Factorio Forums

Stargateur wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 2:50 am This subject have been debated in others threads, all possibles points have already been made, create yet another thread is disrespectful to previous discussions.

It's interesting that you brought back this thread, because it only validates the points raised here. I went back and briefly re-read the whole conversation there, and although no consensus has been achieved, the statement about other "cheesy" methods being strictly superior remained undisputed. Furthermore, even space casino sceptics advocated for a nerf, not the blunt removal of it. The only mention of the removal, without touching LDS and PU upcycling, that I know of, was on said discord sometime past year.

>create yet another thread is disrespectful to previous discussions.

I fail to see how. That thread is over 1 year old. If you weren't actively browsing forums and did not find this particular game aspect bad, how would you even stumble upon this thread? Many commenters here have mentioned that they do not frequently use forums. I can see 10 year old accounts with just a handful of posts.

Try a change of perspective, if it were, instead of space casinos, an artillery shell infinite upgrades. You build your outposts like you usually do for 18 months, then FFF lands with an information artillery shell upgrades get effectively deleted in the next version releasing 3 weeks from now. All your outposts are invalidated now. And let's be honest, these upgrades do realistically disable the biters after just a few points invested. In my experience, I have had 10 in each category way before I had my first casino.

Would you come to voice your opinion then?

kammerer wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 7:48 amThat said, my proposal is quite practical. Instead of removing the mechanics entirely, I suggested to replace it with the gameplay settings option. Maybe even disabled by default.

That's what mods are for.

I don't really mean that as a cheeky response. What (little) I know of the engine is that a mod* is very much the most natural place to make that sort of change; not just for the implementation itself, but for compatibility with other mods as wel. And if you convinced the devs such a change should be made, they would most likely do it as a mod rather than a game setting. And most likely one of the devs would do it as a side project and put it on the mod portal rather than an official release.

And probably not do it at all because the mod already exists. So I think the most likely outcome of actually successfully persuading the devs is that we get exactly what we already have.

IIRC, the reason "expensive recipes" doesn't exist as a setting anymore is for the same reason; they felt that kind of change is better as a mod. In fact, them talking about this is the bulk of the reason why I have I the opinion I shared above. I can't find the reference where they talked about it, though.

*: In more detail, I think the point is that we're not talking about a mechanic; we're not discussing something that would an engine setting. We're talking about making a change to the properties of the recipe listed in the Space Age mod files.

urquelle wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 8:49 am Would you come to voice your opinion then?

You're fixed on a single build. You insist only this single build is valid and fun and you cannot play without this.
However, the devs have a view on the whole game. Every build, every player, every game stage, every strategy.
They came to the conclusion this build is overpowered and subject to some balance change.
You can be sure they investigated the consequences, and they investigated how the game can be played in a scenario where this single build was being used until now. I'm quite sure they investigated how to play the same scenario without that build, and they came to the conclusion the game still has solutions that work with this scenario.

I saw this kind of nerf often before, usually in MMOs.

The community will shake and complain, then settle, then create something that's sometimes even better.

If you copied and used blueprints so far, you're at a disadvantage because you have to wait until new blueprints have been developed. But you can also start developing your own and be the first to show one. Since plastic, LDS and processing units weren't changed, these are probably the main workhorses now. You need a bit more complex factory for it - the trivial vast fields of reprocessing recyclers are not sufficient any more. You need more concept and more thinking, and the thinking is again about intelligent production and not about how to feed the vast fields with enough resources. The new production chain is much shorter. It's from fluids (lava/molten metal+petroleum gas) to legendary solid items. If you do this on Vulcanus, you also get any stone you need as byproduct and don't need to do the stupid task of voiding molten metal just to get stone, for which there isn't a direct implementation anyway, so it can be considered a path not checked/envisioned by the devs.

Tertius wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:51 am I saw this kind of nerf often before, usually in MMOs.
The community will shake and complain, then settle, then create something that's sometimes even better.

