Factorio Forums

@CyberCider/OP

theolderbeholder wrote: Sat Dec 28, 2024 5:51 pm If you like the game to be more difficult for you, make it more duifficult FOR YOU. Try to leave everybody else out of your personal preferences, thank you very much.

+1

Refocusing to OP's original topic, despite by cheese, by oversight or by unintended emergent gameplay or not, the game does not actually force anyone to put quality modules into an asteroid crusher nor does it force you to use a Space Casino.

On the contrary, the emergent understanding to truly leverage the mechanics such as fluid voiding, space casino, infinite free LDS are part of a laundry list of cheese that require such a deep intrinsic knowhow of the game and its edgecases.
Heck, they could even be considered on par with the upgrade to Biolabs/Big Drills/Biolabs and their overly better stats vs. their vanilla counterparts.

Fixing these issues would cause the devs extra work, not to mention the community backlash. The best solution is a compromise, and one that has existed far longer, especially when it regards game balance.

Make a mod.

Its space age

We get research productivity from space

Its ok if space is strong

Meddleman wrote: Wed May 07, 2025 10:30 am On the contrary, the emergent understanding to truly leverage the mechanics such as fluid voiding, space casino, infinite free LDS are part of a laundry list of cheese that require such a deep intrinsic knowhow of the game and its edgecases.

I totally agree. This also gives more variety in how you get to high quality products. I already have to do upcycling a bunch of times, I don't see why that should have to be the solution in ALL cases. In return for having quality in crushers we get all this sweet extra complexity and interesting chains.

Removing the ability to have quality in crushers would also set a strange precedent, in that every other machine with slots (save for beacons which are special) takes quality, even if it does nothing. I don't think it'd be good API, in a sense, to disallow it in these circumstances.

I think the real problem is that an asteroid chunk can give back a asteroid chunk.

theolderbeholder wrote: Sat Dec 28, 2024 5:51 pm If you like the game to be more difficult for you, make it more duifficult FOR YOU. Try to leave everybody else out of your personal preferences, thank you very much.

what ? you really need this sort of exploit to have working ship ?

Lalaith wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 12:06 am Removing the ability to have quality in crushers would also set a strange precedent, in that every other machine with slots (save for beacons which are special) takes quality, even if it does nothing. I don't think it'd be good API, in a sense, to disallow it in these circumstances.

Did you hear about productivity module ?

Stargateur wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 9:19 am I think the real problem is that an asteroid chunk can give back a asteroid chunk.

I think it's not a problem because it leads to many different way player can handle it, and i appreciate this.

Stargateur wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 9:19 am what ? you really need this sort of exploit to have working ship ?

It's not an exploit, it's not needed, it's just nice to have the ability to do so, if you dont want to use them, you don't have to.

Stargateur wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 9:19 am Did you hear about productivity module ?

What do you mean ? those would be the worst module to put in crushers imo. They have restriction of placement that depend on the recipe not on the machine.

Lalaith wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 12:06 am I totally agree. This also gives more variety in how you get to high quality products. I already have to do upcycling a bunch of times, I don't see why that should have to be the solution in ALL cases. In return for having quality in crushers we get all this sweet extra complexity and interesting chains.

My whole problem with this is its total lack of complexity. Upcycling is definitely on the more “accessible” side of complexity, as stated by the devs themselves when they announced quality, but asteroid rerolling is somehow beneath even this bare minimum. Interesting chains? What chains? A space quality ship takes literally no inputs. No logistics, no scaling of the rest of the factory, nothing is required but the copy-pasting of asteroid crushers. The infrastructure that processes the legendary ores is allowed to use productivity and speed, which lets it be absolutely tiny. And variety? This trick eliminates variety by producing every resource at once.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against emergent gameplay and alternative paths. I don’t dislike asteroid rerolling because it’s different, I dislike it because it’s simply too good for how incredibly simple and easy it is. It overshadows other, more interesting tactics and is overall detrimental to the quality (lol) of the game.

