Ban quality modules from asteroid crushers

[h.q.droid]

TBH I seriously considered grenade upcycling for military science. But in the end even putting quality modules in grenade makers is unrealistic due to how slow it is. Yeah OP's balancing suggestions shouldn't be taken seriously if they used that for plastic-coal.

[mmmPI]

You need water too ! which come from Ice, that's a third component ! But maybe someone will argue that grenade upcycler is more interesting because grenades do not recycle in themselves like plastic but instead in their component, that makes it very complex x)

True true, it requires water, but as fluid it has no quality ! Not sure if that increases the complexity all that much compared to handling the quantities of carbon and sulfur to be produced in the ratios for the coal synthesis and not the ratios of the asteroid upcycler. That clearly requires additionnal logic compared to the grenade upcycler.

TBH I seriously considered grenade upcycling for military science. But in the end even putting quality modules in grenade makers is unrealistic due to how slow it is. Yeah OP's balancing suggestions shouldn't be taken seriously if they used that for plastic-coal.

Have you considered just upcycling plastic ? Because unlike for the "grenade upcycler method" , plastic can have a productivity research, and thus at high level every single coal mined becomes several legendary plastic. I don't know how can someone not see this and pretend grenade upcycler is good for "ressource efficency" and advise other player to use it. That's part of why i agree that the balancing suggestions are not serious.

[CyberCider]

Why is everyone still talking about coal? I literally “admitted defeat” in regard to coal specifically, and it never a main focus of the thread to begin with. Can you move on already?

That may explain why you don't understand when people are mentionning sulfur to you. It seem to confirm that it was based on ignorance when you said grenade upcycler need 2 component and compared it as something "more complicated" than legendary coal from space, you probably never used it and as such didn't realized that it was also requiring 2 components. Sulfur and carbon.

Of course I know how it works . In fact, in the calculation you asked me to post, you can see that I made a graph of the process. But the coal synthesis step contributes nothing to the complexity, because it comes after the actual quality part. Unless asteroid productivity is all the way at level 30, asteroids are crushed with productivity. So it’s just a regular straightforward recipe, free of any quality mechanics. As such it doesn’t really have any role in the discussion. The topic is the reprocessing of the asteroid chunks, the crushing and synthesis step is only a minor addon after the real rerolling process. It’s like, three machines on the entire ship. Whereas the “two components” of grenades are relevant within the upcycler itself.

I was confused about quality sulfur being mentioned separately from quality coal. As in, “I can see you thought about quality coal, but what about sulfur?”. This makes sense specifically in a quality science context, but otherwise not so much.

But maybe someone will argue that grenade upcycler is more interesting because grenades do not recycle in themselves like plastic but instead in their component, that makes it very complex x)

Well, yes? That’s just a true statement. Regular items recycle into a multitude of ingredients that can only be used in the correct ratio, while asteroids reprocess back into themselves plus more asteroids. The difference in complexity is quite clear. And there’s also the return ratio to keep in mind, that’s really the root of the problem.

And I never said “very complex” as an absolute term, I only ever made comparisons to asteroid rerolling.

TBH I seriously considered grenade upcycling for military science. But in the end even putting quality modules in grenade makers is unrealistic due to how slow it is. Yeah OP's balancing suggestions shouldn't be taken seriously if they used that for plastic-coal.

Hey, I told you I mainly use it just because I dislike ore recycling and don’t want to build it. If I was doing quality science (military in particular) and really wanted all the throughput I can get at any cost, I would definitely switch to coal recycling. But otherwise, high plastic productivity allows coal demand to be relatively low. It also helps that legendary supplies, unlike science packs, are best made from epic ingredients instead of legendary ingredients. And that lowers the upcycling requirements by quite a bit. Besides, grenades are only moderately slower than coal recycling, they only need like 66% more machines. They’re not even twice as bad. Although I feel like this judgement might be subjective, and some people might find that more severe than I do.