I play factorio because MMOs and their infinite loop of buff-meta-nerf drama is deranged.
If something is broken fix it, if something can be improved improve it. But don't flat out remove interesting features after almost 2 years of releasing them without offering something else in return that is at least equally interesting, preferably more interesting. That's why so many people are complaining, the devs are taking something out of the game that people found fun with zero replacement. No quality rework, no new ways to produce quality items, just 'Ok you can't build that anymore, go do something else'.

radical_larry wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 11:00 am the devs are taking something out of the game that people found fun with zero replacement. No quality rework, no new ways to produce quality items, just 'Ok you can't build that anymore, go do something else'.

Except, they're not. You're free to play any previous version of Factorio for the rest of your life.

NineNine wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 11:15 am Except, they're not. You're free to play any previous version of Factorio for the rest of your life.

What kind of argument is that even? Maybe we should remove belts from the game, and if anyone complains they can go play the old version.

radical_larry wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 11:19 am

NineNine wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 11:15 am Except, they're not. You're free to play any previous version of Factorio for the rest of your life.

What kind of argument is that even? Maybe we should remove belts from the game, and if anyone complains they can go play the old version.

They're closing a loophole that unbalances the game. They're not removing a fundamental part of the game.

But the bigger question is, what's wrong with the older versions, exactly? If one is so absolutely destroyed by having the cheat/loophole closed, why wouldn't somebody just play a version of the game with it in it? Heck, you don't even have to do anything. Just don't click the "update" button. Is that difficult? If you need to install an older version on a different computer, you can get access to all of them here: https://factorio.com/download/archive/ . Is that difficult?

It's one thing to complain if they're literally taking away something from the game.... but they're not. They're just removing it from future versions of the game.

Tertius wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:51 am You're fixed on a single build. You insist only this single build is valid and fun and you cannot play without this.

I don't believe I have. I even explicitly mentioned in my first comment that this change wouldn't affect my current save much. In my opinion, all of the builds for quality are valid. And with that in mind, I came to voice my disapproval of the effective removal of one of them.

Tertius wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:51 am I saw this kind of nerf often before, usually in MMOs.

But Factorio isn't an MMO now, is it?

radical_larry wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 11:00 am I play factorio because MMOs and their infinite loop of buff-meta-nerf drama is deranged.

This is what the entire quality system feels like to me from the start. The fact that the biggest megabases keep on using either common or uncommon science tells it all. It's more beneficial to produce more of the lower tier than to crack on the higher one, due to the sheer amount of resources higher tiers require and the lack of a robust endgame method of producing them.

Tertius wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:51 am The community will shake and complain, then settle, then create something that's sometimes even better.

Will it? Because to me it seems that with this change, I have one less reason to build a spaceship. Before I had 3, now it's just promethium haulers and transports. I will still use LDS. I will still use PU. And the only thing that changes is the need to scale up stone prod, but that's just copy-pasting existing blocks. Hooray?

Tertius wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:51 am If you copied and used blueprints so far

I didn't and I wouldn't care nearly as much if I did.

radical_larry wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 11:00 am But don't flat out remove interesting features after almost 2 years of releasing them without offering something else in return that is at least equally interesting, preferably more interesting. That's why so many people are complaining, the devs are taking something out of the game that people found fun with zero replacement. No quality rework, no new ways to produce quality items, just 'Ok you can't build that anymore, go do something else'.

I mean, what more is there to say? It's even more pronounced now that such a situation has never happened before in factorio. Even in historical nerfs, the developers always replaced nerfed strategies with something else, equally interesting. No such luck here.

I don't see why legendary science packs should necessarily be a good idea; it doesn't make sense to me.

But I guess I never understood similar mindsets like "Oh I have blue belts now, I must make all belts blue" or "Why bother with any modules except for tier 3?" I sometimes see crop up in discussions.

urquelle wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 11:48 amI mean, what more is there to say? It's even more pronounced now that such a situation has never happened before in factorio. Even in historical nerfs, the developers always replaced nerfed strategies with something else, equally interesting. No such luck here.

