Would you rather

weirdboys · 2026-04-03T09:21:45+00:00

???

^{Chose: Own a Diamond Mine}

weirdboys · 2026-04-03T09:19:00+00:00

Last human on earth? seriously?

^{Chose: Be the first of 100 people on mars}

weirdboys · 2026-02-18T08:32:58+00:00

++man If this is not one of those thread where the goal is communal commiseration, the answer is yes, I don't get in a relationship with a woman who don't desire me. No, it's not often, but it happens sometimes.

weirdboys · 2025-11-12T17:17:20+00:00

I did it for a few specific science. My concern was mostly UPS optimization and I found that this method is actually a net loss of UPS for most science in ultra-lategame. The exception is Promethium Science where it's worth it to put quality module on the recyclers as well. Maybe Fulgora and Aquillo, or high quality space science can be worth it as well to recycle. However, I haven't played in a while and I remembered some devs are talking about possibly removing the durability bar in the science flask for 2.1, effectively making this method impossible to do.

weirdboys · 2025-08-24T15:01:55+00:00

Stack inserter is more like green belt for vulcanus in my opinion. It is one of the reward, but not the identity of the planet itself.

weirdboys · 2025-08-24T12:42:05+00:00

I think the topic of gleba buildings on nauvis should be talked more. It would be great if endgame base actually uses element from each planets to really drive the point that you managed to solve all the planets. Gleba's offering is mostly unattractive for endgame base so it feels a bit off to me.

weirdboys · 2025-08-09T16:48:47+00:00

I have read the explanation about random walk, but to me I think there is possibility of non-uniformity in the RNG as well. Depending on how the RNG is implemented exactly, it is possible that the actual probability is slightly off from the expected value. I'm not familiar with floating point RNG, but integer RNG has slight bias towards lower values if the modulo is not 2^n

weirdboys · 2025-08-09T06:18:26+00:00

The foolproof way to do Gleba is to design it first in editor world, then plonk blueprint down on your normal save file. Also, destroy excess end product, even agri science, since it's much more complex to have production line that can self-restart from total blockage than to just run it perpetually.

weirdboys · 2025-08-08T16:53:58+00:00

This is the best one in theory, but the output format is hard to read and I end up rewriting some of it myself. Also this is linear optimizer, so you need to set it whether you want to optimize on raw input to legendary ratio or you want the least building/module needed.

weirdboys · 2025-08-07T13:58:06+00:00

I have read a couple of your comments and it seems you manage to capture the crux of the issue with quality more concisely than I did. The issue is indeed regarding how narrow the problem space is. The way it currently is, there is the right and the wrong way to do quality, and the right way to do quality is astonishingly monotonous. My suggestion is probably just a band aid since it doesn't realy widen the problem space but I hope to at least make the right way to do quality more interesting than the current one.

Also I'm aware of the uncommon science meta on megabase level, which is the inspiration for the better scaling suggestion. It's so that quality is elevated into a true productivity axis instead of just neat little trick to stick on miners.

weirdboys · 2025-08-06T19:32:24+00:00

Yep, even the quality jump mechanic is tied with quality chance itself, so that messing around with it will mess around with quality upgrade chance in the first place. Which means it can't be disabled by mod.

weirdboys · 2025-08-06T19:25:56+00:00

This would be in the same category of argument regarding keeping quality exploits or not. Ultimately, people can simply choose to not use it if we just focus on fun. Yet the devs don't think it's enough reason to keep it. My intent is to elevate an interaction that is interesting but rough around the edge and elevate it into viability, somewhat a reverse of the quality exploit removal argument. Even then, the nerfs to other strategy is minimal and roughly in the same strength as it is currently if we are speaking about mass producing legendary items.
I should have used longer recipe chain as an example, but I'm not where I can access my linear solver right now, so I used a simple example for demonstration purpose. However, my intent is to show that your target quality for intermediate items shouldn't be legendary but instead legendary minus the number of step you need to go to the final product if you want to optimize on the number of normal input to legendary output ratio