[CyberCider]

Have you considered just upcycling plastic ? Because unlike for the "grenade upcycler method" , plastic can have a productivity research, and thus at high level every single coal mined becomes several legendary plastic. I don't know how can someone not see this and pretend grenade upcycler is good for "ressource efficency" and advise other player to use it. That's part of why i agree that the balancing suggestions are not serious.

Wow, you call me ignorant and then say something like this? Let me put it in familiar terms for you: Think of the calcite>stone quality transfer trick. A small amount of quality calcite becomes a large amount of quality stone. Therefore it’s more worthwhile to obtain quality calcite and then turn it to stone, because the smaller amount of calcite will transfer its quality to the larger amount of stone. The logic is the exact same with coal and plastic. If you use one, you will understand the other.

[mmmPI]

Why is everyone still talking about coal? I literally “admitted defeat” in regard to coal specifically, and it never a main focus of the thread to begin with. Can you move on already?

I found coal interesting because it highlight the little amount of thought that was put in the reflexion. I think it's be better to move on when there is an actual proper answer for balancing. Otherwise what's the purpose of this topic ? Making a proposition that's incomplete and unbalanced ?

Hey, I told you I mainly use it just because I dislike ore recycling and don’t want to build it. If I was doing quality science (military in particular) and really wanted all the throughput I can get at any cost, I would definitely switch to coal recycling. But otherwise, high plastic productivity allows coal demand to be relatively low.

No that's a lie, you advised other player to use it for the "ressource efficency". And you also contradict your own statement there :

Anyway, I recommended grenade upcycling to Hurkyl because, from the way he spoke about other methods, I could tell that he seems to particularly care about the resource efficiency of quality methods. And in that aspect, grenades would indeed be more favorable to him. And I personally use grenade upcycling because I find ore recycling to be boring, and I would prefer to design something more interesting.

That is a bad advice, clearly.

To be honest with you, since I originally started this thread, I have learned a lot about quality. And I have learned, much to my surprise and disappointment, that coal recycling is actually viable. It has inferior resource efficiency to grenade upcycling, but higher throughput.

Wow, you call me ignorant and then say something like this? Let me put it in familiar terms for you: Think of the calcite>stone quality transfer trick. A small amount of quality calcite becomes a large amount of quality stone. Therefore it’s more worthwhile to obtain quality calcite and then turn it to stone, because the smaller amount of calcite will transfer its quality to the larger amount of stone. The logic is the exact same with coal and plastic. If you use one, you will understand the other.

You are showing yourself as ignorant, why would you write

But otherwise, high plastic productivity allows coal demand to be relatively low.

Yeah if you want to do ressource efficency you upcycle the plastic, because with 300% productivity there is no ressource wasted, unlike when you do grenade upcycler, where you waste 75 % of the material, not only the coal but also the iron, which makes no sense. What is that you don't understand here ?

[Shulmeister]

Well, yes? That’s just a true statement. Regular items recycle into a multitude of ingredients that can only be used in the correct ratio, while asteroids reprocess back into themselves plus more asteroids. The difference in complexity is quite clear. And there’s also the return ratio to keep in mind, that’s really the root of the problem.

And I never said “very complex” as an absolute term, I only ever made comparisons to asteroid rerolling.

Grenade upcycler are just more of the same, it's like recycling any item that gives back their component in proper ratio, very easy to keep a close loop, but it's a bad recipe for ressource efficency because there is no productivity research on it, so you will lose most of the material being processed, which is why i agree with mmmPI that it's a bad advice you gave when you recommended it for its ressource efficency. That's even worse than just upcycling coal because you also waste some iron to make plastic.

Wow, you call me ignorant and then say something like this? Let me put it in familiar terms for you: Think of the calcite>stone quality transfer trick. A small amount of quality calcite becomes a large amount of quality stone. Therefore it’s more worthwhile to obtain quality calcite and then turn it to stone, because the smaller amount of calcite will transfer its quality to the larger amount of stone. The logic is the exact same with coal and plastic. If you use one, you will understand the other.