What replaced platforms making it to the solar system edge by having a large amount of chaff in front to absorb damage? (after private beta)

What replaced ablatave armor (landmines) on paltforms? (2.0.24)

What replaced net positive solid fuel loops on Aquilo? (2.0.24)

Those are nerfs I know off the top of my head.

NineNine wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 11:29 am They're closing a loophole that unbalances the game. They're not removing a fundamental part of the game.

But the bigger question is, what's wrong with the older versions, exactly? If one is so absolutely destroyed by having the cheat/loophole closed, why wouldn't somebody just play a version of the game with it in it? Heck, you don't even have to do anything. Just don't click the "update" button. Is that difficult? If you need to install an older version on a different computer, you can get access to all of them here: https://factorio.com/download/archive/ . Is that difficult?

It's one thing to complain if they're literally taking away something from the game.... but they're not. They're just removing it from future versions of the game.

What's your favorite part of the game? Lets remove that. I think it's a cheat compared to what is my favorite part of the game.
Again. Just

Hurkyl wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:11 pm What replaced platforms making it to the solar system edge by having a large amount of chaff in front to absorb damage? (after private beta)

What replaced ablatave armor (landmines) on paltforms? (2.0.24)

What replaced net positive solid fuel loops on Aquilo? (2.0.24)

Nothing, because those were bugs and quickly patched as they were discovered. Unlike in this case, where every system works as intended and has been left in the game for 2 years.
Besides, for something like the landmines, remember when they removed the ability to place them on space platforms? Me neither. They made them do what most sane people expect them to do, which is damage the tile underneath.
I'm not generally against rebalancing space casinos, but the solution isn't to disable quality modules in the recipe and remove them entirely. And a quick discussion about this beforehand would have highlighted this for the devs, but no one asked the players.

I thought I was having an argument in good faith, I'd like you to do the same, because the analogies you've made are, in my opinion, misleading.

Hurkyl wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:11 pm What replaced platforms making it to the solar system edge by having a large amount of chaff in front to absorb damage? (after private beta)

Nothing, because the last time I checked, private beta was just that - private beta.

Hurkyl wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:11 pm What replaced ablatave armor (landmines) on paltforms? (2.0.24)

They didn't need a replacement because you can still place them, they just damage your ship too. The fact that they didn't was weird in the first place. But even if we assume this did in fact invalidate reasonable designs, I can still be okay with that because this change was made merely 2 months after the release, and the intention was there from the launch.

Hurkyl wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:11 pm What replaced net positive solid fuel loops on Aquilo? (2.0.24)

This was an actual bug. It was reported as a bug 122574 and fixed within a week.

At least make a reasonable comparison.

radical_larry wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:21 pm What's your favorite part of the game? Lets remove that. I think it's a cheat compared to what is my favorite part of the game.
Again. Just

Fascinating question. My favorite part of the game is tweaking and controlling production with the circuit network, with the help of combinators. If you remove combinators, you remove my favorite part of the game. If that should happen, I would be encouraged to find purely mechanical solutions to everything I invented circuit contraptions for. I would have to rebuild almost every part of all my planet bases, probably just start over with a new map. I would do this, because it's a challenge I didn't do so far. I "cheated" myself out of quite some mechanical challenges.

However that's not quite the same as with the space casino. Combinators are a design included in the core of the game. In my opinion, some options within are OP compared to the options available for people whose mindset doesn't allow them to use combinators. I'm clearly at an advantage. But it's a whole game mechanic, the game would be less than before in case it should be removed. Space casino is something different, it's just a more bland variant of a factory due to its uniformity. In my opinion, it's almost as uninteresting as building vast fields of solar panels instead of creating a nuclear fuel cell factory line and a nuclear power plant as source for electric power.

radical_larry wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:21 pmI'm not generally against rebalancing space casinos, but the solution isn't to disable quality modules in the recipe and remove them entirely. And a quick discussion about this beforehand would have highlighted this for the devs, but no one asked the players.

