Factorio Forums

Hurkyl wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 1:00 pm I still find it weird how many people seem to have trouble conceiving of doing quality in any other fashion than making quality base resources, and I'm imagining the space casino is a large part of the reason things are that way.

I think it sounds weird because it's not the case that people have trouble conceiving doing quality with other things than raw material. You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what you read. It's rather an appreciation for the choice , being able to use different methods which include space casino.

If it was only a trouble because people want to make quality with raw material, they would just upcycle the ore at the mines. But it's not the case, on the contrary, it's always mentionned that space casino is what people found interesting. Therefore the reformulation is very much incorrect.

NineNine wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 1:24 pm That's a bingo!

I play the game without trying to copy other people's ideas, and I made a 100% Legendary factory without once making any quality raw materials. Making quality raw materials seems to be unnecessarily difficult, complicated, and most importantly, un-fun.

Yeah sometimes people say it's too easy , sometimes uncessarily difficult, anyway i suppose it depends on the players and the method they choose, by looking at what other people do you have the chance to open up your mind to things you may not have found yourself on your own. It doesn't mean you have to copy it, but it doesn't harm to learn couple tricks here and there , some you may find fun.

If you don't like them , you can always, not use them x) i have real hard time understanding those players that don't want the others to have fun with a strategy that they don't even use themselves. like why ? Do they consider only what is fit to their own appeciation of difficulty. It's very short sighted imo, for many players past a certain point the game isn't "hard" anymore it's just fun, and it sound to me really weird to insist that one particular step should stay "hard as they think hard is". Like really you think there is quantitative difficulty leap between LDS shuffle and asteroid rerolling ? And even if it was the case, what's wrong with you ? why do you want to prevent people from having their fun with an unnecessarily difficult and complicated method IF THEY FIND IT FUN. Are you the grinch or something ?

mmmPI wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 1:45 pm If you don't like them , you can always, not use them x) i have real hard time understanding those players that don't want the others to have fun with a strategy that they don't even use themselves. like why ? Do they consider only what is fit to their own appeciation of difficulty. It's very short sighted imo, for many players past a certain point the game isn't "hard" anymore it's just fun, and it sound to me really weird to insist that one particular step should stay "hard as they think hard is". Like really you think there is quantitative difficulty leap between LDS shuffle and asteroid rerolling ? And even if it was the case, what's wrong with you ? why do you want to prevent people from having their fun with an unnecessarily difficult and complicated method IF THEY FIND IT FUN. Are you the grinch or something ?

I don't care how anybody else plays the game. I'm saying that people who rely on copying other people's ideas from Youtbe or wherever might not have used their brains to think about other ways to make quality items that might be more fun than whatever they're copying off of the Internet.

Have YOU considered that the developers dimply don't want to make a product with the "space casino" trick in it? This isn't an open source project. They're using their own vision to design their own product in the way that they want to. Why would they want to make a product that has a well-known nerf in it? It doesn't make sense to ask people to make a product that they see as inferior just because you want to play it in that particular way.

That's like asking a quality auto maker to leave in a problem with a car that allows the floor board to fall out just because you like to poop onto the street while you're driving. It may some weird niche thing that you want to do, but most people, and more importantly, the makers, do not want a product that acts like this. It's not something to be proud of.

I think we can all tell that Wube is interested in making an excellent product that's up to their quality standards, not yours.

NineNine wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 2:11 pm I don't care how anybody else plays the game. I'm saying that people who rely on copying other people's ideas from Youtbe or wherever might not have used their brains to think about other ways to make quality items that might be more fun than whatever they're copying off of the Internet.

That's not how you don't care imo, on the contrary, it seems to me that you actually care a lot about those players x), to me when i don't care about something i just ignore it, so it was not obvious from your behavior that you were in the process of not caring.

NineNine wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 2:11 pm Have YOU considered that the developers dimply don't want to make a product with the "space casino" trick in it? This isn't an open source project. They're using their own vision to design their own product in the way that they want to. Why would they want to make a product that has a well-known nerf in it? It doesn't make sense to ask people to make a product that they see as inferior just because you want to play it in that particular way.

