Factorio Forums

Space casinos are not early game. Coal miners are early game. I don't upgrade my red/green/blue/black science until the end of the game. I never upgrade my Nauvis oil refinery until the end of the game. I never upgrade my Kovarex. I don't freaking need space casinos after the end of the game. I want to play the game and have fun. In the game.

We have Fulgora, a dedicated place designed to provide a challenge: "Make sure your intermediates are not clogging your production." It's not something new to solve on a blue chip upcycler. There is nothing to gain from the removal of space casinos. Hey, we can build another upcycler! Hey, we can do the same shit we did on Fulgora everywhere, what fun! Who needs reasons to build spaceships in a spaceship DLC anyway?

This has been the most active topic on this forum for a month, not to mention being discussed everywhere else as well. The change has caused huge discontent, and we have had exactly three messages from the devs.

1. Initial: "We don't want to be fun killers, but we'll be, because it's too good otherwise."
2. Huge middle finger in update with no explanation: "Oh, you don't like the change, and dared to speak about it? We'll make it even worse than you thought, then."
3. Rseding appeared in this topic with the attitude of an annoyed aristocrat having to speak with filthy peasants who are upset about new taxes and don't understand that it's the God-intended way. Why? Reasons? Logic? Explaining LDS? Nah, we know better. Go away now.

Great communication with community.

Rinin wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2026 11:36 am Space casinos are not early game. Coal miners are early game. I don't upgrade my red/green/blue/black science until the end of the game. I never upgrade my Nauvis oil refinery until the end of the game. I never upgrade my Kovarex. I don't freaking need space casinos after the end of the game. I want to play the game and have fun. In the game.

Thank you for providing factual feedback on how you play related to this particular mechanic.

Rinin wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2026 11:36 am This has been the most active topic on this forum for a month, not to mention being discussed everywhere else as well. The change has caused huge discontent, and we have had exactly three messages from the devs.

Apparently some of the players concerned by this topic have a lot of free internet time in their hands, i know i do and a few other player that like to argue a lot seems too, it inflate the visibility of the issue but shouldn't distract attention from other problems that only the devs can fix, related to bugs and the acutal game engine, devs are working on those obviously given the activity in the other part of the forum, this is why i linked the mod i use atm, it revert the change , https://mods.factorio.com/mod/bring-back-space-casino , it's not as downloaded as one could have expected from what would have been a huge discontent.

Rinin wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2026 11:36 am Great communication with community.

Hey communication goes both ways, let's make some propositions, i do understand that in your case => . I don't freaking need space casinos after the end of the game. is the feeling , it was said in a thread, and another one related to space casino was merged, in which a player mentionned the idea that what makes the space casino "problematic" would be the idea that you could keep the same machine from early game to late game without changing and it would be "optimal".

Both vision are difficult to combine, adding promethium chunk in a machine or in a receipe wouldn't work for your purpose. I know you already gave feedback on your game , and i didn't understand / disagree with "when" you think the space casino should be used, when you say "early game" , do you see a way to make it so you would have an incentive to not just build 1 platform and be done with it, to adress the concern that it could remove some gameplay depth if you only have 1 "space casino" all along, that you could "solve quality with a bueprint early game" may be considered the problem itself.

I don't see how you could have it both ways, but if there is a suggestion i'd be interested, and i'm searching atm x)

mmmPI wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2026 12:08 pm Hey communication goes both ways, let's make some propositions, i do understand that in your case => . I don't freaking need space casinos after the end of the game. is the feeling , it was said in a thread, and another one related to space casino was merged, in which a player mentionned the idea that what makes the space casino "problematic" would be the idea that you could keep the same machine from early game to late game without changing and it would be "optimal".

Should I repeat it? Space casinos are not early game. Not early game. They're space platforms. Big ones, with automated production.

They obviously need to be upgraded. At some point they require beacons. They require quality upgrades. They require using new recipes to produce copper and calcite, which means they're upgraded all the way until you beat both Vulcanus and Gleba and most likely at this point Fulgora as well, since few do Gleba before Fulgora. Then they're upgraded for legendary quality after Aquilo. So the claim that "you can keep the same machine from early game to late game" is not an argument. It's a lie. Space casinos are a mid-to-end-game build that gets upgraded. And I'd bet few build them before legendary quality anyway, since lower-quality materials are plentiful from Fulgora and you want to build them with Fusion anyway.

Does Nauvis wall ever get upgraded beyond adding roboports and artillery? Does that make the game broken? No. It's totally fine. There's nothing wrong with a machine being finished and working well so you can focus on other parts of the factory. The game has plenty of content to work on. And any nerf will just make something else become the best option from that same mid-game point until the end of the game. So unless you want to remove parts of the game until there's nothing left, it's a moot point.

So called "early game" is when you have 3-5 out of 5 planet finished. It's not early game. I repeat, not early game.

As for communication, people have already articulated many good reasons to keep space casinos. The only argument against them, aside from the false claim that space casinos are an early-game, is: "It's powerful, and I'm unable to resist building it, so it should be forbidden for everyone so I can try something else." IMO, that's not a very impressive argument. Oh, I forgot the "Shut up, peasant. Know your place." one. I'm not impressed by that one either.

The developers just ignored the whole discussion altogether. And no, addressing it did not require any attention, creating this mess did. Instead of spending more time testing new features that ended up breaking other areas in 2.1, they decided to spend time introducing a change that only pissed off part of the player base.