Rumors that it was going to be nerfed were already going around when the strategy was new. I remember many months ago that a fair amount of people on the Steam forum even had the impression that the devs had actually confirmed a nerf was incoming, although I never managed to find where that came from.

I do share frustration that, AFAIK, the devs have been pretty silent on the topic, but this was definitely not a surprise.

urquelle wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:35 pm I thought I was having an argument in good faith, I'd like you to do the same, because the analogies you've made are, in my opinion, misleading.

I'm just generally tired of that sort of hyperbole.

Another big nerf off the top of my head: personal laser defense got shut down pretty hard. Actually, all ways of steamrolling through nests that weren't clearly intended to be one(ish)-shots got nerfed pretty hard, and we didn't get anything new in that regard.

urquelle wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:35 pm They didn't need a replacement because you can still place them, they just damage your ship too. The fact that they didn't was weird in the first place. But even if we assume this did in fact invalidate reasonable designs, I can still be okay with that because this change was made merely 2 months after the release, and the intention was there from the launch.

I agree it was weird, but I remember this because it was a nerf of strategies people were using. And reactions were a mix of the "yah, it was pretty overpowered, I was expecting this" and "it's silly of the devs to nerf good strategies people like to use" like we're seeing today. It was just the more tolerant sort of crowd that adapts to the change.

Tertius wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:57 pm But it's a whole game mechanic, the game would be less than before in case it should be removed. Space casino is something different, it's just a more bland variant of a factory due to its uniformity.

Both are 100% your subjective opinion and there's no point in arguing for or against that, so it's really funny to me that you worded it this way. It's a juxtaposition showcasing how some people lack empathy for the way others see and play the game.
You don't have to like space casinos, you can ignore their existence. Just like some people don't like combinators and ignore their existence, despite combinators allowing you to do vastly 'OP' things, compared to designs not using any combinators. That doesn't mean one side or the other is playing the game wrong and that any intervention is necessarily required.

Tertius wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:57 pm In my opinion, it's almost as uninteresting as building vast fields of solar panels instead of creating a nuclear fuel cell factory line and a nuclear power plant as source for electric power.

Ok, but can you imagine that some people like things you don't like? Can you imagine how you'd actually feel if the next FFF was an announcement of combinators being removed because they're too strong and people aren't playing the game in a way the devs intended them to? I somehow doubt that you'd be as stoic and interested in the next update as you say you would. Not to mention that lingering feeling of being called a cheater for using intended gameplay features to their fullest.

Rebalance it, improve it, but don't remove it. People will be happy their playstyle is being acknowledged, not discarded. Even if it ends up being slightly weaker than before.
If the devs were actually intending to do this then they should communicate it better. Prefacing something with "we don't want to be fun killers" and ending it with a "so X is disallowed in the next update" is like the worst way they could have written it. Generally that section feels like they dunked on everyone who likes space casinos, as if they're playing the game wrong.
Instead they could have highlighted how maybe the new platform to platform logistics they implemented for us would make space casinos way stronger than they are now, so they had to be balanced and that they'd like to take suggestions on how to do it in a way that makes most people happy and still keeps their space platforms around.
"As always, flip your thoughts to us at the usual places." As time went on, it's like they forgot why they write their cute little word play at the end of every FFF. To allow people to participate in shaping the game. And not just people on discord.

I know that people like Factorio for many things. The game mixes different playstyles together. Some of them maybe even contradict to each other a little bit.

But Space Age is an extension about space ships and gambling after all. So, how on earth we came to a point where the government wants to issue Space gambling prohibition law? This is nonsense at least from the setting point of view!

It's like removing New Vegas Strip from Fallout New Vegas.