I have considered this, initially i reported the exploit both space casino and LDS when i had the immense honor to be asked to be beta tester lol, i was answered that those were ok because they required a lot of technology and investment or non-trivial amount of research to be effective. I was not super convinced, but over time when i saw all the fun people seem to have with space casino, i felt like i was wrong, that Wube was correct to have left them in the game ... until 2.1 when it was removed. Now i understand why other players complain, the various reasons they have are not the one i have personnally all the time, it's not a perfect veen diagram, sometimes with other player i don't share any of their reasons to have the space casino in the game , like to me it's not "easier" , to me it's a complex build considering the task the game offers, without self imposed challenge, i know some players found it "easier" and like it for that, the opposite of my opinion for the reasons to have it in the game. But then to me, similar to that old oil change in 0.17, i think the stronger argument is the one for accessibility, you are not removing any complexity (imo) by leaving the space casino there. Maybe nerf it if "it being too easy" was the problem, but removing it , i feel is missing what some players over the time it was allowed have come to consider as a feature offered from the game. Like an alternative to "bigger and more promethium ships all the time".

NineNine wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 2:11 pm That's like asking a quality auto maker to leave in a problem with a car that allows the floor board to fall out just because you like to poop onto the street while you're driving. It may some weird niche thing that you want to do, but most people, and more importantly, the makers, do not want a product that acts like this. It's not something to be proud of.

I think we can all tell that Wube is interested in making an excellent product that's up to their quality standards, not yours.

No that's like how chips were invented, just because that one guy wanted potato more cooked, and thiner and more cooked and thinner, so the cook made him a joke, with a fried super thin potato, and the guy liked it, and now chips are very comon and not weird at all.

mmmPI wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 1:45 pm

Hurkyl wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 1:00 pm I still find it weird how many people seem to have trouble conceiving of doing quality in any other fashion than making quality base resources, and I'm imagining the space casino is a large part of the reason things are that way.

I think it sounds weird because it's not the case that people have trouble conceiving doing quality with other things than raw material. You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what you read. It's rather an appreciation for the choice , being able to use different methods which include space casino.

Or I'm speaking about the people who totally blank on doing quality other than upcycling basic resources rather than the narrow demographic you have in mind.

Hurkyl wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 2:48 pm Or I'm speaking about the people who totally blank on doing quality other than upcycling basic resources rather than the narrow demographic you have in mind.

That is what i refered to as a mirepresentation or a misunderstanding actually, because to me the reasonning from OP leads to such conclusion :

usafphoenix wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 11:55 am the "variability" of optimal strategy is the mechanic by which BALANCE is ensured.

Which i believe is more faithfully reformulated as prefering to have the choice of different methods, that are different in their execution, but similar in terms of rewards or proportionnal, or having a granularity, where you have various ways, with various level of reward. At least that's how i understood it, not like players " totally blank on doing quality other than upcycling basic resources " , to me that was like an idea you had in your mind of what players think which does not correspond to what those actual players wrote so it was no wonder why it seemed weird , it was a misunderstanding, or like adressing imaginary people.

I feel OP proposed an idea that can be useful for players making mods to provide reward for their planets that explains what players enjoy in the game, and how they think about balance about it. And OP also seem to care more about people like you than you care about people like OP , because OP consideration revolve around making something balanced, that would fit "all the players". You have your own vision of the game, in which the ratio of legendary asteroid output / common asteroid input is very important, but to me that was already adressed by OP :

usafphoenix wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 11:55 am What'll be done next? no recyclers in space? In my opinion, it is far simpler, cheaper, and less "mentally complex" to build a belt loop with a few filter splitters, plop down a recycler in the middle of a spaceship and go "Well...anything that's not legendary gets chucked off the ship!"....And then make a thousand of those ships doing the same thing. My PC will hate me. But that won't stop me.

