Asteroid quality upscaling nerf or not?

[Tripeo]

Does anyone know if asteroid upscaling is a supposed by devs way to play or it will be nerfed in the future?

PS: asteroid quality upscaling is the process when you infinitely convert one asteroid to another types using quality modules. Its really easy and very fast way to get legendary asteroids and then legendary ores and so on. And that is confusing that so difficult process of geting legends becomes so easy to do

[argrond]

Can someone explain me how 100%->80% asteroid is "infinite"? Tech says you can get more yield from asteroids, not more asteroids through conversion.

[Serendipitous]

Originally posted by argrond:

Can someone explain me how 100%->80% asteroid is "infinite"? Tech says you can get more yield from asteroids, not more asteroids through conversion.

I mean, it's a better conversion than 100% -> 25% like with regular recycling, but yeah, it's no more infinite than other resources which are practically infinite too.

[Hurkyl]

AFAIK, the numbers are comparable to an ordinary recycling loop. I post the numbers in a reply to

https://steamcommunity.com/app/427520/discussions/0/4634862385195219484/

I don't put the numbers for a craft/recycle loop there, but IIRC it's also (very loosely) around a factor of 50 normal components for a legendary result.

Originally posted by Serendipitous:

Originally posted by argrond:

Can someone explain me how 100%->80% asteroid is "infinite"? Tech says you can get more yield from asteroids, not more asteroids through conversion.

I mean, it's a better conversion than 100% -> 25% like with regular recycling, but yeah, it's no more infinite than other resources which are practically infinite too.

You're comparing apples and oranges, though. There are a lot of other differences in the processes. Most pertinently,

• Crushers can only use two quality modules
  
• An ordinary recycling loop only recycles every other step, at most
  
• The other step often benefits from a productivity bonus

(in fact, for suitable products, I think doing the non-recycling steps with productivity modules instead of quality modules turns out to be slightly better)

[Aranador]

Yeah this 'crusade' against asteroid cycling is pretty pathetic. If you think it is OP, dont use it. If you think quality is stoopid, use it to circumvent it. Heck you dont even need quality to 'win' the game, so it is irrelevant if it is too easy or not.

Basically - dont try to make everyone play the game the way you think they should play. If it comes down to it, make your own mod and you can play the game your way.

[Nasabot]

I think there are much worse game imbalances. Unfortunatly the devs and most player do not care much about these issues and chances are high that imbalances will never get fixed.

The asteroid loop at least has downsides of losing 20% + having only 2 module slots. Its not completly broken compared to other shenanigans quality, which is a great feature in theory, brought with it.

[RiO]

Originally posted by Hurkyl:

(in fact, for suitable products, I think doing the non-recycling steps with productivity modules instead of quality modules turns out to be slightly better)

Nilaus and his community of regular Twitch followers crunched the numbers on it.
For maximum yield you put productivity in the common, uncommon, and legendary fabrication steps. And you put quality in the rare, and epic fabrication steps; as well as in the recyclers.

Exception for recipes that feature productivity research, like LDS or blue circuits. As those can be boosted to 300% productivity through infinite research levels, they should be set up to take quality all-round as soon as they top off. Except legendary of course; which ... well, it can take efficiency in that case? I guess?


(Of course Nilaus wouldn't be Nilaus if he then wouldn't summarily ignore his own advice and put quality in everything anyway. Yes-- for a bit; even in the legendary tier fabrication steps...)

[Hurkyl]

Originally posted by RiO:

Originally posted by Hurkyl:

(in fact, for suitable products, I think doing the non-recycling steps with productivity modules instead of quality modules turns out to be slightly better)

Nilaus and his community of regular Twitch followers crunched the numbers on it.
For maximum yield you put productivity in the common, uncommon, and legendary fabrication steps. And you put quality in the rare, and epic fabrication steps; as well as in the recyclers.

I think it likely they made an error, my empirical testing indicates otherwise (I haven't gotten around to doing the explicit calculation).

Or were computing something different from what I'm testing. Or, I suppose, I may have had bad luck.

I loaded up a box with normal green circuits and let the system grind things out and see how many legendary green circuits come out. The fabrication was using legendary productivity 3 or quality 3 modules as appropriate. Doing things as you suggested were among the ones I tested when using electromagnetic plants, and it was noticeably worse than all productivity.

I just reran one of my tests -- I had one using assembler 3's that I could easily adapt. With two trials, I'm seeing the arrangement you describe being worse than both all quality and all productivity.

[RiO]

Originally posted by Hurkyl:

Originally posted by RiO:

Nilaus and his community of regular Twitch followers crunched the numbers on it.
For maximum yield you put productivity in the common, uncommon, and legendary fabrication steps. And you put quality in the rare, and epic fabrication steps; as well as in the recyclers.

I think it likely they made an error, my empirical testing indicates otherwise (I haven't gotten around to doing the explicit calculation).

Or were computing something different from what I'm testing. Or, I suppose, I may have had bad luck.

I loaded up a box with normal green circuits and let the system grind things out and see how many legendary green circuits come out. The fabrication was using legendary productivity 3 or quality 3 modules as appropriate. Doing things as you suggested were among the ones I tested when using electromagnetic plants, and it was noticeably worse than all productivity.

I just reran one of my tests -- I had one using assembler 3's that I could easily adapt. With two trials, I'm seeing the arrangement you describe being worse than both all quality and all productivity.

IDK man. It's possible (oh and absolutely totally would be 'a Nilaus thing') that he explained it in his video in the exact wrong way around.
That is: you're actually supposed to put quality in the common and uncommon steps. And productivity in the rare and up. Honestly that actually does sound more intuitive to me.

You gamble with quality over the largest volume, giving you the most independent chances to strike gold. Then once you reach the decent quality levels, where you have less and less items left in the pool it becomes more advantageous to sacrifice one of the gamble rolls and concentrate on fattening the existing pool with productivity.