It's mind-boggling that a much more obvious exploit, which is far more unbalanced (and appears much earlier in the game, if some like that argument so much), remains untouched, while a cool challenge of building a spaceship that fits naturally into the middle of the game and matches the DLC's theme gets removed.

As for mods, a lot of players don't use mods, myself included. It's way more likely that I'll just stop playing Factorio altogether. Not because it's a bad game without space casinos, but because it's made by developers who find it beyond them to address the concerns of decade-long fans.

Rinin wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:56 pm

mmmPI wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2026 12:08 pm Hey communication goes both ways, let's make some propositions, i do understand that in your case => . I don't freaking need space casinos after the end of the game. is the feeling , it was said in a thread, and another one related to space casino was merged, in which a player mentionned the idea that what makes the space casino "problematic" would be the idea that you could keep the same machine from early game to late game without changing and it would be "optimal".

Should I repeat it? Space casinos are not early game. Not early game. They're space platforms. Big ones, with automated production.

This is Nilaus youtube of how to make an asteroid crusher.
His platform is under 5000 tons.
https://youtu.be/jHrY1RtWHPw?t=1486

This is Iko Uwais. It's about 7 times that size.
Your definition of big is my definition of a modular mission package. I had like 20 of these things flying too it was great.

Drop the attitude. Seriously, there's people on here that are doing normal quality promethium ships at very small weights that are more of an expression of skill.

...
Also I guess I was making legendary wooden chests on that save? Well, I think Iko is over in show your own creations from a couple months after release.

Rinin wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:56 pm So called "early game" is when you have 3-5 out of 5 planet finished. It's not early game. I repeat, not early game. They're space platforms. Big ones, with automated production.

I feel in your exctiment and effort to have the angryness tainting your mood conveyed, you forgot to actually make a proposition of your own, and you may have conflated points that i was reformulating , points i am making, and hypothesis to use as base for propositions, Here :

usafphoenix wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 11:55 am If the optimal strategy at the start of the game REMAINS the optimal strategy after all advancements/technologies are unlocked...game design has not achieved "Balance".
[...]
TL;DR: it's the EARLY obtainability combined with lack of "conflicting" good strategies that makes space casinos unbalanced, not merely the higher yield. Fix the early-obtainability and you solve it in an amicable way that REWARDS players for reaching that higher efficiency tier of legendary resource access.

@Rinin => Some players do appreciate space casino, but also try to understand the balancing step the devs took, to try and propose something to please everyone, can you go past the request for a simple and pure revert ? There's plenty of 10 years old players that may have diverging opinion, it's bound to happen that some are not pleased.

About the "early game" or not, if we can go beyond the semantic that'd be great, the main point i see here is that we can think of the balance not only in terms of yield and ratio, but also in terms of "availability" and "evolutivity", and if the "early/not-early"/still-too-early" availability can be mitigated alongside or instead of the yield and ratio, because you are given in the game a "early/mid-game" option and a "late-game/post-game" one, maybe that can help addressing what the devs wanted to adress when they change the balance in a different way that satisfies more players that liked space casino. Most likely the devs wanted to remove/change something though, so if the only proposition is a "revert or nothing", that doesn't appear to be a situation that can resolve into a solution that goes beyond the initial 2 propositions, where as "community" , it's a lot of players that can think and propose things which maybe the devs who are busy fixing bugs haven't thought of and would find interesting. They must have thought of "not doing the thing" lol, they even mentionned it.

Now i feel maybe it's the asteroid productivity research that could be "disabled" on a simpler receipe for "early-mid" game, maybe something like 10 asteroid of a type as input => you get 2 asteroid of the remaining type as output. This receipe with asteroid productivity NOT applying, "asteroid basic reprocessing", but it would ACCEPT quality module.

This way alongside a method with promethium, for "late game", it create a situation where when you have 3/5 planet unlocked, you can still do space casino, as @Rinin wants, but such method without asteroid productivity would become obsolete once player reaches the promethium stage, because then the research for asteroid productivity would make the promethium method preferable, to create the condition for a " 2-phase" space casino, answering what @usafphoenix was observing that IF the "same design" of "1 space casino" for "all the game from you unlock it to the end" was "the problem" because player wishing to have their late game method, and players wanting to have fun in earier/mod game were using the same tricks from the game, or almost. If it's made into 2 different stage, maybe it's possible to address more precisely. Either the balance of the "early-mid" and/or the one for the "late-post" can be tweaked independantly with numbers then for fine tuning the balance.

coffee-factorio wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2026 1:08 am This is Nilaus youtube of how to make an asteroid crusher.

With almost 30 level of asteroid productivity level researched, it appears to me that it's a ill-suited example of what would be the kind of platform you make when you have 3/5 planet unlocked, but i can understand how for you it would appear like a small platform, yours being 7 times bigger !! I can see you didn't copy the video nor use blueprints this time, not even loosely inspired, it's truely your own creation, no risk of misunderstanding how it works, thank you for illustrating the difficulty the devs mut have to balance the game for everyone.

mmmPI wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2026 7:26 am @Rinin => Some players do appreciate space casino, but also try to understand the balancing step the devs took, to try and propose something to please everyone, can you go past the request for a simple and pure revert ? There's plenty of 10 years old players that may have diverging opinion, it's bound to happen that some are not pleased.

