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.