Removing the ability to have quality in crushers would also set a strange precedent, in that every other machine with slots (save for beacons which are special) takes quality, even if it does nothing. I don't think it'd be good API, in a sense, to disallow it in these circumstances.

This would definitely be implemented by disallowing quality modules in the recipes, not the machine. Perhaps I should have worded it more clearly.

CyberCider wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 10:31 am Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against emergent gameplay and alternative paths. I don’t dislike asteroid rerolling because it’s different, I dislike it because it’s simply too good for how incredibly simple and easy it is. It overshadows other, more interesting tactics and is overall detrimental to the quality (lol) of the game.

I don't see it as overshadowing, but rather completing, when looking at what people build and post on the internet, there are plenty of posts that are quality with no relation to asteroids. It helps that it's available quite late in the game, by a time where many players already have used quality.

CyberCider wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 10:31 am This would definitely be implemented by disallowing quality modules in the recipes, not the machine. Perhaps I should have worded it more clearly.

That would result in the same consequence no ?
Why can't i use quality for my crusher ? because other players used it to make legendary asteroid ? seem a pretty lame reason to me. When you will be able to upcycle the iron ore and copper ore instead of the asteroid will it change anything ?

I'm not convinced.

mmmPI wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 10:51 am That would result in the same consequence no ?
Why can't i use quality for my crusher ? because other players used it to make legendary asteroid ? seem a pretty lame reason to me. When you will be able to upcycle the iron ore and copper ore instead of the asteroid will it change anything ?

I'm not convinced.

Unlike asteroid rolling, upcycling ore and plate sucks. And it’s supposed to suck, because it’s really easy to build. People are free to use it, but they accept that because they built something really simple it will be really slow and inefficient. Asteroid rolling, meanwhile, is both simple and efficient and even more than that. It’s simply too good to be in the vanilla game. If people want to have an easier time with the game, they are free to enable the editor or install mods. But it’s simply not appropriate for the “normal” difficulty of the game.

CyberCider wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 11:37 am Unlike asteroid rolling, upcycling ore and plate sucks. And it’s supposed to suck, because it’s really easy to build. People are free to use it, but they accept that because they built something really simple it will be really slow and inefficient. Asteroid rolling, meanwhile, is both simple and efficient and even more than that. It’s simply too good to be in the vanilla game. If people want to have an easier time with the game, they are free to enable the editor or install mods. But it’s simply not appropriate for the “normal” difficulty of the game.

Yeah but your point in the first post is that it is source of infinite quality ore that's easily scalable, so i think the suggestion is not good, because it will still be possible to have infinite quality ore easily scalable.

For the scalabality, you can always duplicate platforms, but it cost quite a bit of UPS compares to infinite ressources from Vulcanus so it's not that good overall, it's not overshadowing anything, it has different applications.

I don't find it much simpler than upcycling plate and ore which appears more common, on the contrary , it's quite the advanced technique that feel like a reward for the players that invest a lot in their platform to give them aonother purpose than just transporting material. Quality rolling is another step beyond generating ressource on platforms.

CyberCider wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 10:31 am I dislike it

I think this is more correct than saying the difficulty is not appropriate for the base game , you can just not use it as it's very easy to avoid, not like it's forced on you on every game, but you can use a mod to make the game more to your personnal taste imo instead of asking something be removed because you don't like it.

I backed factorio and pretty much play it since forever it's exist, the dev changed the game countless of time, "emergent gameplay" I can't even understand the logic where you disallow change cause of this, like, space age is clearly a beta, new way will emerge and old one will die. I just don't get it, do you think factorio is a darksoul like ? Speed runner cry cause they changed achievement, and now peoples cry because someone ask to nerf OP tactic that seems a lot of people is abusing. Having difference way to achieve something is cool but not when it's completely op compared to other way. see the sub forum name, BALANCING. Either you don't agree it's too strong and doesn't need to be nerfed but here you look like you all agree it's OP and try to avoid this talk by saying "it's emergent gameplay".

When something is OP or broken fix it period. If we listen people like you who never want change or fix factorio would still have ugly graphic, boring science, no space age, no good api for modding. If you don't want any change pick your factorio version and never update.