I believe this is a good illustration of why it sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. Neither stone nor calcite have any productivity research associated, you can't just compare them with plastic that makes no sense. If you upcycle plastic with capped productivity , you turn 100% of the plastic into legendary plastic, not a single bit is wasted. Thus "perfect ressource efficency". Whereas if you upcycle the coal first, you lose a lot of ressources. Not that ressource efficency is important for most players but weirdly enough that's what you use to advocate for your grenade upcycler so that makes it particularly "wrong".

[CyberCider]

Yeah if you want to do ressource efficency you upcycle the plastic, because with 300% productivity there is no ressource wasted, unlike when you do grenade upcycler, where you waste 75 % of the material, not only the coal but also the iron, which makes no sense. What is that you don't understand here ?

If you upcycle plastic with capped productivity , you turn 100% of the plastic into legendary plastic, not a single bit is wasted. Thus "perfect ressource efficency". Whereas if you upcycle the coal first, you lose a lot of ressources. Not that ressource efficency is important for most players but weirdly enough that's what you use to advocate for your grenade upcycler so that makes it particularly "wrong".

Oh dear, oh no, what is this… Who am I even talking to?

Please think about what you said. Yes, plastic can reach maximum productivity. But it can’t be recycled! When you recycle a plastic bar, you don’t get back 0.125 coal that you can then use to craft plastic again (and at max productivity this would give you back the whole bar, allowing a lossless upcycle). You just get 0.25 plastic bars! You can’t directly upcycle using an item that recycles into itself, you need to use another recipe as a medium.

With every message, I realize more and more that you two, respectfully, know absolutely nothing about quality. Other users have had much more intelligent and sensible arguments. “Just upcycle plastic”

What’s next? Will you recommend me to upcyle the rocket parts in the rocket silo because those also have a productivity research? Maybe put steel in recyclers to recycle it into iron plates?

[h.q.droid]

TBH I seriously considered grenade upcycling for military science. But in the end even putting quality modules in grenade makers is unrealistic due to how slow it is. Yeah OP's balancing suggestions shouldn't be taken seriously if they used that for plastic-coal.

Have you considered just upcycling plastic ? Because unlike for the "grenade upcycler method" , plastic can have a productivity research, and thus at high level every single coal mined becomes several legendary plastic. I don't know how can someone not see this and pretend grenade upcycler is good for "ressource efficency" and advise other player to use it. That's part of why i agree that the balancing suggestions are not serious.

No? Because military science actually needs grenades so upcycling grenades has a huge yield advantage by not needing to recycle legendary products. Plastic is a non-issue at productivity 30 with 8 quality modules per plant and LDS, but you just can't turn plastic back to coal or make military science with plastic.

[h.q.droid]

Oh dear, oh no, what is this… Who am I even talking to?

Please think about what you said. Yes, plastic can reach maximum productivity. But it can’t be recycled! When you recycle a plastic bar, you don’t get back 0.125 coal that you can then use to craft plastic again (and at max productivity this would give you back the whole bar, allowing a lossless upcycle). You just get 0.25 plastic bars! You can’t directly upcycle using an item that recycles into itself, you need to use another recipe as a medium.

With every message, I realize more and more that you two, respectfully, know absolutely nothing about quality. Other users have had much more intelligent and sensible arguments. “Just upcycle plastic”

What’s next? Will you recommend me to upcyle the rocket parts in the rocket silo because those also have a productivity research? Maybe put steel in recyclers to recycle it into iron plates?

By upcycling plastic, they mean upcycling LDS. No one in their sane mind will actually upcycle plastics literally. The process does have 100% yield.

[CyberCider]

By upcycling plastic, they mean upcycling LDS. No one in their sane mind will actually upcycle plastics literally. The process does have 100% yield.

From their wording and the way they put emphasis on plastic productivity research, it doesn’t seem that way. To me it looks like they really thought it was possible.

[mmmPI]

From their wording and how they talk about productivity research, it doesn’t seem that way. To me it looks like they really thought it was possible.