"no but you PC will REALLY hate you ,it will hate you 2727/47 times" Feels like an argument that misses the point to me. Rather i feel it's more interesting to consider the reasonning about balance. If you can have the same machine in early game and in late game and in both case it's an optimal choice, there is a balance problem, this seem to be the reasonning that was proposed, and in such case space casino need not just to be available later, but also be a different thing that what is available early game, you shouldn't just be able to use the same machine/platform in early game with a slow yield that auto-magically increase with research, or you miss the opportunity and the gameplay depth to propose different methods that are "only" suited for a certain moment, or unlocked at a reasonnable timeframe that they constitute a balanced alternative to the existing one.

Therefore again @Hurkyl, to me insisting on how inefficient using recyclers are currently is also missing the point, since it appears to me that the logical conclusion from the previous reasonning would then be to make them "more efficient", so that they "again" constitute a viable alternative for late game stuff.

I am not surprised thus to read suggestions to add promethium and quality together, like an asteroid upcycler machine, or a crusher that require promethium to build, or a receipe you unlock only "late game", because it would then adress the observation made by OP, offering various (subjective) expression on what one would consider a balanced space casino to increase the amount of "puzzle" the game offers players to do.

There are simple reason why people like space casino and legendari basic material

It is because it is annoying to deal with intermidiate quality.

When you reach legendary quality you have no usage for anything but common or legendary and legendary outside of finding way to upcycle it. And it mostly because of 2 reasons:

• Quality could clog your production. solution: viewtopic.php?t=134154
• Reward for quality is too much focused in legendary item and too small for items of like uncommon or epic quality. rare quality are exception as it is highest quality available at green science stage and it could be reasonable to made some rare items before unlocking epic+legendary. Solution: viewtopic.php?p=696463

mmmPI wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 3:46 pm

Hurkyl wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 2:48 pm Or I'm speaking about the people who totally blank on doing quality other than upcycling basic resources rather than the narrow demographic you have in mind.

That is what i refered to as a mirepresentation or a misunderstanding actually, because to me the reasonning from OP leads to such conclusion :

usafphoenix wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 11:55 am the "variability" of optimal strategy is the mechanic by which BALANCE is ensured.

Which i believe is more faithfully reformulated as prefering to have the choice of different methods,

I wasn't reformulating the OP's conclusion. The thing you quoted was an off-hand comment that touches on other balance issues that people tend to be dismissive of.

"no but you PC will REALLY hate you ,it will hate you 2727/47 times" Feels like an argument that misses the point to me. Rather i feel it's more interesting to consider the reasonning about balance. If you can have the same machine in early game and in late game and in both case it's an optimal choice, there is a balance problem, this seem to be the reasonning that was proposed, and in such case space casino need not just to be available later, but also be a different thing that what is available early game, you shouldn't just be able to use the same machine/platform in early game with a slow yield that auto-magically increase with research, or you miss the opportunity and the gameplay depth to propose different methods that are "only" suited for a certain moment, or unlocked at a reasonnable timeframe that they constitute a balanced alternative to the existing one.

Therefore again @Hurkyl, to me insisting on how inefficient using recyclers are currently is also missing the point, since it appears to me that the logical conclusion from the previous reasonning would then be to make them "more efficient", so that they "again" constitute a viable alternative for late game stuff.

Should I take this all as defending the earlier poster doing things like equating a whole reprocessing upcycling loop with a single recycler? Especially in what seems to be part the basis of their perception of the issue? Or are you, well, misunderstanding or misrepresenting my post?

Hurkyl wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 5:45 pm Should I take this all as defending the earlier poster doing things like equating a whole reprocessing upcycling loop with a single recycler?

Really if you ask what you should do, my advice is to not try to apply a generic label on the text but rather read what it says and answer about it, don't try to make simplistic reformulation, that sound like a strawman and is disrecpectful.

mmmPI wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 3:46 pm Rather i feel it's more interesting to consider the reasonning about balance. If you can have the same machine in early game and in late game and in both case it's an optimal choice, there is a balance problem, this seem to be the reasonning that was proposed, and in such case space casino need not just to be available later, but also be a different thing that what is available early game, you shouldn't just be able to use the same machine/platform in early game with a slow yield that auto-magically increase with research, or you miss the opportunity and the gameplay depth to propose different methods that are "only" suited for a certain moment, or unlocked at a reasonnable timeframe that they constitute a balanced alternative to the existing one.