PS: Sorry I will not answer, I made my proposition and my points and I feel you are manipulating the fact in everyone of your post.

Stargateur wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 12:11 pm I can't even understand the logic where you disallow change cause of this, like, space age is clearly a beta, new way will emerge and old one will die. I just don't get it, do you think factorio is a darksoul like ? Speed runner cry cause they changed achievement, and now peoples cry because someone ask to nerf OP tactic that seems a lot of people is abusing.

It's not about crying, it's about pointing the facts, there would still be source of infinite quality materials from space if you remove the ability to use quality modules in crushers, it could just cause people to potentially reuse a Nauvis upcycling plate blueprint on space. It's not opposition to change for the sake of it, but when the proposed changed doesn't seem to address the reason it's advocated for, it's the point of the discussion to have the possibility to mention it, because it can lead to more elaborate proposal that do not have the same shortcomings of individual proposal.

Stargateur wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 12:11 pm Having difference way to achieve something is cool but not when it's completely op compared to other way. see the sub forum name, BALANCING. Either you don't agree it's too strong or doesn't need to be nerfed but here you look like you all agree it's OP and try to avoid this talk by saying "it's emergent gameplay".

Seem like players disagree with the proposal for different reasons.

Stargateur wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 12:11 pm When something is OP or broken fix it period. If we listen people like you who never want change or fix factorio would still have ugly graphic, boring science, no space age, no good api for modding. If you don't want any change pick your factorio version and never update.

If it's not broken don't fix it, wether something is "op" is subjective. Unlike the balance of things that are the same for all players, here it's a decision to use or not, the players that think it's broken don't have to go force it upon themselves.

mmmPI wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 12:02 pm
Yeah but your point in the first post is that it is source of infinite quality ore that's easily scalable, so i think the suggestion is not good, because it will still be possible to have infinite quality ore easily scalable.

For the scalabality, you can always duplicate platforms, but it cost quite a bit of UPS compares to infinite ressources from Vulcanus so it's not that good overall, it's not overshadowing anything, it has different applications.

I don't find it much simpler than upcycling plate and ore which appears more common, on the contrary , it's quite the advanced technique that feel like a reward for the players that invest a lot in their platform to give them aonother purpose than just transporting material. Quality rolling is another step beyond generating ressource on platform

Ore/plate upcycling is not as easy to scale as asteroids, because it’s much slower. A lot slower, really. That’s all there is to it, the raw output numbers. They’re both roughly equally easy to build, except one of them has appropriate power for its complexity level. That’s

Edit: This unfinished message got sent by mistake while I was still writing it. Now, why can’t I delete it? The delete button is simply gone. If any mods see this, could you please delete this message for me? Thank you.

CyberCider wrote: Sun May 18, 2025 3:06 pm Ore/plate upcycling is not as easy to scale as asteroids, because it’s much slower. A lot slower, really. That’s all there is to it, the raw output numbers. They’re both roughly equally easy to build, except one of them has appropriate power for its complexity level. That’s

That's ???? x)

I agree it's much slower, but to me it doesn't change the "difficulty" it would be potentially the same blueprint as in Nauvis, a duplicate setup, the same "puzzle", ( not like in vulcanus where the infinite ressource require lava) space they require dealing with asteroids in a different way that is more rewarding than in Nauvis. It's available later too and optionnal.

mmmPI wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 12:02 pm
Yeah but your point in the first post is that it is source of infinite quality ore that's easily scalable, so i think the suggestion is not good, because it will still be possible to have infinite quality ore easily scalable.

For the scalabality, you can always duplicate platforms, but it cost quite a bit of UPS compares to infinite ressources from Vulcanus so it's not that good overall, it's not overshadowing anything, it has different applications.

