mmmPI wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2025 4:03 pm
coffee-factorio wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2025 2:28 pm
Regardless of the scheme selected, short of redesigning the process is there a better scheme for seeds?
Yes it was explained many times growth time could be made shorter, making it extremly obvious that it's not a discussion, as you ignore what other people write.
Ah! The brotherly love we share at the flag pole. I'll pass, people will see us rolling on the ground and talk of our affection.
But it is true that in July, an intriguing idea from December was not given it's due in the last two pages. For whatever reason.
Now when we model this idea, by growth, ~3/4 will be normal. Then ~1/4 will grow fast with legendary t3 quality modules.
But how fast?
This is intractable for quality of course, because the rates of return after uncommon are such that a plant could be allowed to grow in an 5 minutes/ 40 time for rare; and case by case for the other qualities. So a troll will always be able to say it's unfair; whether you use a rate of growth of 40 times speed accounting for the 1/40th best case occurrence of rare (neglecting productivity) or something closer to research speeds which are much slower. And owing to the fact that production is constant, another troll can immediately contradict that and say "well can't it be like science where I get a lower rate, because I'm always doing it"?
With five qualities, the attack surface for a bad faith argument is huge.
This is a bit different than someone applying a brute force to their argument and hoping it is taken on faith. It's pretty easy to see, once you have a benchmark, if a person is committing to criticism for the sake of it. With this argument if you take one side or another you may be attacked.
So lets ignore that initial tangent of "how fast for all of the five tiers" and look at it in context. If I use the rate of 4 times for uncommon, which is proportional to its rate of return, we have 1 minute 15 seconds to harvest instead of 5 minutes. For the first cycle this is applied and 3/4 of the crop will be normal (neglecting productivity). And then off that cycle 1/16 will become uncommon, approximately in the best case, times productivity.
And off that cycle, I'll get 1/64 in theory. In practice, the ability to converge on the limit of the infinite sequence [1,1/4,...,(4**(-3)) ] will be proportional to the amount of fruit you put in. But in concept this is effectively another productivity bonus so... it's going to cause the amount of seeds to be multiplied by 1+1/3. Although that's intuition which has failed me before,
a mathematician is welcome to correct me if the value would be different than this geometric sequence.
The thing is though, in the context of this discussion, regardless of if I'm producing more or less items than that constant. I'm still reaping a production bonus, and like asteroid processing the only condition is whether or not I can secure the space I'm growing in. About a third of an orchard at worst is going to be participating in this due to quality, but there's always going to be a constant bonus of items. At the time of this writing asteroid processing is being discussed as a candidate to be nerfed.
And the mere suggestion of enhanced productivity was enough to trigger a player to this extent:
mmmPI wrote: Thu Jul 17, 2025 5:46 pm
Shulmeister wrote: Thu Jul 17, 2025 3:30 pm
If you think you do need an easier way to scale your legendary production on Gleba and you propose making the game more complicated for those who have trouble already while acting superior you're a real idiot to me. You are the one who actually struggle in the game ( to have quality ) and thus most likely one for which a more complicated system wouldn't be a good idea in the first place.
Please refrain from personnal attacks, keeps them in private message like i told you last time i felt you were only trolling
You might argue that this is for legendary items only, but the fact is that an honest worker can and will use each lever given to them so I'll indirectly get more legendary items from the process. And incur this person's wrath.
I'm not supporting or detracting from this course, merely pointing out what the numbers suggest!
Do you stand by the assertion that having what is essentially a third mechanical advantage for Gleba is a reasonable use of seeds? And in what case is such a mechanical advantage balanced?