Therefore again @Hurkyl, to me insisting on how inefficient using recyclers are currently is also missing the point, since it appears to me that the logical conclusion from the previous reasonning would then be to make them "more efficient", so that they "again" constitute a viable alternative for late game stuff.

I am not surprised thus to read suggestions to add promethium and quality together, like an asteroid upcycler machine, or a crusher that require promethium to build, or a receipe you unlock only "late game", because it would then adress the observation made by OP, offering various (subjective) expression on what one would consider a balanced space casino to increase the amount of "puzzle" the game offers players to do.

Do you understand that players can have different opinion on what is a balance problem ? and instead of correcting them on what you think is the only real definition of balance insisting on the number of asteroid going in and out as you do in your game , you could try to understand what would be a solution for them given what they just explained about how they see the game ? Specifically in that case, the fact that you can keep the same platform design throughout the whole game past the point where you get access to your first module.

Do you understand that people can have different opinions on the balance problem? That a person might find it interesting to comment on the way a balance issue may be a contributing factor to locking people into a narrow perspective on the quality system? Or that a person might be interested in potential future balance changes be based on accurate information rather than wild misrepresentations? Or even just think the discussion would go better without such misunderstandings?

I can understand being interested in talking about a narrow aspect of the issue and not so much in other aspects of it. I could even understand that tunnel vision could cause you to misunderstand by trying to shoehorn my comments into the part of the issue you find interesting. But doubling down on the strawman is fairly disrespectful.

Hurkyl wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 7:07 pm I can understand being interested in talking about a narrow aspect of the issue and not so much in other aspects of it.

i have no doubt about that, there is no need to demonsrate it further, i was instead hoping that you could participate in the discussion in a way that could contribute to express an opinion on the recent suggestions by players about making sure designs you could use in early game for quality making are different than design you could use in late game for the purpose of providing different solutions all along the game, or at least alternative methods that are rewarding to what you consider is a just balance for the late game.

mmmPI wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 7:37 pm

Hurkyl wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 7:07 pm I can understand being interested in talking about a narrow aspect of the issue and not so much in other aspects of it.

i have no doubt about that, there is no need to demonsrate it further, i was instead hoping that you could participate in the discussion in a way that could contribute to express an opinion on the recent suggestions by players about making sure designs you could use in early game for quality making are different than design you could use in late game for the purpose of providing different solutions all along the game, or at least alternative methods that are rewarding to what you consider is a just balance for the late game.

And you thought making a mockery of discussion on the thread I was interested in and misrepresenting what I was saying on it was going to result in me switching threads rather than, say, responding to the mockery and misrepresentation?

Hurkyl wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 8:33 pm And you thought making a mockery of discussion on the thread I was interested in and misrepresenting what I was saying on it was going to result in me switching threads rather than, say, responding to the mockery and misrepresentation?

No as i said in PM i thought you would stop the drama, realized maybe it was needlessly insulting to infer people willing to use space casino are people who don't know else, and actually talk about space casino in the context of the post and the thread instead of just bashing the same numbers all over again, in a context where it's not the quantity nor the rate nor the speed that was discussed, but rather the ability to keep the same platform design 'unchanged' from early game to late game. Point about which you still haven't expressed an opinion.

mmmPI wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 9:11 pm

Hurkyl wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 8:33 pm And you thought making a mockery of discussion on the thread I was interested in and misrepresenting what I was saying on it was going to result in me switching threads rather than, say, responding to the mockery and misrepresentation?

No as i said in PM i thought you would stop the drama, realized maybe it was needlessly insulting to infer people willing to use space casino are people who don't know else, and actually talk about space casino in the context of the post and the thread instead of just bashing the same numbers all over again, in a context where it's not the quantity nor the rate nor the speed that was discussed, but rather the ability to keep the same platform design 'unchanged' from early game to late game. Point about which you still haven't expressed an opinion.

And now you're just making up blatant lies.

