Factorio Forums

Okay sure, if all factory building is the same to you, then I guess all factory building is the same to you.

This hits on another theme I think is running through the complaint posts: I think a significant proportion of the complaints ultimately have nothing to do with the quality system, and are entirely about people enjoying making space factories. And then we have an XY problem where they demand we keep the space casinos for quality production and (correctly) feel people are never addressing their concerns because the topic is about something else.

(and there is probably some overlap with people who are motivated by wanting the benefits of quality without engaging with the mechanic)

Hurkyl wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 11:50 am I think a significant proportion of the complaints ultimately have nothing to do with the quality system, and are entirely about people enjoying making space factories. And then we have an XY problem where they demand we keep the space casinos for quality production and (correctly) feel people are never addressing their concerns because the topic is about something else.

People want to build space factories in their space game and they want them to be useful. You're absolutely right that this is the core issue here.

Hurkyl wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 11:50 am (and there is probably some overlap with people who are motivated by wanting the benefits of quality without engaging with the mechanic)

I have no idea why you still hold on to that idea. Those who don't want to engage with quality mechanics will just blueprint the next best lds shuffling/blue chip upcycling method and be done with it, and if that's their fun in the game then the only thing this nerf changes for them is the background color of their quality factory.

radical_larry wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:12 pm

Hurkyl wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 11:50 am (and there is probably some overlap with people who are motivated by wanting the benefits of quality without engaging with the mechanic)

I have no idea why you still hold on to that idea. Those who don't want to engage with quality mechanics will just blueprint the next best lds shuffling/blue chip upcycling method and be done with it, and if that's their fun in the game then the only thing this nerf changes for them is the background color of their quality factory.

Because it seems accurate? And that the only thing this nerf changes for them is the background color of their quality factory? A point that is super relevant when evaluating the drawbacks of the change?

Hurkyl wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 11:50 am Okay sure, if all factory building is the same to you, then I guess all factory building is the same to you.

I have never said this, don't put words in my mouth. In fact if you go back and read my previous post, the first part of it where I replied to Tertius and not to you, you will find that I explained exactly why I believe the "casino" build to be significantly different and novel, rather than the same as the recycler loop. What is the same to me is building one more recycling loop but with a different recipe in the middle. Yes, I find that samey and repetitive. Talking about how you consider your direct insertion arrangement when building an upcycler or anything along those lines has nothing to do with the quality system in my eyes.

Hurkyl wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 11:50 am I think a significant proportion of the complaints ultimately have nothing to do with the quality system, and are entirely about people enjoying making space factories.

This isn't really the case for me, but even if some people were to come at it from that angle, is there anything wrong with enjoying useful / novel applications of space platforms in the Space Age expansion? I think not.

As for my own point of view, I think I explained it clearly, my problem with this change is that it removes variety from the game and replaces it with absolutely nothing. I would fully welcome new alternatives that allowed us to approach quality production in other new ways, even if they weren't something happening on a space platform.

To me upcycling is the root cause of this whole mess. Essentially because of this:

Throwing everything into the recycler to have a chance at something better is the same as a slot machine. Boring and disappointing, with the occasional "JACKPOT" moment. Surely I can't be the only one who dislikes that part of quality. All I've seen so far is people complaining about it ruining upcycling, or upcycling is boring or too tedious.

On another note, is there no way to scale the image down somewhat? :/

krozu wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 3:51 pm To me upcycling is the root cause of this whole mess. Essentially because of this:

Throwing everything into the recycler to have a chance at something better is the same as a slot machine. Boring and disappointing, with the occasional "JACKPOT" moment. Surely I can't be the only one who dislikes that part of quality. All I've seen so far is people complaining about it ruining upcycling, or upcycling is boring or too tedious.

On another note, is there no way to scale the image down somewhat? :/

The default version of space age finishes too fast for all the content it has because science consumption is so low. Horizontal scaling works well in that case compared to the vertical scaling of quality. At higher science costs quality shines through as a nice mechanic throughout the game.

krozu wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 3:51 pm upcycling is boring or too tedious.

Perhaps one should consider automating the process.

krozu wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 3:51 pm Throwing everything into the recycler to have a chance at something better is the same as a slot machine. Boring and disappointing, with the occasional "JACKPOT" moment. Surely I can't be the only one who dislikes that part of quality.