You see, we have two options:

• Do nothing and keep some people upset for a very bad reason: "Some people can't stop themselves from building casinos."
• Cut content and upset other people for a very simple and understandable reason: "The game now has less content to play with and is less fun for us."

Do I need to explain why making people upset over reduced content is worse than making people upset without removing any content?

mmmPI wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2026 7:26 am About the "early game" or not, if we can go beyond the semantic that'd be great, the main point i see here is that we can think of the balance not only in terms of yield and ratio, but also in terms of "availability" and "evolutivity", and if the "early/not-early"/still-too-early" availability can be mitigated alongside or instead of the yield and ratio, because you are given in the game a "early/mid-game" option and a "late-game/post-game" one, maybe that can help addressing what the devs wanted to adress

The problem is that you are speculating about what the devs wanted to achieve. That's not your problem - it's the devs' problem. They might not have thought through what would happen after the change, but it's very hard to assume they don't know it has upset a lot of people.
For the community to propose solutions, the devs should clearly state what the hell they want to achieve. So far, the only thing they have said they want is a huge resource sink, which doesn't hold water whatsoever. LDS is literally free. No one is using methods that could be considered a huge resource sink. Casinos were no different from what people use now.
What was actually achieved? Fewer ways to play the game and more frustrated fans, nothing else changed.

So, you asked for constructive proposals for the devs. Here is one: "Write what the hell you want to achieve and why you think it is necessary." Then read what people have to say in response.

Also, calling 4 out of 5 planets finished an "early game" is not a semantic issue. It's a textbook strawman. People defending the change have to rely on that argument because there are no good or even ok reasons. I also firmly believe that's why the devs have remained silent. They either have to admit they made a mistake or say nothing, because there isn't even a remotely reasonable justification for the change.

Rinin wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2026 1:32 pm You see, we have two options:

And yet not a single valuable proposition apart from the simple "revert or i cry more". That's very disappointing, there were several in the thread at least you could have expressed an opinion on them instead of pointless remark on the wording when to be fair again no -one care.

mmmPI wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2026 12:08 pm why i linked the mod i use atm, it revert the change , https://mods.factorio.com/mod/bring-back-space-casino , it's not as downloaded as one could have expected from what would have been a huge discontent.

I'm guessing a lot of us are still on 2.0 and see little reason to "upgrade", especially given the other controversial changes that we got with 2.1. It's been less than a month since that mod's release and it already has about as many downloads as the mod for removing space casinos though, which is very telling.

usafphoenix wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2026 12:39 pm edit: [my idea for the hardening of crushers within the orbit of the shattered planet was meant as an extreme example of how "progress-gating" something, by the very virtue in the difficulty of obtaining it makes something NOT unbalanced. That in the 2.0 reprocessing method, it was both the superiority and the immediate access (with no incremental or variable strategies) that could compete with it that made it unbalanced. It's like: "Are guns unbalanced if you go back in time to 400 BC? heck yeah! until...you run out of ammo." It's the disparity between what you have, and what ELSE is possible to compete with it (or what the difference in cost is) that makes a thing unbalanced.

I also like the idea of the recipe that allows quality modules would also CONSUME prometheium chunks (lossy) for several reasons. The primary of which being it gives prometheium another use. Second, the cost/complexity of having a ship BOTH survive the higher risk of deep space AND be a space casino would, in my opinion, negate all arguments of "unbalanced" as the complexity/cost of obtaining it is not something achievable without significant cost and time
edit: this is negated with P2p transfers. A ship could be a promethium hauler and deliver to an orbiting casino. Also fine.

but the cost of promethium adds to such a mechanic would, at the very least, reduce the severity of superiority. if promethium runs out, the space casino shuts down. I like it! And I seem to recall....there was a mod named something like "promethium is quality" that i think did something along the lines of what i am suggesting (at heart). So I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility within the game's capabilities....

There's another balancing aspect of quality which is a bit different.

If you want laser cannons, should you upcycle laser cannons, personal laser defenses, or just do a 100% blue chip? Laser cannons is slow, pld is faster, 100% requires a well running Fulgora. And as we can see, if you make a mistake 75 million research.

You're going to run into a problem process gating. Because that ship I copy pasted is something I can have delivering rare parts in 50 hours. Or I just use Nilaus blueprints. And I have a bunch of people going "No fair, that... totally proves the point that you can just move your schedule up and ignore our end game. Because you already had a game where you figured out how to ignore our end game... just pretend you can't print a river of science out using rare factories early on, on just the rerolling research on Vulcanus. Please let me copy-paste more Gleba pictures while I use a different supply chain squeeeeee..."

Sorry, that was mmmPI's hobby till about a week ago. So, they win regardless because there's always the image of a giant fruit farm I guess.

That's brutally unfair for people who are losing their entire science lines that the argument is being conducted to minimize that they correctly selected the best optimization in the game for quality. It's inappropriate to pretend that mmmPI's characterization of a megabaser is anything other than a sham representation of one, and that this doesn't effect people across the board who used it earlier.

So my challenge to you is this: don't take a side. If people like it they like it. If you have an interesting idea with promethium and something random going off. Lets say that's fundamentally interesting. Forcing people to love quality is like forcing people to love chess; so lets not.

Is there a way to make a reroller style supply chain for planet specific resources? So that people have a story where they go a million miles, get this awesome thing, on every planet? And could it be done so that there's a clear random puzzle with a sense of direction?