I have read the thread again, and i don't think i have missed any relevant opinion about how it affect the balance of the game for you if there is a a possibility to use Space Casino offered with the access to Promethium chunks, i found it interesting and i'm still convinced there's no need for all that drama to talk about it

Rseding91 wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2026 12:03 am Quality was the first system implemented in the expansion. It was not tacked on to anything. There are no intentions to change how things work because it *is working how it was intended to work*. I get it; not everyone likes how it works - but it is working how it was intended to work. A huge resource sink for marginally better versions of machines - something that you can use to scale *up* rather than out.

To be honest, I think the question isn't whether it was implemented first or last, the reason why it feels "tacked on" to some people is because it does, essentially work 'on top' of the rest of the mechanics, rather than being integrated into the tech tree or progression, like for example foundries or EM plants. Obviously that's also because it was in fact added on top of Factorio 1.0, which already was a game before quality existed.

As a result there's two different approaches to tiered machines at the same time and they are not very consistent. There's 3 tiers of assemblers but they also can have quality. On the other hand, there's 4 tiers of belts but quality does nothing for belts. And finally, there's only one tier of cargo wagons, locomotives or roboports, but they do benefit from quality.

Also, quality machines and items are just the same items with an icon attached to it. Arguably this is just not the best in terms of visual clarity, especially when you have quality machines with quality modules next to quality inserters and quality beacons with more modules.

The "marginally" in the quoted part makes me raise an eyebrow, considering how massive quality bonuses are in some cases - and not to mention that you can have them compounded with beacons, modules and so on. It's rather ridiculous to have a single machine fill one or even multiple stacked belts. Frankly if the common argument that if one doesn't like quality they can just not use it, despite the massive productivity and speed increases it provides(not to mention things like roboport range, train wagon size), then the same reason could be used to justify leaving the space casinos alone - if someone believes they are too powerful, they can just not build them.

I'd say, it's a stronger argument for keeping space casinos, than it is for the quality system itself. You see, I would like to have roboports with bigger range, better locomotives and bigger cargo wagons. But since there's quality in the game now, developers have decided that if you need better roboports you engage with quality - rather than adding Big Wagon or Roboport Mk. II. So if I want those entities - my only choice is quality. Casinos meanwhile are just the means to an end so if someone opts to not build one, they still can acquire quality items with their perferred method.

Plenty of people play with additional restrictions - like playing with 100x science, not using beacons or when bots were much better than belts back in early stages of the game, many people still liked to build belt bases. Factorio is not a competitive game and is far more driven by personal goals rather than some external pressure.

mmmPI wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 1:45 pm If you don't like them , you can always, not use them x) i have real hard time understanding those players that don't want the others to have fun with a strategy that they don't even use themselves. like why ? Do they consider only what is fit to their own appeciation of difficulty. It's very short sighted imo, for many players past a certain point the game isn't "hard" anymore it's just fun, and it sound to me really weird to insist that one particular step should stay "hard as they think hard is". Like really you think there is quantitative difficulty leap between LDS shuffle and asteroid rerolling ? And even if it was the case, what's wrong with you ? why do you want to prevent people from having their fun with an unnecessarily difficult and complicated method IF THEY FIND IT FUN. Are you the grinch or something ?

Hey! This is a bit of a rant and it's not even really about Factorio specifically, but I always feel like saying, basically, "let me play how I want", is a poor argument. I've seen it before in other games, this is definitely not the first time, and it's always kind of bothered me. And let me be clear, I'm not arguing for or against Space Casinos but, instead, trying to make a more philosophical point about game design in general.

I think it's important to have limitations in games and I think it's important that options stay balanced and as equal as possible. Very few games actually let you play how you want, most are built around well defined limitations and, counterintuitively, that is what makes them fun. Players shouldn't be able to do whatever they want, but be presented with meaningful choices instead. Even in "real life", doing what is "fun" and easy isn't always what is best or most rewarding. Doing drugs might be fun but you'd be better off going to the gym, for example. Enabling cheats in video games and "doing what you want" is usually novel and fun for a short time and then gets boring. If developers let players do exactly what they want they would mostly take the path of least resistance, even if that way of playing was ultimately less rewarding, because players view "less optimal" options as self-sabotaging choices. Limitations are in place to protect players from their own impulse.

disclaimer: I got some help with AI, because I know this is actually a deep and nuanced topic and I'm not smart enough to make all those points. I told Gemini how I felt and asked it to help me explain my point more clearly but also told it to tell me if it disagrees, which it did not. I didn't copy-paste anything but just took ideas.