Who ? when ? Note that i asked in my previous post for you to let me know if there was stuff you didn't understand. To me it appeared very clear when i read the thing literally like there :

You need water too ! which come from Ice, that's a third component ! But maybe someone will argue that grenade upcycler is more interesting because grenades do not recycle in themselves like plastic but instead in their component, that makes it very complex x)

True true, it requires water, but as fluid it has no quality ! Not sure if that increases the complexity all that much compared to handling the quantities of carbon and sulfur to be produced in the ratios for the coal synthesis and not the ratios of the asteroid upcycler. That clearly requires additionnal logic compared to the grenade upcycler.

To me the whole point was to explain to you that when you recycle grenades you get back the component on the proper ratio, it's easy, whereas it's a little more complex if you want to try space coal, because you either have to mix the recipe between basic crushing and advanced crushing to get a proper ratio of carbon/sulfur for the coal synthesis or dump the extra quality sulfur, ( or use it for ammo or science i suppose x)). (And you also have to manage the ice ).

TBH I seriously considered grenade upcycling for military science. But in the end even putting quality modules in grenade makers is unrealistic due to how slow it is. Yeah OP's balancing suggestions shouldn't be taken seriously if they used that for plastic-coal.

Have you considered just upcycling plastic ? Because unlike for the "grenade upcycler method" , plastic can have a productivity research, and thus at high level every single coal mined becomes several legendary plastic. I don't know how can someone not see this and pretend grenade upcycler is good for "ressource efficency" and advise other player to use it. That's part of why i agree that the balancing suggestions are not serious.

No? Because military science actually needs grenades so upcycling grenades has a huge yield advantage by not needing to recycle legendary products. Plastic is a non-issue at productivity 30 with 8 quality modules per plant and LDS, but you just can't turn plastic back to coal or make military science with plastic.

I meant in general not for legendary military science in particular, if you want legendary plastic with a good yield on coal => legendary plastic, indeed LDS is the way to go that's what i meant by a setup where "every single coal mined becomes several legendary plastic". Not necessarily LDS shuffle with fluids, just LDS recycling is enough. I don't see any other way currently. And no-one proposed to remove it. You can make coal=> plastic in cryoplant plant with quality module ( with maxed out productivity thanks to research) and then plastic=> LDS in foundries with also quality module and maxed out productivity thanks to research, and then LDS=> plastic, in recycler, in the end all the coal will be turned into plastic, no waste on the (rare) coal from Vulcanus, and all the plastic will be turned legendary. This is for the so called "ressource efficency" which is a "bad proxy" for UPS, but it was mentionned in this thread; grenade-upcycler is "bad" at ressource efficency, even vs other methods that are not considered exploit x).

No one in their sane mind will actually upcycle plastics literally.

Yeah i get that x) But some players do upcycle the coal directly (trading ressource efficency for UPS ), or use grenade upcycler ( for whatever reason) to then make legendary plastic, to me it appears the same as recycling plastic literally , coal recycle in itself like plastic so i thought maybe you have considered it somewhere ? Mining the coal directly into the cryoplant on vulcanus is what was shown on the previously linked video. That was to make regular science & plastic though. But if you recycle directly that plastic, not using a "clever" trick like making them into LDS and recycling them. Would you still beat the ressource efficency of a grenade upcycler ? My guess is yes That wouldn't be a setup where every coal mined becomes "several legendary plastic" anymore but i'm not sure which one would be "prefered" vs the LDS recycling. I think your answer is pretty clear though that's a NOT a thing you considered, and i can understand why.

If i asked is because i think that "may" becomes something people consider doing if the LDS shuffle AND the asteroid rerolling are both removed from the game, as the current suggestion present. And in such case, i believe it's a loss in terms of "complexity", considering the reasonning that "processes unlocked later in the game must have better yield but be more complex if they exist". Then the suggestion would lead to the "best" method for plastic being "dumb", like ore recycling or worse the literal upcycle of plastic without the LDS step.