I don't find it much simpler than upcycling plate and ore which appears more common, on the contrary , it's quite the advanced technique that feel like a reward for the players that invest a lot in their platform to give them aonother purpose than just transporting material. Quality rolling is another step beyond generating ressource on platform

Ore/plate upcycling is not as easy to scale as asteroids, because it’s much slower. A lot slower, really. That’s all there is to it, the raw output numbers. They’re both roughly equally easy to build, except one of them has appropriate power for its complexity level. That’s what makes one balanced, and the other not.

you can just not use it as it's very easy to avoid, not like it's forced on you on every game, but you can use a mod to make the game more to your personnal taste imo instead of asking something be removed because you don't like it.

Let me ask you a question: Why can’t you be the one to use a mod? Mods are the place where such things belong. Unusual things that are considered cool or interesting, but ultimately don’t belong in the base game because they’re poorly balanced once you look past their surface. If asteroid quality rolling were removed from the game, people who find the game too hard without it would simply install mods and continue to play how they want. The game would be balanced and therefore overall better, but nobody would really lose anything. That sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Today you can find a mod to make any part of the game easier. But should every single one of these mods be added to the base game? I think you would agree that the answer is no. I think asteroid quality rolling is on the same level as Bob’s inserters, nuclear bots and infinity chests, and I think it should go into the same category as all of these things: Not the base game.

CyberCider wrote: Sun May 18, 2025 3:22 pm Let me ask you a question: Why can’t you be the one to use a mod?

I am ! I even make some ! Mods are a very good thing ! I use some to make the game harder though x)

CyberCider wrote: Sun May 18, 2025 3:22 pm Mods are the place where such things belong. Unusual things that are considered cool or interesting, but ultimately don’t belong in the base game because they’re poorly balanced once you look past their surface. If asteroid quality rolling were removed from the game, people who find the game too hard without it would simply install mods and continue to play how they want. The game would be balanced and therefore overall better, but nobody would really lose anything. That sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Do you want recommandations for mod that makes the game harder ? Removing an option for everyone when you already not using it because you think it's too easy doesn't sound like a win win situation for the players who uses it because they like it.

CyberCider wrote: Sun May 18, 2025 3:22 pm Today you can find a mod to make any part of the game easier. But should every single one of these mods be added to the base game? I think you would agree that the answer is no. I think asteroid quality rolling is on the same level as Bob’s inserters, nuclear bots and infinity chests, and I think it should go into the same category as all of these things: Not the base game.

And i believe the same for mods that makes some parts redundants, or tedious

Lalaith wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 12:06 am
This also gives more variety in how you get to high quality products. I already have to do upcycling a bunch of times, I don't see why that should have to be the solution in ALL cases. In return for having quality in crushers we get all this sweet extra complexity and interesting chains.

This is the key point in my view, and none of the responses really addressed it. Even if the exact layout of each case will differ, plugging [item] into [recycler] and then [ingredients] back into [machine], is, to me, solving the same high level problem, and doing it over and over is no more exciting to me than the prospect of installing any of the mods that add a huge number of recipe trees to the game. If I did, it would not be for 'more complexity', it would be if I believed they'd give me different sorts of problems.

Either I am a player who does not care about getting top-end stuff, in which case I may not touch quality at all, or I do, in which case I'm going to need to do gambling or upcycling loops for every planet-specific item, AKA some of the most important items in the game. That's a dozen or more times that I'll need to solve either the 'destroy failed rolls' problem or the 're-shove failed rolls into recyclers' problem. Casinos or not, I WILL get the fun of dealing with the complexities those problems entail (all from the safety of my existing planets' infra and their already-solved power problems)! The fact that there's a *third* approach to quality for me to try to avoid solving the same classes of problems even more times, is not a bad thing, given that it CANNOT completely replace the others!