I think instead of saying "let me play how I want and you play how you want" it's better to explain the merits of Space Casinos, or even the flaws of the other options. Which, to be fair, many people have done quite well, maybe yourself included.

With that said, I'm not really against Space Casinos at this point, although it seems like they could have been nerfed a bit. Perhaps changing asteroid chunks into a "lossy catalyst" was too limiting. I'm not sure though.

And the only reason I give some credence to the idea of Space Casinos is because, for all the amazing things Wube has done, Quality, I think, is...not great.

eloepp wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 10:10 pm I told Gemini how I felt and asked it to help me explain my point more clearly

I think you wasted your token, it look like you received an off topic generic slop.

eloepp wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 10:10 pm I think instead of saying "let me play how I want and you play how you want" it's better to explain the merits of Space Casinos, or even the flaws of the other options. Which, to be fair, many people have done quite well, maybe yourself included.

I think you can't blame the AI though as it appears you haven't read the topic lol

Can you explain with your own word how the propositions that were made by players would impact your games ? or how the change with space casino did ?

eloepp wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 10:10 pmI think it's important to have limitations in games and I think it's important that options stay balanced and as equal as possible. Very few games actually let you play how you want, most are built around well defined limitations and, counterintuitively, that is what makes them fun. Players shouldn't be able to do whatever they want, but be presented with meaningful choices instead. Even in "real life", doing what is "fun" and easy isn't always what is best or most rewarding. Doing drugs might be fun but you'd be better off going to the gym, for example. Enabling cheats in video games and "doing what you want" is usually novel and fun for a short time and then gets boring. If developers let players do exactly what they want they would mostly take the path of least resistance, even if that way of playing was ultimately less rewarding, because players view "less optimal" options as self-sabotaging choices. Limitations are in place to protect players from their own impulse.

While issues like this are very relevant to game design, I think this is more a matter of different players simply wanting different things out of games that are in direct conflict with each other.

An example that I think is somewhat representative and hopefully not too controversial is that of achievements. Some players enjoy getting a trophy acknowledging the accomplish of a difficult task, or for others a time-intensive task. But some players are just seeking the satisfaction of a 100% completion sticker and get upset when gatekept by a skill or time check. There is even overlap; e.g. someone valuing skill checks might get frustrated with an achievement behind a time check with no way to skill through.

And you simply cannot satisfy all of these players since the things they enjoy are mutually exclusive.

Game balance has been a point of contention for decades. On one end of the spectrum you have people who enjoy engaging with the mechanics; e.g. getting proficient with the systems and applying it to achieve feats of skill and planning. But on the other end you have people who are just looking for an 'experience' and the only thing they want from gameplay is to be a medium to tell a story or some such thing.

And these desires are in conflict.

The first group becomes dissatisfied and loses interest in a game when they work out that the game systems are degenerate and there isn't much puzzle to them or hands them success on a silver platter, and becomes happier if the game can be patched up. An experience focused person, however, might actively be seeking out opportunities like steamrolling through part of a game and be dissatisfied when overpowered options are patched out.

How can a dev try to satisfy both groups?

Let's turn back to Factorio: good mod support can help. Factorio's mod portal has endless new experiences for the experience seeker!

What about the person who wants a balanced game? If the game devs are not the source, how is a player expected to know? How are they expected to know who has the knowledge, experience, and interest to be able to fix the game balance, rather than merely just offering a variant game experience?

E.g. I do have an opinion that the casino is overpowered, but I don't have the experience to say that with certainty (although with the objections being mostly "it's different" and "I hate quality" I am relatively confident). It would be nice to have devs that are willing and able to adjudicate things like that correctly. But if I can't trust the devs, who can I trust to adjudicate such things? I see a person named teemu created a "no quality cheesing" mod, but who is that? I've never heard that name before, why would I think his mod is a good game fix? How would I have even found that mod if I didn't already have a reason to search for "casino"?