[CyberCider]

To me the whole point was to explain to you that when you recycle grenades you get back the component on the proper ratio, it's easy, whereas it's a little more complex if you want to try space coal, because you either have to mix the recipe between basic crushing and advanced crushing to get a proper ratio of carbon/sulfur for the coal synthesis or dump the extra quality sulfur, ( or use it for ammo or science i suppose x)). (And you also have to manage the ice ).

Actually, except for certain recipes with all ingredient counts perfectly divisible by 4, upcyclers don’t return the exact ratio. The ratio will drift over time due to the probabilistic returns of the recycler, and the upcycler needs to be able to automatically unclog itself. Unless you want to check on a planet and see that an upcycler has been locked up for the past 10 hours instead of producing anything.

There’s also the fact that in cases such as this, and others like using LDS for copper plates or big power poles for steel, you have to invest one resource in order to upcycle another. This creates more logistical complexity. With asteroids, all asteroid types are interchangeable, you can always adjust the ratio to your liking. And of course they all come from space, no resource logistics or production scaling at all. But with upcycling you have to not only invest other resources into upcycling the ones you’re after, but also deal with the upcycler having multiple outputs. You can’t only get quality copper plates, you will also get quality steel and plastic. You have to connect those to the rest of your base and ensure that they are consumed, or else they will back up your source of quality copper. In space this is true for quality calcite and ice, producing calcite will leave you with an excess of ice. However when ice is used for anything it is melted, which wipes its quality, and in turn makes it very simple to handle.

I admit that I consider the balancing of carbon and sulfur using the two recipes to be a decently interesting mini puzzle. But if you weigh it against the impact that the entire set of exploits has (easy iron, copper and stone), it’s simply not enough to tip the entire scale. Only one of the resources the exploits can produce has some extra substance to it, all the others are extremely straightforward and extremely overpowered.

grenade-upcycler is "bad" at ressource efficency, even vs other methods that are not considered exploit x).

Here is a quote of the original message that prompted me to suggest grenade upcycling.

There aren't really any good options for plastic, IMO. Red circuits and LDS are slow recipes, recycling plastic/coal directly is stupidly expensive

As you can see, this person finds red circuits and LDS too slow for their tastes, and finds coal recycling too inefficient. So I offered them a recipe that is bith faster than LDS and red circuits and more efficient than coal recycling. That’s all I ever claimed grenades to be. It’s not the most efficient and it’s not the fastest, but it’s a mix of both. And to some people that might be very favorable. And the reason I personally use it is different, as previously explained.

to me it appears the same as recycling plastic literally , coal recycle in itself like plastic

Yes, it does, and this is actually what gives coal an advantage. If their recycling recipes are the same, then it takes the same number of machines to reach a given throughput of legendary coal and legendary plastic, via direct recycling. Let’s say it takes n machines to produce x legendary coal or plastic per minute. If you dedicate those n machines to plastic, you will be making x legendary plastic per minute. If you dedicate them to coal, you will be making x legendary coal per minute. However, when you turn that legendary coal into legendary plastic, at max productivity you get 8 plastic per coal. So by producing x legendary coal per minute you actually get x*8 legendary plastic per minute. Aka, 8x higher throughput from the same number of machines than you would get if you used that many machines to directly recycle plastic. Also, if you were to recycle plastic, you would be wasting petroleum gas in those recycled plastic bars. While turning legendary coal into legendary plastic consumes the same amount of gas as making some common plastic. I think this is a pretty good explanation, but let me know if anything is unclear.

If i asked is because i think that "may" becomes something people consider doing if the LDS shuffle AND the asteroid rerolling are both removed from the game, as the current suggestion present. And in such case, i believe it's a loss in terms of "complexity", considering the reasonning that "processes unlocked later in the game must have better yield but be more complex if they exist". Then the suggestion would lead to the "best" method for plastic being "dumb", like ore recycling or worse the literal upcycle of plastic without the LDS step.

Yes, I already agreed with this earlier. I conceded, plain and simple. However, like I said, coal is only a small piece of the puzzle. I believe it’s completely worth it to “sacrifice” coal for the sake of iron, copper and stone. Coal will unfortunately become less complex and interesting, I completely admit this, but all the other vanilla resources will gain complexity and substance. And I believe this is an overall beneficial exchange, even if it isn’t perfect.