The way I see it, the RNG involved in quality refinement is ultimately nothing but a method to demand more resource input for higher quality items. In the end when you've got your loops running, the statistics will even out somewhere and you'll end up with some average amount of resources going into the system before it spits out the desired higher-quality output. The same could have been achieved with just making higher quality parts more expensive in terms of base resources, but I think that truly would not have added anything to the game at all in terms of new gameplay opportunity.

While I find the narrow options for quality repetitive like I said, I think the RNG nature does add something to the game in the sense that the upcycler loop design was never something you'd build without it. It's a new wrinkle in the system which requires a new solution and new design style, I don't think that's a bad thing. The problem to me is that applying it over and over and over just becomes repetitive / tedious, which is why I'd love to see more approaches being possible or quality getting integrated into the rest of the game in a more fundamental way such that it isn't just something that happens somewhere on the side.

Bloodred217 wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:32 pm The problem to me is that applying it over and over and over just becomes repetitive / tedious, which is why I'd love to see more approaches being possible or quality getting integrated into the rest of the game in a more fundamental way such that it isn't just something that happens somewhere on the side.

Sure... copying and pasting upcycling loops is boring, but you only do it once. You can do almost all of the SA items in an hour or so. The real challenge is building enough items to feed into the upcyclers. The rest of the game requires building lots of items in order to do science research. Once science research is all finished, Quality gives players an entirely new reason to keep building (much) bigger factories, and it does it in a different way than just adding more levels of science.

NineNine wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:36 pm Sure... copying and pasting upcycling loops is boring, but you only do it once. You can do almost all of the SA items in an hour or so. T

I don't think that's true, because the throughput of each component varies greatly across different recipes. You just end up with either bottlenecks or clogging if you blindly duplicate them.

It is, however, true for space casinos. I think that's the difference - The part which makes one tedious.

krozu wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 3:51 pm To me upcycling is the root cause of this whole mess. Essentially because of this:

This isn't unique to quality; the trend to rush straight to top of the line stuff has been with Factorio from the beginning. Tier 2 modules? Worthless except as ingredients for tier 3. Maybe they don't bother with tier 1 either. Yellow belts? Replace with red as soon as you can. Wait, still using red belts? You should replace them with blue.

One of the things I really like about quality is the wide gap between quality being available and actually being able to afford the top-of-the-line stuff, so that there is a lot more space to find value in the middle quality items.

Of course, that won't stop people from wanting to rush to top-quality or put it off until they can afford to skip the middle qualities (even if they have to limp there).

As an aside, I've been playing around with 100x science multiplier, and I feel like there's so much more to Factorio that I'm missing out on due to the fast pace of the vanilla game. If it weren't for other parts of the game that become somewhat overwhelming I'd even think it should be the default setting for the game.

Throwing everything into the recycler to have a chance at something better is the same as a slot machine. Boring and disappointing, with the occasional "JACKPOT" moment. Surely I can't be the only one who dislikes that part of quality.

AFAIK, this is mostly just in how you approach the system. "A watched pot never boils", after all.

If it's the variance that bothers you, arrange to win the numbers game: a casino makes consistent profit off of a room full of slot machines, after all.

If it's the waiting that bothers you, automate the waiting away. E.g. if you make a craft-recycle loop for mech armors, design it to run unattended and wire up a programmable speaker to give you an alert (and maybe a victory noise) when it detects a legendary mech armor in the chest.

Then you can just put it out of your mind while you're off doing other stuff, and when you get the alarm you can take a break to pick up your prize.

Hurkyl wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 4:56 pm If it's the variance that bothers you, arrange to win the numbers game: a casino makes consistent profit off of a room full of slot machines, after all.

If it's the waiting that bothers you, automate the waiting away. E.g. if you make a craft-recycle loop for mech armors, design it to run unattended and wire up a programmable speaker to give you an alert (and maybe a victory noise) when it detects a legendary mech armor in the chest.

None of that bothers me. The sole purpose of items that don't meet the standard being thrown back into the system to be scrapped and rolled again, and nothing else, is what gets me. Quality only has a single mechanic going for it. Rolling the die. I just want the lesser qualities to have a use that isn't magically turning it into a higher quality version. I want a reason to use them as is.

Sadly, not possible in the current system.

R.I.P. part of the game mechanic...

Fulgora - Recycler
Gleba - Spoilage
Space - Advanced asteroid processing ,"... asteroid reprocessing"

P.S. You can disable Enemies, change % and size of resources, change ..,change ..,change ..,change ..,change ..,change .., but "asteroid reprocessing" overpowered