While I'm admittedly usually on the side of wanting game balance, I think the difference in the burden players have to suffer to get what they want out of the game really cements things on the side that the default settings should be a balanced vanilla game.

eloepp wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 10:10 pm

mmmPI wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 1:45 pm If you don't like them , you can always, not use them x) i have real hard time understanding those players that don't want the others to have fun with a strategy that they don't even use themselves. like why ? Do they consider only what is fit to their own appeciation of difficulty. It's very short sighted imo, for many players past a certain point the game isn't "hard" anymore it's just fun, and it sound to me really weird to insist that one particular step should stay "hard as they think hard is". Like really you think there is quantitative difficulty leap between LDS shuffle and asteroid rerolling ? And even if it was the case, what's wrong with you ? why do you want to prevent people from having their fun with an unnecessarily difficult and complicated method IF THEY FIND IT FUN. Are you the grinch or something ?

Hey! This is a bit of a rant and it's not even really about Factorio specifically, but I always feel like saying, basically, "let me play how I want", is a poor argument. I've seen it before in other games, this is definitely not the first time, and it's always kind of bothered me. And let me be clear, I'm not arguing for or against Space Casinos but, instead, trying to make a more philosophical point about game design in general.

I think it's important to have limitations in games and I think it's important that options stay balanced and as equal as possible. Very few games actually let you play how you want, most are built around well defined limitations and, counterintuitively, that is what makes them fun. Players shouldn't be able to do whatever they want, but be presented with meaningful choices instead. Even in "real life", doing what is "fun" and easy isn't always what is best or most rewarding. Doing drugs might be fun but you'd be better off going to the gym, for example. Enabling cheats in video games and "doing what you want" is usually novel and fun for a short time and then gets boring. If developers let players do exactly what they want they would mostly take the path of least resistance, even if that way of playing was ultimately less rewarding, because players view "less optimal" options as self-sabotaging choices. Limitations are in place to protect players from their own impulse.

disclaimer: I got some help with AI, because I know this is actually a deep and nuanced topic and I'm not smart enough to make all those points. I told Gemini how I felt and asked it to help me explain my point more clearly but also told it to tell me if it disagrees, which it did not. I didn't copy-paste anything but just took ideas.

I think instead of saying "let me play how I want and you play how you want" it's better to explain the merits of Space Casinos, or even the flaws of the other options. Which, to be fair, many people have done quite well, maybe yourself included.

With that said, I'm not really against Space Casinos at this point, although it seems like they could have been nerfed a bit. Perhaps changing asteroid chunks into a "lossy catalyst" was too limiting. I'm not sure though.

And the only reason I give some credence to the idea of Space Casinos is because, for all the amazing things Wube has done, Quality, I think, is...not great.

Your heart is in the right place and so is your head. But Space Age is meant to be a game like chess. Chess doesn't have guard rails and you get junior players who get hung up on having a master strategy. I think my dad spent several years being obsessed with one, which made him no better.

The guard rails aren't meant to be there. It isn't meant to feel great. There's too many ways of playing chess for there to be a master strategy. And it is just as rough to spend hours analyzing a game. But the reward for people who love the game is not in simply winning but in appreciating the moves.

As for the business with AI. It only makes what is there more clear. The system is a magnifying glass, give yourself some credit for your ideas.

eloepp wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 10:10 pm I told Gemini how I felt and asked it to help me explain my point more clearly

"please gemini explain why balanced is better than "non-balanced" is like a bait for some that do not understand the vacuity of the argument maybe x) or how an AI won't make an empty statement stronger by saying it in a more verbose way x) I thought anyone would see through what is a just a generic slop but it showed me that actually no x) Or maybe they just used another AI to answer who knows x)

I think though the argument is still empty, because the question is not wether or not you should be free to do whatever you want without restriction, that's too generic that it confine to almost non-sensical, rather the question is what do you consider balanced and why ?

This previous statement showed that you started to read the thread , but you didn't really fully grasps what is the actual implication of the balance change =>

eloepp wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2026 5:40 am And lastly, you will still be able to Space Casino according to people that have thought this out. It will just take more play time, which seems reasonable and appropriate for how powerful they are.