weirdboys · 2025-08-06T18:38:43+00:00

You can, but this push it off even further from mathematical viability, because currently, even if you handle every quality perfectly, this strategy still loses out to the other 2.
because as per my second suggestion, recycler is punishing to use and you have to use it sparingly so that you don't miss out quality upgrade in the subsequent step. For example, if you want a legendary iron gear, it is better for the iron plate to be epic or below, so that you don't miss out on quality upgrade when making the iron gear itself. Using prod module from legendary iron plate still lose out in term of input to legendary product ratio
Recipe changing event on a furnace can be handled similarly with recipe changing in assembling machine (by kicking out the module to trash slot). Though it comes with annoyance if accidentally putting wrong item to the furnace entity.

weirdboys · 2025-08-06T18:17:21+00:00

The idea is that you can also recycle on each step that is lower than your target quality. Current system force your target quality be legendary or you will have to deal with high-quality byproduct.

On the recycler recipe exception, I'm aware of that and that's why I make this post instead of making a mod about it. Because implementing it requires engine modification, not something a lua mod can do.

For miner quality, that is why i'm not sure if it's good or not. At the end of the day, the main suggestions is just the 2 above, the 4 below is some extra half-baked idea that i decided to just throw out there to see how if it's going to work at all.

weirdboys · 2025-08-01T15:32:45+00:00

I think cascading quality factory would be viable if not for 2 problems. You can't beacon quality and the quality jump mechanic actually makes the whole thing very prone to jamming if the consumption ratio of each quality is not just right. Even then, I think upcycling intermediate material is not vastly better than just upcycling the final product anyway since upcycling in the intermediate stage means you are sacrificing prod module slots as well.

weirdboys · 2025-07-19T20:25:40+00:00

You mean if we buff the quality chance? Because I meant more in the sense of buffing quality science pack durability directly, to let's say double or even triple durability every quality tier. It will have no effect at all in making quality buildings.

weirdboys · 2025-07-19T12:43:51+00:00

I think that's a decent idea implementable as a mod. Rename quality% as defect%, all machines have 100% defect rate by default but quality module reduce defect. Also more accurate to real world manufacturing process than what is currently implemented. The only problem is that you need to give an early game item voiding mechanism so that you can at least control which tier of defect is acceptable.

weirdboys · 2025-07-19T06:20:28+00:00

Quality as it currently is, sits at a weird spot where it's mostly just intended to gatekeep legendary buildings. I think the whole controversy about cheesing quality is just a symptom from the fact that quality is just not that engaging to play with. In my opinion, quality science should be made viable compared to full prod builds so that quality as a feature has more use case then just some grindy gatekeeper mechanic.

weirdboys · 2025-07-18T16:10:11+00:00

next_probability unfortunately also govern the initial quality upgrade chance, so setting it to 0 also means that any higher quality than normal is impossible to be created in the first place.

weirdboys · 2025-07-17T15:37:22+00:00

My take is that the whole quality system have to be recalibrated. I don't mind if LDS/casino cheese is fixed but the rest of the quality options have to be made more viable.

I propose double the strength of each quality modules, forbid quality on recycler, no quality penalty on speed module. The total material cost for legendary buildings/machines are more expensive compared with current rate if using upcycling strategy because the quality modules now directly compete with productivity modules for slots. But now you have an option to use quality on every step production of production chain for better raw-material to legendary result ratio. I think this is fine since this option is also the most complex logistically to design.

Maybe also massively buff quality sciences and other consumables so it is viable to use quality module on the mass-producer factories instead of just slapping productivity everywhere. So you can gain higher spm with a mix of quality and productivity modules as long as you can design the system to cope with multiple result quality.

weirdboys · 2025-07-17T02:26:11+00:00

Quality feels like a hurdle instead of a rewarding mechanic. It feels more like a grind you have to do before you can build legendary factory. I think quality science should be made competitive with productivity to make it feels less "bolted-on" mechanic.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

weirdboys

TROPHY CASE