Space factory is a big trouble for factorio, specially now they give us trading between platform, space platform remove most of the logistic problem, you have one unit that do what you want it to do and you can scale just by copy paste the ship, without any logistical challenge that come with this scaling. Space casino are removed because it's broke the game entirely, even with blueprint, people need to do logistic between their blueprint, with ship you don't have to do anything, copy paste, work, nothing more is needed. That why wube remove space casino and didn't talk (yet) about other thing like LDS. We don't know the full changelog of 2.1, so any talk about what they nerf and what they didn't nerf is pure speculation.

Many in favor of space casino argue that mod could disable it. And now using a mod to enable it is not acceptable ! Pure hypocrisy !

(and honestly anyone who argue space casino is hard to do is blind)

Stargateur wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 1:14 am Many in favor of space casino argue that mod could disable it. And now using a mod to enable it is not acceptable ! Pure hypocrisy !
(and honestly anyone who argue space casino is hard to do is blind)

It's easy to call other people hypocrites lol, i think you have to be one yourself to pretend people are arguing space casino are hard. No-one did that, even in the other discussion you linked in which you said every argument was already made. It's a very bad strawman imo and pushed aggressively.

kammerer wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 3:58 pm I know that people like Factorio for many things. The game mixes different playstyles together. Some of them maybe even contradict to each other a little bit.

But Space Age is an extension about space ships and gambling after all. So, how on earth we came to a point where the government wants to issue Space gambling prohibition law? This is nonsense at least from the setting point of view!

It's like removing New Vegas Strip from Fallout New Vegas.

!!!

radical_larry wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2026 1:38 pm You don't have to like space casinos, you can ignore their existence. Just like some people don't like combinators and ignore their existence, despite combinators allowing you to do vastly 'OP' things, compared to designs not using any combinators. That doesn't mean one side or the other is playing the game wrong and that any intervention is necessarily required.

It might be a surprise to you, but I'm neither in favor nor against the space casino. If it's decided to keep it, fine. If it's decided to remove it, fine. In my personal opinion it's better to remove it, but if I would be given the power to actually decide, I would decide to keep it to not upset the players who are using it. Although it's not balanced, it doesn't do that much harm to warrant the current argument. However it's not toxic, so it's still fine.
I would rather remove cityblocks, or the LTN mod, that's more damaging to factory design than anything else.

But that's what I'm trying to explain in my posts: I trust the decision of Wube to remove it, because they have more information about the game than I and players in general. Their decision is better-reasoned than mine. It's not a Trump decision to just raise some tariffs. I trust them that the game is better with the nerf and more according to their vision of how the game should be.

And since there is always a discrepancy between the studio's view of their game and a player's view of the game, they added modding to enable everyone to implement their view in the game. For example, I see the Rate Calculator mod as essential functionality, but it was never integrated into the game even if it's made by a dev. Or Factory Planner. Not even the personal view of a dev is always aligned with the studio they are working for. That's not a sign of the boss dominating their developers, for me it's a sign of a joint decision for the game as a whole and the players as a whole.

Tertius wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 6:50 am But that's what I'm trying to explain in my posts: I trust the decision of Wube to remove it, because they have more information about the game than I and players in general. Their decision is better-reasoned than mine. It's not a Trump decision to just raise some tariffs. I trust them that the game is better with the nerf and more according to their vision of how the game should be.

Then they should share that information. As you can see, a lot of people are upset, lots of new accounts pouring in to tell them they don't like the nerf, so clearly wube did something wrong, even if they had good intentions about keeping the game balanced. I think it's mostly a communication issue, and that could be solved retroactively.

Tertius wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 6:50 am And since there is always a discrepancy between the studio's view of their game and a player's view of the game, they added modding to enable everyone to implement their view in the game. For example, I see the Rate Calculator mod as essential functionality, but it was never integrated into the game even if it's made by a dev. Or Factory Planner. Not even the personal view of a dev is always aligned with the studio they are working for. That's not a sign of the boss dominating their developers, for me it's a sign of a joint decision for the game as a whole and the players as a whole.

Well it's one thing to never include something, and it's something else to add a feature, let people play with it for more than a year, and then remove it. I'm sure you can see the fundamental difference.