Why ? because this was written before the 2.1 release, same as the opinions you quoted from reddit, which comes from players that talked about an hypothetic stage of the game that actually doesn't exist. Since the productivity bonus was removed on the chunk part in the reamining receipe for asteroid upcycling, it effectively removes the actual long term viable options, since now none scale with research.

I understand some people struggle to consider this correct, after all it's just one person on a forum trying to reason with logic, nonetheless i'm quite confident on the analysis because i found it shared by other players who have already shown (imo) a better understanding of the game than some of the people arguing on this thread : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuwBnOsULkc

Funnily enough you can also see some recommended built for quality, which are "EASIER" look at them lol upcycling coal at the mining drill, LDS shuffle , stone production that uses a void fluid exploit , all the arguments i can see on this thread are prooved wrong. It doesn't create an incentive for player to make recycling loop ( unless you consider iron chest loop the pinnacle of reycling) , it still create an incentive toward an "exploit" , with the fast switching receipe to void fluid.

eloepp wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2026 10:10 pm I think instead of saying "let me play how I want and you play how you want" it's better to explain the merits of Space Casinos, or even the flaws of the other options. Which, to be fair, many people have done quite well, maybe yourself included.

It's better to not suggest things that are already there and you ignored x) But just in case reading comprehension isn't your strong skill, ( or anyone else) i thought maybe linking a video with a voice and pictures alongside the explanation may help.

This is why i proposed to have something only available when you unlock the ability to process promethium chunk, to allow space casino "only" at this stage, either with a dedicated machine ,like an asteroid upcycler, that would not be available in early game and whose actual functionning can be made to match the complexity and ratios and speed and reward that are would feel on par with the other way of obtaining quality.

mmmPI wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2026 7:22 am Now i'm thinking an "asteroid recycling machine", that is just like a crusher, but that can accept quality module , and it's unlocked once the player reaches the victory screen or something similar, to preserve the "balance" of the regular game, but still provide the toy in late game. That's where i would personnaly see the proper place for it in the tech tree, i understand other players may want different mods , it's not possible to please everyone there, so hey mods it will be for me !

I'm not the only one who proposed something and i thought the actual proposition may be burried under unrelated difficulty to use blueprints arguments , or generic AI slop , so i dug them out of the thread in here :

meganothing wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 12:30 pm The best I can come up with would be to add a recipe for a new quality module or a new crusher that works at least partly the old way, but needs promethium to be built.

Requiring promethium to build the new crusher is a way to gate "space casino" or "a viable in practice method for quality from space" but having it consume promethium takes better advantage of the possibility to transfer item from platforms to platform imo. I feel adding a new machine is only suited for "mods" because for the regular game it would create bloat, a machine that only has a single use in a stage that some players don't ever reach in their regular game. I feel it is a sensible proposition because it is how the game engine currently works, you can unlock machines or recipe with technology.

radical_larry wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 12:35 pm That brings me to an idea for a mod.
Asteroid reprocessing becomes an end game tech unlocked with promethium science, and the three reprocessing recipes also take a few promethium chunks that are fully consumed. But quality modules can be used for that recipe.

I think the idea of consuming promethium chunks is interesting, for it really offers "alternatives" design exercice for late-game ships, wether you do only promethium for science , or also for "quality", but changing the reprocessing receipes to require promethium chunk will prevent players from using the receipe when trying to reach Aquilo and having way too much ice. So even if for a mod i think it's ok, i think it's not polished like a neat integration in space age would require.

I would have made the mod already if i felt there was only 1 single best solution that pleases everyone, i'm using https://mods.factorio.com/mod/bring-back-space-casino which "cancel" the change for my personnal amusement atm, but i can understand "why" the devs wants to change that particular state of the game, i think the direction towards which it is going doesn't have to be a revert , but can also be yet another adjustement in the balance, taking current stage of the game as a basis and (re-)introducing a sligthly different version of the mechanic which some players enjoyed , in a way that doesn't throw away the balance of the game.