's possible to run into major throughput issues with them, though, but I've only seen that in modded machines. This kind of gets back to the same question of better or worse, though... given that Factorio's design encourages minimizing the need for player action, but then you have nothing to do. Running around building a bunch of bottom-tier "dumb" factories until you have enough to produce what you want at least fills more time.
I might add quality modules to obtain some of the better or more valuable bonuses, but the overall strategy will likely remain the same going into Factorio 2.0.
Well, yes, and that's really my overarching point... it's either one or the other, for any given thing
either quality becomes the new meta
or the same old applies... which is counter to the assumed goal of adding variation, unless going from all-red to all-white sometimes counts as variation, which is not really how I see it.