Would that work to have a mod with its own distinct vision and its own set of achievements?

ivan_349876 wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2026 11:02 pm I'm guessing a lot of us are still on 2.0 and see little reason to "upgrade", especially given the other controversial changes that we got with 2.1. It's been less than a month since that mod's release and it already has about as many downloads as the mod for removing space casinos though, which is very telling.

I don't know i hosted a multiplayer 2.1 game and many players joined, i wrote on the description "do no import blueprint plz" but unfortunatly it appeared that some players still did import blueprint from older version of the game, so i changed the settings to prevent importing blueprint, to avoid the situation where people take a blueprint from the internet they don't understand and copy paste it. I realized this behavior was more common than i thought at least like 2 players in a single day, out of maybe 10-15, it's not a real statistic, more like a feeling. Maybe it means those people also do not read the description of the server before joining ^^

What do you call "the other controversial change ?"

coffee-factorio wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2026 12:55 am Because that ship I copy pasted is something I can have delivering rare parts in 50 hours. Or I just use Nilaus blueprints.

You would probably take much less time than that if the platform had not so many unused tiles, almost 50% it look like, it's not just for the sake of it, but because you could maybe make 2 smaller platform more optimized in the same time, if instead of spending the ressources of your factory for some unused flooring in one platform, if it was spent for flooring under actual machine that contribute to the factory/platform production on 2 platorms. A good tip is to remove the unused flooring or try to minimize it before copying the ship . I think Nilaus mentions it in the video, i recommend you don't just use blueprints or copy after seeing but try to understand the "how and why" people do such shape and platforms.

Beyond that i wasn't too sure what you were trying to say with my name a lot, so i asked an AI and i got this :

They're expressing with a lot of sarcasm and exaggerated mock dialogue a core argument : "You can't really force experienced players to play through the intended late game, because they already know optimized strategies that skip or trivialize it."

Which i'm not sure is the meaning and tone you intended for, but anyway i found it funny, because it appears that you then suggest randomly generated receipe to be implemented in the game for that experienced players always have to deal with new challenges they can't have a blueprint ready for. Like you find yourself an experienced player capable of triviliazing the game by the sole power of using Nilaus blueprint and so you ask what about "random receipe" ? would it magically solve the problem ? If it's not the case, pardon my use of AI but otherwise i couldn't go past what looked like angry gibberish.

Unfortunatly, because the way the randomness works is predictible in such games, it wouldn't be hard for experienced players to create a tool that generate blueprint based on the seed of the map, or just some user input, the parameter of the randomly generated receipe would be known and bounded, so from a technical standpoint, the proposition isn't really making sense to me. You would use "Nilaus blueprint generator" instead of "Nilaus blueprint" with your suggestions i imagine.

Beside what really matters would not be "maybe randomly generated receipe can magically solve the problem", what would matter then as proposition is what kind of receipe should be allowed to be generated for each game ? This is where i see the other similar propostions converging , the part that you didn't really delve into. That's like if a coffee-machine were to spew random juice-words next to each other, it's quite unlikely it would make a good drink, it's much better if they follow a receipe from someone else that knows what they are doing.

I feel currently the game is in a state where you can use recycler to have a non scaling quality generating platform after only 1 planet, if you go to Fulgora and recycle the asteroid chunks, but some players may feel it "underpowered" or "not viable" so much so that they want more than that. Instead of using asteroids chunks for just recycling them like it's "any item" i would prefer if they had their own "tier1 reprocessing" receipe, which allows quality module but do not benefit from research, then it would create a "design challenge" to utilize this receipe, like a "class of platform" designed to make use of it "for the sole purpose of making quality material", the similar concept as the space "casino" would be replicated by giving a different type of asteroid in output than on input. It wouldn't be "overpowered" because the same platform "tier1" wouldn't increase yield with research, only when increasing its quality.

Whereas for other players, that miss the space casino as a thing in the late game, using promethium chunk in the reprocessing receipe, benefiting from asteroid productivity research, can be a new "tier 3" reprocessing. Unlocked in "late or post-game". Maybe an incentive to do some platform - platform transfer ? Not sure if that can be digged more.

mmmPI wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2026 5:18 pmAnd yet not a single valuable proposition apart from the simple "revert or i cry more". That's very disappointing, there were several in the thread at least you could have expressed an opinion on them instead of pointless remark on the wording when to be fair again no -one care.

Do you try to find a deeper meaning when you find a bug? Do you try to keep it in the game? This is a mistake. You can try to deduce reasons from the stars, look for a deeper meaning, or try to find a way to keep it around, but I see a mistake and report it as a mistake. It's not complicated.

You pretend there is a dilemma between players A and players B, but in reality it's about cutting content or not cutting content.
It was a bad decision, simple as that. Are good decisions related to this theme possible? Sure. But that's an unrelated topic.

When someone has a bird shit on them, you don't assume it was intentional. You don't tell them how to smear it symmetrically or which cologne to add. Well, at least you really shouldn't. You just point out the problem.

Rinin wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2026 4:19 pm When someone has a bird shit on them, you don't assume it was intentional. You don't tell them how to smear it symmetrically or which cologne to add. Well, at least you really shouldn't. You just point out the problem.