[mmmPI]

Actually, except for certain recipes with all ingredient counts perfectly divisible by 4, upcyclers don’t return the exact ratio. The ratio will drift over time due to the probabilistic returns of the recycler, and the upcycler needs to be able to automatically unclog itself. Unless you want to check on a planet and see that an upcycler has been locked up for the past 10 hours instead of producing anything.

No that's wrong, the ratio doesn't drift that's the opposite it stabilizes, the amount of buffer you need to prevent clogging is a well known math law and it's possible to calculate for it to not clog before a century of game time with 99% probability.

I won't argue with you again about the complexity of grenade upcycler, if you think it's harder than asteroid shuffling which you also admitted to have never used ( at least for sulfur) that's fine. It's your opinion, i have read the thread , i have my idea on what people said.

grenade-upcycler is "bad" at ressource efficency, even vs other methods that are not considered exploit x).

I believe you have hard time agreeing with me, or anyone else if they ever contradicted you at some point, so i'm going to assume it was your best attempt at agreeing there, it wasn't very explicit but you do not contradict the statement.

Yes, it does, and this is actually what gives coal an advantage. If their recycling recipes are the same, then it takes the same number of machines to reach a given throughput of legendary coal and legendary plastic, via direct recycling. Let’s say it takes n machines to produce x legendary coal or plastic per minute. If you dedicate those n machines to plastic, you will be making x legendary plastic per minute. If you dedicate them to coal, you will be making x legendary coal per minute. However, when you turn that legendary coal into legendary plastic, at max productivity you get 8 plastic per coal. So by producing x legendary coal per minute you actually get x*8 legendary plastic per minute. Aka, 8x higher throughput from the same number of machines than you would get if you used that many machines to directly recycle plastic. Also, if you were to recycle plastic, you would be wasting petroleum gas in those recycled plastic bars. While turning legendary coal into legendary plastic consumes the same amount of gas as making some common plastic. I think this is a pretty good explanation, but let me know if anything is unclear.

The explanation is not correct imo.

When you upcycle only coal you can only improve quality in the recycler, if you upcycle the plastic, you can improve the quality in the recycler AND in the cryoplant . which one has more module ?

In the case of upcycling coal your inputs for the recycler have " a little quality" because mining drill can have a few quality modules. from this you remove a % that will be destroyed in the process of making it all legendary.

In the case of upcycling plastic you inputs have "more quality" because after the mining drill step you put them thru a cryoplant with lots of quality module, and only after that you recycle, you have much more things that are already upgraded in % ( and in absolute value). So you remove less % in the process.

Take the process to the extreme for experience of thought, imagine you need 100 steps to make a product, and everytime the amout of material double. Sure at the end it will be a gigantic amount of stuff to recycle, it would generate much less need for material processing if you had recycled everything at step 1, because it would be a much smaller number that would be elevated to the same power. But the first method is just more efficient regarding the initial ressources consumption.

Yes the second case would probably require more machines because there would be more "plastic" to recycle than "coal" in the other method, but you argued about "ressource efficency" for whatever reason.

[CyberCider]

I believe you have hard time agreeing with me, or anyone else if they ever contradicted you at some point, so i'm going to assume it was your best attempt at agreeing there, it wasn't very explicit but you do not contradict the statement.

I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing, I was just explaining to you that you misunderstood me, only hoping to have a clearer and more productive communication.

The explanation is not correct imo.

When you upcycle only coal you can only improve quality in the recycler, if you upcycle the plastic, you can improve the quality in the recycler AND in the cryoplant . which one has more module ?

Unless you’re at very high plastic productivity, the cryoplant will house productivity modules instead of quality modules, in order to reach 300%. However if you’ve maxed it out purely through tech, and can freely put quality modules in, then things change of course. In that case you will not be recycling coal to legendary, but rather to rare. Once it’s at rare, you put it through the quality cryoplant for a great upgrade chance. And any of the plastics that come out as rare/epic are then recycled with quality until they’re all legendary. So I suppose that at the highest possible producitivity, the most optimal approach is a hybrid one because it recycles both coal and plastic. But the plastic recycling is much smaller volume than the coal. And yes, I checked if it would work the same with uncommon instead of rare, and it resulted in weaker throughput. Rare is the threshold.