Here's some of the unique problems I've gotten to sink my teeth into in my brief foray into the so-called 'just copy paste crushers' approach to quality:

- Other than a tiny space science platform and copy-pasting the same basic inter-planet transports, and until promethium endgame (basically the entire game away!), this is my first incentive to make a non-trivial space platform. In fact, this is the first time I actually need asteroid belts because every ship before now was small enough for grabbers to feed directly into the landing pad. Encountering this problem earlier than the literal endgame is good!
- Building a larger space platform drew my attention to how poor my platform-building infra was. Suddenly I start to notice how expensive grabbers, crushers, platform foundation, etc. are and how inadequate my Nauvis silo capacities are, and all the ensuing problems with scaling that infra up - something that merely *importing* from other planets doesn't exercise.
- Pre-Aquilo, the only scalable power source in space is nuclear. Sure, maybe I've already got the infra for sending nuclear fuel to space / other planets, but unlike fusion, I need way more water in space now! And if I run out, I don't just travel a bit more slowly like with thruster fuel - my space platform death spirals! Meanwhile non-casino quality setups get to piggyback off of their planet's power supply, and endgame ships don't have the water problem!
- Time for me to actually need beaconed efficiency modules (I have adequate efficiency module production, of course?)
- Wait, I need a lot of water but oxide asteroids are really rare near Nauvis! Now I need separate asteroid reprocessing specifically designed to get one type (and it should stop when it has enough, unlike the casino reprocessors!)
- Okay medium space platform growing pains aside, time to build the asteroid cycler. Just copy paste, simple right?
- [Optional] Get bothered by the existence of idle crushers and learn dynamic recipe setting (if you don't do this, scale your platform-building infra even more!)
- Oh hang on you're telling me if I just blindly fill the belt with asteroids the reprocessors won't be able to put asteroids back on it and the whole system will jam? And the jam will eventually back-pressure the oxide asteroids for my power supply, death spiraling the entire platform?
- Okay a simple splitter to get half-full belts solves the above. Now to scale it up and - whoops - you're telling me if the quality outputs back up, I get the exact same jam? Okay, better invent a way to FORCE the reprocess loop to only partially fill each lane no matter how full the input or output belts get (maybe applying Gleba learnings!). No, loop-input-priority splitters won't stop jams if the output backs up, sorry. Bonus points for doing it without inserters!
- Wait, this asteroid rate is pitiful! Time to scale up! Okay, now for the first time I have to think about speed vs width tradeoffs in asteroid rates. As I scale it wider, this is also the first time I've needed more than a minimal amount of fuel production - now I need to redesign my basic-ass fuel plants!
- Of course, you're also optimizing the crushers at the end of the quality chain to switch to the more efficient, single-resource recipes if the secondary resource's output is satisfied, right? More circuitry!
- And what about re-rolling those final-quality asteroids if-and-only-if the main resource for that asteroid is backed up too? More circuitry!
- And now I get to think about which route should I run this ship on long-term? On the one hand, Aquilo has bigger asteroids. On the other hand, the two planets with the most space for spaceport and downstream quality infrastructure are Nauvis and Vulcanus, and neither connects to Aquilo. More decisions!

From my perspective, the proposal here is saying that instead of getting to think about and solve all the above interesting problems as early as the midgame, I should instead solve even more instances of the same class of problem that *I need to solve anyway for the planet-specific materials*, since those are required for the strongest buildings anyway. I prefer to have both these classes of approaches to quality in the game than just one of them, since they present very different problems - and casinos ensure I won't have to do so many variations on 'shove it in a recycler' that I get sick of the things!

LDS shuffle's resources-from-nothing, on the other hand, should IMO be mercilessly removed.

Ore/plate upcycling is not as easy to scale as asteroids, because it’s much slower. A lot slower, really. That’s all there is to it, the raw output numbers. They’re both roughly equally easy to build, except one of them has appropriate power for its complexity level. That’s what makes one balanced, and the other not.

The thing is asteroid upcycling isn't unbalanced. It's powerful but it requires a lot of investment just like any other quality build. The recycler only upcycling you propose is underpowered.

Let's compare it to battery upcycling (both of these use all legendary modules):

With a space casino: 20% of the time you lose the asteroid ~10% (9.92%) you go up a tier. This means ~67% of the time you lose the asteroid and 33% of the time it gets upgraded

With batteries: you lose 25% of the ingredients and 18.6% go up a tier. This means ~57% are lost and ~43% go up a tier. Far better.

For completeness, only using recyclers: you lose 75% of the ingredients and 6.2% go up a tier. This means ~92% are lost and ~8% go up a tier.