I agree that's why i pointed out the problem in your interventions , they are not conveying any valuable proposition beside a "revert or a i cry more". You should use a different tone and do some constructive criticism that doesn't make people liking space casino sound as entitled and ungrateful i thought. Pointing out the problem in that case didn't lead to an increase in quality in the subsequent interventions though.

mmmPI wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2026 6:58 pm I agree that's why i pointed out the problem in your interventions , they are not conveying any valuable proposition beside a "revert or a i cry more". You should use a different tone and do some constructive criticism that doesn't make people liking space casino sound as entitled and ungrateful i thought. Pointing out the problem in that case didn't lead to an increase in quality in the subsequent interventions though.

You sound entitled and ungrateful. Nobody else does.

mmmPI wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2026 6:58 pmI agree that's why i pointed out the problem in your interventions , they are not conveying any valuable proposition beside a "revert or a i cry more". You should use a different tone and do some constructive criticism that doesn't make people liking space casino sound as entitled and ungrateful i thought. Pointing out the problem in that case didn't lead to an increase in quality in the subsequent interventions though.

This is entirely in your mind that some proposal is required. All the reasons were provided a long time ago for both sides. I'm just explaining why the reasons for removing casinos are either strawmen, outright lies, or simply do not hold up, because none of them can explain why casinos were removed while LDS was kept in the game. None. I'm happy to discuss any of them, but none have been presented.

You are trying to derail the topic by discussing very specific prometium content for the post-game. While I have no issues with some content being added for the post-game or any other stage, it belongs in the proposals section.

To solve a conflict, you need to understand the reasons of both parties. There is no justification for this change that is even remotely reasonable. You are trying to "solve" an issue that you proclaimed important, even though it is obviously not what was intended by the change.
The issue you are trying to solve is, "Oh, it's the same design," while the developers explicitly decided to keep an even earlier design in the game with a much worse raw-to-legendary ratio that stays the same forever. Whatever you are trying to "solve" is not the reason for the change and only derails the discussion.

Rinin wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2026 1:49 am I'm just explaining why the reasons for removing casinos are either strawmen, outright lies, or simply do not hold up, because none of them can explain why casinos were removed while LDS was kept in the game. None. I'm happy to discuss any of them, but none have been presented.

It may surprise you to learn someone can believe both that removing the casino was a good move and keeping LDS was a bad move. Or have an opinion on casino but be agnostic about LDS.

(and this post should not be construed as agreeing or disagreeing with the proposition that nobody has been making arguments for both removing casino and supporting LDS)

Rinin wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2026 1:49 am There is no justification for this change that is even remotely reasonable.

Thought it was obvious that it's because Space Casino is far and away the best strategy to get Legendary materials and once you have it set up you never have to touch it again. For many players it becomes one singular option, unless you want to feel like you are punishing yourself doing something else. Controversial? Sure. It's really not that unreasonable though. Everybody knows how good they, that isn't in question. This change was actually expected. The question is whether or not Quality is interesting enough to exist without them. It's also a bit insulting to Wube to say there is no reason. They aren't stupid and, in fact, I would argue the contrary.

And by the way, I'm totally indifferent towards the idea of Space Casinos. I never used them because I was expecting this. If Wube does fold and allow them, I will use Space Casinos. I'm 100% OK with them existing in some form. I guess why I say anything at all is because some players are sounding pretty entitled. It was stated clearly that they are taking vacations and might be slow to make changes and, I assume, respond to our demands. We aren't owed anything as an obligation, only as a courtesy. Factorio isn't a live-service game and development could have be done with Space Age. Historically Wube have been both outstanding developers and communicators. As far as I'm aware they have always done everything "right", so we could give them a little bit of a break. They could have plans... maybe the "lossy catalyst" thing will be reversed; we have no clue. 2.1 isn't even officially out yet.

motmontheinternet wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2026 1:39 am You sound entitled and ungrateful. Nobody else does.

Lol this is the sheriff, not a single useful word on the discussion, only misattributed personnal attacks. The word entitled is used for players who bought the game and thinks the devs should do what they say, it's entitlement because i explained earlier there are many different players that thinks differently about space casino. You're entitled when you think you're anything different than the others when "demanding" your particular way and refuse to understand therea are other players with different vision and demands. You couldn't even care act like a player, your intervention is beneath representing even 1 player, since you ommited to express an opinion on the topic.

It is also ungrateful to pretend the devs don't listen to the players, when it's players who asked for the removal of space casino. This is why i used those therms. I advise you try a "no u" when it makes sense and after maybe providing some actual useful contributions.

Rinin wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2026 1:49 am This is entirely in your mind that some proposal is required. All the reasons were provided a long time ago for both sides. I'm just explaining why the reasons for removing casinos are either strawmen, outright lies, or simply do not hold up, because none of them can explain why casinos were removed while LDS was kept in the game. None. I'm happy to discuss any of them, but none have been presented.

Repeating, like me, that you don't understand why LDS was kept in the game and not space casino, isn't a proposition. We should go past this don't you think ? Because as you said it was mentionned long time ago and several time. I have been arguing against the removal of space casino for a while, in others thread too, yet i'm still doing it in here. But the context is different than when space casino were still in the game, you obvisouly can't argue anymore that the situation was "ok" because the devs changed it. So apart from if you are going to move in a way of more understanding of the different wills and stuff the players do, in such discussions, and talk about their propositions too, you will not have a fruitful discussion. You may be willing to discuss only why LDS are kept in the game, but it's just 1 argument. Just that, not like compelling reasons, at least you should articulate a reasonning, what in LDS appears problematic to you, like the absence of material consumption isn't balanced by the technology required to make them work ?