Yes the second case would probably require more machines because there would be more "plastic" to recycle than "coal" in the other method, but you argued about "ressource efficency" for whatever reason.

Hey, I’ve already stated that resource efficiency is unimportant to me. I’m calling coal “recycling to rare” better than “pure plastic recycling” solely based on throughput. I have no idea how their resource efficiencies compare, because I never calculated the performance of plastic recycling. But I suppose I could do so now, to create a concrete comparison with real numbers that will certainly reveal the real “winner” between the two methods. If you believe it’s necessary, that is.

[mmmPI]

Unless you’re at very high plastic productivity, the cryoplant will house productivity modules instead of quality modules, in order to reach 300%. However if you’ve maxed it out purely through tech, and can freely put quality modules in, then things change of course. In that case you will not be recycling coal to legendary, but rather to rare. Once it’s at rare, you put it through the quality cryoplant for a great upgrade chance. And any of the plastics that come out as rare/epic are then recycled with quality until they’re all legendary. So I suppose that at the highest possible producitivity, the most optimal approach is a hybrid one because it recycles both coal and plastic. But the plastic recycling is much smaller volume than the coal. And yes, I checked if it would work the same with uncommon instead of rare, and it resulted in weaker throughput. Rare is the threshold.

If you think so, why is that so hard to agree when i say "grenade-upcycler" is bad compared to other methods that aren't even considered exploits ?

[CyberCider]

If you think so, why is that so hard to agree when i say "grenade-upcycler" is bad compared to other methods that aren't even considered exploits ?

Well, “bad” is a relative term. I would call it mediocre, because there are certainly methods that are a lot worse than it (and this is my opinion, so judging based on throughput). I just use it regardless, even if I know it’s not the best, because I find the best method (again, only “best” to me, according to my throughput-focused criteria) really boring.

I won't argue with you again about the complexity of grenade upcycler, if you think it's harder than asteroid shuffling which you also admitted to have never used ( at least for sulfur) that's fine. It's your opinion, i have read the thread , i have my idea on what people said.

Well, I’ve just been waiting to hear this. Goodbye coal, we’ve talked it completely to death, and it was never the most important to begin with. Grenades are really not the best representative of upcycling as a whole anyway, some of the real best recipes have a lot more going on. Blue underground belts, underground pipe casting, big power poles, foundry concrete… Surely with these, it’s easier to see how they have more substance than asteroid rerolling. Which, again, is basically the same as ore recycling but with a return rate of >40% instead of 25%.

[crimsonarmy]

Well, I’ve just been waiting to hear this. Goodbye coal, we’ve talked it completely to death, and it was never the most important to begin with. Grenades are really not the best representative of upcycling as a whole anyway, some of the real best recipes have a lot more going on. Blue underground belts, underground pipe casting, big power poles, foundry concrete… Surely with these, it’s easier to see how they have more substance than asteroid rerolling. Which, again, is basically the same as ore recycling but with a return rate of >40% instead of 25%.

Asteroid rerolling and ore recycling have one thing in common: no crafting. I don't see how they are comparable beyond that.

Ore recycling trades efficiency for throughput and a casino does the opposite, trading throughput for efficiency (as resources from space are free). (To clarify, efficiency in this context is about the ratio of ore mined to legendary resources produced. This doesn't really apply to megabases as 1,000,000,000 ≈ Infinity).

[mmmPI]

Grenades are the only recipe that balances resource efficiency and throughput.

Well, “bad” is a relative term. I would call it mediocre, because there are certainly methods that are a lot worse than it (and this is my opinion, so judging based on throughput). I just use it regardless, even if I know it’s not the best, because I find the best method (again, only “best” to me, according to my throughput-focused criteria) really boring.