It doesn't make sense from you to ask other players that also want space casino in the game ,"why are LDS allowed ?" It's borderline trolling i thought because obviously only the devs knows for sure, and you ask players who have already expressed their incredulity about that ....

You refusal to engage with propositions from different players was noted and if you are trying to change that it's not yet enough imo.

Rinin wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2026 1:49 am You are trying to derail the topic by discussing very specific prometium content for the post-game. While I have no issues with some content being added for the post-game or any other stage, it belongs in the proposals section.

No i'm not, i was under the impression you were by repeating exaggerated claims without any regard for what the other player proposed. Specifically my proposition added a "receipe" to use for "early game", one with no productivity to be gained from research. This is because of you in particular, i would have expected you give an opinion on this idea that arised specifically after your complaint, even though other players are just fine with a late game and post game space casino , as you probably can tell by the different way they expressed it.

You have ignored the only proposition that was made for you in particular, and not gave an opionion on it, but instead that ? I'm not congratulating you.

Rinin wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2026 1:49 am To solve a conflict, you need to understand the reasons of both parties. There is no justification for this change that is even remotely reasonable. You are trying to "solve" an issue that you proclaimed important, even though it is obviously not what was intended by the change.
The issue you are trying to solve is, "Oh, it's the same design," while the developers explicitly decided to keep an even earlier design in the game with a much worse raw-to-legendary ratio that stays the same forever. Whatever you are trying to "solve" is not the reason for the change and only derails the discussion.

I tried to understand why and how you did use space casino in your game, to propose a 2 stage version of it, with a receipe that comes early but that doesn't scale with research, even though there is one already , a more efficient path for this since you don't seem to realize it's possible to use recycler and make space casino in 2.1 after just 1 planet visited. The issue is that after i proposed the 2 receipe thing, i haven't gotten your opinion on it, and since it appeared to be a problem only expressed by you in this discussion that you want an "early 3/5 planet game space casino" i am unable to assess the value of the proposition.

eloepp wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2026 3:28 am It was stated clearly that they are taking vacations and might be slow to make changes and, I assume, respond to our demands. We aren't owed anything as an obligation, only as a courtesy

And they have already participated in this thread , at least once , despite the obvious risk of vindicative apostrophe. Stating :

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.

Obviously just reverting isn't gonna cut it. This is why propositions that tries to match the intent of the devs , and what the players wish to play i feel is a more fruitful direction than just asking for a reversion imo.

Rinin wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2026 1:49 am This is entirely in your mind that some proposal is required.

No this is the first post of this thread :

kammerer wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2026 5:10 pm That said, I agree that a part of the community didn't like asteroid quality recycling from the beginning. And I understand the desirability to remove this mechanics. But there are another community members that liked this mechanics very much.

And since you already introduced it in Factorio 2.0, and some people relaying on it, I suggest to at least give the players an option: to enable or disable this mechanics in the game start settings. Maybe some of the Steam Achievements could be enabled or disabled also depending on this checkbox.

To conclude, there are people who don't like "space casinos", and those who liked them very very much.

But please, please don't remove it entirely. Leave us an option. I believe it would be the most fair decision.

I am trying to propose options, to list them to give opinions on them.

mmmPI wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2026 6:03 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.

Obviously just reverting isn't gonna cut it. This is why propositions that tries to match the intent of the devs , and what the players wish to play i feel is a more fruitful direction than just asking for a reversion imo.

To sum up, I interpreted developers intentions (based on what Rseding91 said and what was written in the recent FFF) as follows:

1) They are not planning to make deep changes in the quality mechanics. And Factorio SA 2.1 is going to be the long-standing release in the foreseeable future.

2) Quality mechanics works as intended. And it was designed as a mass resource sink.

3) Space Age, in additional to other play styles, offers a scale up rather than out.

The last point in fact has been mentioned in my original post in slightly different words. And I mentioned that it's something unique for Space Age. It offers an alternative mindset to "Factory must grow" attitude. With high quality items and infinite productivity research the factory efficiency could be achieved through the more compact and well thought designs rather than just scaling out (growing).

This is one of the main reasons why I think that Space Casinos were not a mistake in the beginning (maybe even the LDS were not such a mistake).

My message was simple - don't break something that works. Space Casinos in my opinion don't contradict other quality mechanics that much, and they don't contradict the intention of resource sink in general. They overshadow a couple of other alternatives a little bit, but there are still a lot of quality items that cannot be done just with Space Casinos. And Space Casinos were fun on their own. For extra argument they are also feel like an inseparable part of the Space Age setting.

The assumption that the decision has been made based on prior players feedback is our pure speculation. My feeling is that it was affected by the feedback somehow. And this is the reason why I opened this thread - the prior feedback could be unrepresentative because a lot of players were simply silent in the past (me including). I play Factorio since version 0.12 (or 0.11 if I not mistaken), and I played thousands of hours on Steam. So, it's not a beginners feedback. Perhaps it was my overlook to not participation in discussions on forums, but better late than never.

You proposed interesting alternatives. I don't mind to discuss them, but I just not sure if they are realistic since the authors intended to finish the development without deep rethinking the core mechanics. We likely will not see Factorio 2.2 anytime soon if ever.

Therefore my proposition, while maybe it was not the best one among other theoretical possibilities, is trivial and pragmatical - just bring Space Casinos as they are (or more or less like that) in the game that Wube sees as a long-standing release. It's not ideal, but if Wube don't want to rethink the mechanics too deeply, it would be better to keep nice feature as it is rather than removing it entirely.

mmmPI wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2026 7:43 pm legendary space probe.jpg

0eNrdXWuSozgSvoqX32YWSYChYndOMDforiAwlm2meQ0P93g66gB7j52L7Uk2BQZcNpShPpene/5U2ECmUvn4MiVSrm/aOqpklodJqT190zayCPIwK8M00Z60qpCLfwZ76ZcLP4o+J+sqjDaLNJGfk697mSwiP84WYbHY5ZK+FTLZLMp0caiiwE+q4nOSyzg9yEWQJptQsfyc0CORLIpFkfmBXPxaJV8WReAfZLILk93iH9pSC+npQnv69E0rwl3iR0qqxI8liVMT6Vnkl9s0j/V9tdZeiCDZyN+1J/ayHCJJIz/XMz+REfH+rfKjsDzS9UjuSBQ/P55x4C/PS00mJYkqGwnqL0cvqeK1zGmIZcvWL0qZp+FGD9IokkGZ5sQ9S4uwUdw3jdjp5k/WUqPBdPsni0bJZVFFpR4mNFsioBtJFUVLLdiTFvRtGJVqDBq1nVA3WixLUn8Y6P2wikZ7eVZzvhCSzxPSuJeQgZ+v02SikGKWkHdTZPp7uJGTBDQ7mnUVfaGxCpkrttcKFK1wZi0ceW+Zp5G3lnv/ENJs6LEgzIMqLD2Z+OtIbrSnMq/ksrvchYd6dhvmReld+fGoC9QjFqWvwpcZ6luc+bmv9Pik/e8//9Ve6JFGJ8U87zoPl4TizVcR9Ir9vzUVMQQSXjeAmtmAOq3J6jQeos5RZz1Xp7iY7r9u63KM7z11aXejbWRA/pxT6MTrMPEHY4eda3MT5hRi9U1zWLcnlr0Si1rjZ98+jSqVLkufcDn2d/4fYSJfa5Mb1975p6bmN8IuzNOkBnt56eVDjNpL0iuPWQ0syeZN7sEFW+seXBv7fwDjWhlp/n6ZybnSqsyq8jK3nh46hHlZ1W7ZZs76Cb1O7c2o2ZHcokpKb5unsRcmxEx72vpRIQlCXwY8dTU16h+DocPoD0b8INN7hrvTDbWrEr2s8lyW1xrkpwQ5ZAZ3qhn4azOcoYUzwFZlmwmS6faJ55BojE1ODF0RIK6gbIhxXwYVpP5IV6XqW1z5h3je9OBqXfAyon9Wt5WfUH2Udm4yNGMxVZUXc36dFAacvVelAs17+jYzZ8t8ZX1l6Q8CjNs5QgHE0Lz6eifIq2I/NCO7m9H1fOhLmA2hi2JGCyWtfcQbsEVYyvhkv83ZZOR2GwahTIKjHqebKpK6qNc+zdPK2N5ZRV1bv/tGZiINBF/IPdVsB+8wlQSGSmlmTzWy86aR/1oYZn0yk2qdklORt63yxK9D4grz2pmweiZD685RQxWZlJveRuOr1o+3nDMfnY2JheY9wnNygTghj3cF1l2dxp2vQHbt+0OrfGM2crIHIuekOngEPDmbPTVjbiI7yXdPW3M+A/PZG5g/sIb8EWGfi9mwz2bD/iPW29y8bdgO8NmVH3Z2Hdhn+SHtas3GNPa4nPDefbI/v499Mm7PVq7xQFj/0bXb13ADrxKuVGw0+q13nH+rJCmkG+CbVjTqfj2bJpraXOPTEwfZbpH0t8TlreezEdTWyrrabs/m0d2Mw6IguPBqXedVLYAXU/2Th8RnfNrO3IT6SJ+auLM1Viy4c+fGpmwfCGN6Mv/7Q76YvkvjnpQiplVkN+rv89XSpTdMjHnBJ8veGrTZFnn8akFMrph0668W1Zydp2Zv3OTS33h7P9koGClJgOISXuqb9WMUD7KJxDs62Qx1WHNRiD8QYee+lxmBWmHPneSknVqxOnsXXMh4HRE8kqwBwWSz/zGCu+L0MviEtVez/C4RduwOH70jRlHZmY3K5neDyn3aJlmOQTQo9qoR+jpQRsx3EvGxe2d3tKg5eVNH52cWHeLUmzDL013ux7GCD73IpP/lzTaG22/gkBcefnIs6/Ln9juPdjh1meqotuyu+XgHP6qkFxZeFpbB/lRHKwWnmUdF/VFVyUVaJZuiuxfWNXNMivKU0yhVp6WsPzO1Onk9jmKyJmt5hzSq1AxIod21Jttouyhd13OkGi/96mVpdMz2aXLshmxovZMyCb299bHT1WlVQMRk48tZ7olffaOfmrpUl/tZmwMaylgWhb9T8miDntDXP5kCymvLsxuuJG4xMG4wMG8wuCXA5OR6SxD7hiC3gmr2++wxRs7crTFz0qaw6U56I8uME64ONer0EOQHQRVX0XBbyQmb7ZcxiL3mzCZytmZzPtt53cs4DAhoKFaT8g3ctF8XD+We1mVkAX1b1Y2CP1TlMJJNLDFZLcYrrZy/9z/TURhIPZZR+d2uXudryJysIXHDb9T7x/CPOoT/FprpMfd1B+1ILW6PvuYcYm5PY+6+i/lqFoA5Mzg7swBsDmd3ao52hhOKbdxgIG7Qsxv05g16Ps9d3DkWtcU8d5nHvIeANpbHeiiZ2hVVC5yCwEKFaRPKUUq1a6q2c9V3vjp7QJETGqT55tR0V/qnxvrErw5hQSN99c8r6uaxUw19KoCH+/mW2sf3HTXI0Avd9vVrNWqQ7JQnlMSfzCVb8tWSPS/rj1b9if4um2t2f9te0gN8yekjXVgys76qrqgn1GVWMzOa605PqS4tudN8ts6uKz6iGVIoWlr6sGeSrgxbC400pK1ext4GbNXKoZm10sBwfL+f3gTpOUjPMHoDIwdHBycvMHLQdKjn2G2XJ+a5Nui5Nui5Nui5Nua5Nua5Nua5Nua5Nua5Nua577ZcU23pFuj5Fuj5Fuj5Fui5Fua5Fua5Fua5Fua5Fug7Jug7Jug7Jug776YXID0H6RlGb2Dk4Ojg5EHdg6YHPQ90fDDuHNDtnL49HoENAcKGAGFDgLAhQNgQIGwIEDYEBhsCgw2BwYbAYENgsCEw2BAYbAgMNgQY9xyMew7GPQfjnoNxz8G452DcczDuORb3HIt7jsU9x+KeY3HPsbjnWNxzLO45Vi5wEDYYCBsMhA0GwgYDYYOBsMFA2GAgbDAMNhgGGwyDDYbBBsNgg2GwwTDYYBhsMCzuDSzsDSzqDSzoDSzmDSzkDSziDSzgDSjeDSjcDSjaDSjYDSjWDSjUDSjSDSjQDSzOwfQOZncwuYO5HUztYGYHEzuW17G0jmV1LKljOR1L6VhGxxI6mM/B1T+4+AfX/uDSH1z5gwt/cN2PLfuxVT+26MfW/NiSH1vxYwt+bL3/fndpLP7ubUIXI3cw8hVGbmPkFkZuYuQCI+cYOYPIMafDxsYmjmkdMznmb5izY5GGoQSKUd1JCwjjwDeoJoZxYNsF2HUBNl2APRdgywXYcYE1XGD9Fli7BdZtgTVbYL0WWKsF1mmBNVqYEEKaGEKCEAW2hoFdhWBTIdhTaGEQZWEQBTY0Yv2MWDsj1s2INTNaEERZEERZEERZEERZEERZEERZGERZGESBnc82BlFgxz/Y8G9jEAUeFwBPC2CHBbCzAthRAeykAHZQADsnYEMQZUMQZUMQZUMQZWMQZWMQtcIgCjyVBB6nA0/TrTCIAs/igUfxsJN42EE87BwedgwPO4WHHcJbQRC1giBqBUHUCoKoFQZRKwyiHAyiHAyiHAyiHAxjHAxjHAxjHAhjHAhjHAhjHAhjHAhjHAhjHAhjHAhjHAhjHAhjHAxjQE93IU93IU93IU93IW9zIW9zIW9zIW9zIW9zMW9zwb4mrIGRYR2MDGthZFgfIcMaCRnWSfhucgcjd0HDgYZv/Q5sqAM76sCWOrSZEOsyYlibEcP6jCaSPze/AKZ+I7D7B71LLfLXMqJrv7Q/arRQP9G6yPJ0rX626SDzoh7Psrlruq7lmAY3TOfl5f/WVKX1