No "worse" is a relative term not "bad". It doesn't help removing that circus impression where the only person that seemingly lack the competence is the one that gives advices x).

I won't argue with you again about the complexity of grenade upcycler, if you think it's harder than asteroid shuffling which you also admitted to have never used ( at least for sulfur) that's fine. It's your opinion, i have read the thread , i have my idea on what people said.

Well, I’ve just been waiting to hear this. Goodbye coal, we’ve talked it completely to death, and it was never the most important to begin with. Grenades are really not the best representative of upcycling as a whole anyway, some of the real best recipes have a lot more going on. Blue underground belts, underground pipe casting, big power poles, foundry concrete… Surely with these, it’s easier to see how they have more substance than asteroid rerolling. Which, again, is basically the same as ore recycling but with a return rate of >40% instead of 25%.

That makes no sense though. It's not because you stopped claiming non-sense about grenade upcycler that your suggestion is made more useful for balancing. Why stop talking about coal when it's in particular the point that isn't adressed properly ?

You attempt at trying to argue again on the complexity of grenade upcycler are pathetic.

[Shulmeister]

You need water too ! which come from Ice, that's a third component ! But maybe someone will argue that grenade upcycler is more interesting because grenades do not recycle in themselves like plastic but instead in their components , that makes it very complex x)

Please think about what you said. Yes, plastic can reach maximum productivity. But it can’t be recycled!

I know that's what i have written. What's the point of your intervention here ?

With every message, I realize more and more that you two, respectfully, know absolutely nothing about quality. Other users have had much more intelligent and sensible arguments. “Just upcycle plastic”
What’s next? Will you recommend me to upcyle the rocket parts in the rocket silo because those also have a productivity research? Maybe put steel in recyclers to recycle it into iron plates?

It's funny because you mock the "upcycling plastic", and then you say this :

So I suppose that at the highest possible producitivity, the most optimal approach is a hybrid one because it recycles both coal and plastic. But the plastic recycling is much smaller volume than the coal. And yes, I checked if it would work the same with uncommon instead of rare, and it resulted in weaker throughput. Rare is the threshold.

Just upcycle plastic the irony, i don't know how other players can be this patient to explain things to you, it doesn't seem worth it to me.

[h.q.droid]

I meant in general not for legendary military science in particular, if you want legendary plastic with a good yield on coal => legendary plastic, indeed LDS is the way to go that's what i meant by a setup where "every single coal mined becomes several legendary plastic". Not necessarily LDS shuffle with fluids, just LDS recycling is enough. I don't see any other way currently. And no-one proposed to remove it. You can make coal=> plastic in cryoplant plant with quality module ( with maxed out productivity thanks to research) and then plastic=> LDS in foundries with also quality module and maxed out productivity thanks to research, and then LDS=> plastic, in recycler, in the end all the coal will be turned into plastic, no waste on the (rare) coal from Vulcanus, and all the plastic will be turned legendary. This is for the so called "ressource efficency" which is a "bad proxy" for UPS, but it was mentionned in this thread; grenade-upcycler is "bad" at ressource efficency, even vs other methods that are not considered exploit x).

Well, plastics is an entirely different game than coal. My final solution for plastics (for legendary science) is to mine quality coal, throw away normal and uncommon, upcycle rare to epic, put them in a cryo with 8 quality, and destroy all epic plastic with recyclers. That's the only solution with tolerable UPS / bandwidth for me. LDS upcycling is too heavy inserting all the copper into recyclers. I can't even upcycle epic plastic bars due to quality recyclers being clunky. Even throwing them into lava was too slow due to lava not stacking.

On grenade upcycling, it's not just bad at resource efficiency if you don't use the final grenades. It's also slower than both upcycling coal directly and upcycling LDS in terms of UPS and bandwidth. Investing A to upcycle B may sound interesting but in the end it's usually impractical, unless you have a fast recipe like EM plant, foundry, or nuke.

For infrastructure, LDS is the way to go. Space coal / quality mining can help by starting at a higher quality.