Copy blueprint

How to use :

1)use /cheat all
2)build one
3) put speed x64
4)when lamp is green ship will go to vulcanus
5) you can remove condition
6)watch endless space junk scavenging !

Why :

It's a proof of concept, a space platform designed to make legendary iron ore without using quality modules in the crushers, instead it grab all the iron it can and crush it with efficency module, but then it puts it in a recycler with quality module. If the iron ore isn't legendary, it is throw back to space, if the iron is legendary, it ring the speaker and keep it preciously in the hub. This occurs twice an hour or something with the default level of research given by the command /cheat all. The yield is very low, it only keeps the iron ore that upgrade from regular quality to legendary in a single step, it would be easy to process more of the iron, through several recyclers with a bigger ship, in case of a new version of factorio where the crushers don't accept quality modules anymore.

This somewhat mimicking how you could upcycle the ore directly at the mining drill but instead from space, to illustrate that you don't have to build a whole factory on space, nor any kind of upcycling loop with intermediate products, a very simple design can do the trick.

The feedback mmmPI consistently gave was that he could get by without rerolling. The discussions that were had, had a bar set so low he was asked to leave them. It is unfortunately a part of the discussion that presenting a giant volume of bulleted lists, half of which are wrong, indicates that we collectively are being very. Very patient. Because if someone doesn't present correct information for the side they are taking, as consistently as they do, it indicates they don't care about taking any side.

And not that the other side doesn't have something valuable to contribute. Or needs support.