How to upcycle?

[coffee-factorio]

Stating a preference is not attacking any one person. I think my choice of questioning Fulgora's benefits wasn't taken well. Hot's hot, so maybe my defense was not good.

You seem like you want people to share in your excitement. That's fine. It's better than being angry but you have to have an outlet for that too. It can come off as the same kind of energy. And someone who doesn't have a handle on their temper at a moment can come to meet you with as much force as they think they feel. It's not the right choice but it is a choice.

The response I'm getting from you could be seen in that way. Regardless of the context or order. And someone has a right to defend their opinion; to a point. I'm not going to defend what was discussed (or at least not at here). I feel like we weren't going in a good direction, I backed off.

Okay you're not mad. Quality presents you with a wide range of options. Looking at all those options is fundamentally exciting and dazzling.h.q. droid put me on a good track. I have a set of possible moves that include asteroid crushing, asteroid rerolling, em plants and a few things with boxes. I might start as wrong and contradictory but I'm getting options for a table of basic plays and moves.

Which is what you suggest to do.

I just doesn't make much sense to attack that unless you have a lot of energy and you need to vent some of it.

I'm happy to not argue with the numbers I'm getting, especially since I've got someone who has a math model that's producing consistent results.

That's not a process that is going to have the simulator come out looking like a totally consistent person. You're attacking me for doing what you proposed though.

I've played with the numbers. I've felt that contradictory energy from the numbers. Whatever else I can say I'm plenty confused.

We've got box crushing, some stuff on asteroids and em plants. I think quality presents problems that have solutions which are fundamentally contradictory. I think it's fundamentally exciting. Please don't mistake my reaction for shock or a lack of respect. You're good.

Biolabs are my standing case of "why taking an opinion driven approach" to quality doesn't work; and why you're always going to have that contradictory energy. But why what you say about having a table is the safest thing. I think I can also justify why that table needs a "rate" entry so someone can be confident in their choices.

I think we can have an interesting conversation about what we should go after next is in terms of module choice or material choice. I think we can have a conversation about why you need to approach this with an suitably sized set of options. In case you get into a conversation with someone who is saying "this is best" and insisting on one option. I might be a donkey but I can see eye to eye with you on that.

[mmmPI]

I think my choice of questioning Fulgora's benefits wasn't taken well. Hot's hot, so maybe my defense was not good.
I might be a donkey but I can see eye to eye with you on that.

That's not about taking it well or not , i thought it made no sense to claim that the "mining bonus" is what should drive anyone to upcycle in Vulcanus or makes it "the best place" and to present your method as "the best" without any context and what you consider "the best". That's was borderline trolling imo as you did so quoting a post emphasizing the futility of searching for the best setup without defining such concept first.

I tried to understand why you'd say so and you added that Fulgora is surface limited which is unrelated and also no different than Vulcanus late game, so wrong, eventually you called me angry and backed your claim with what you called a monte carlo simulation on some other unrelated thing which wasn't one you admitted it ....

It would be nice if you could be a donkey without calling the others the same thank you.

I stand by my advices that the setup you should consider only after considering your goals and objectives and situation and that there is no generic answer as to which is the best that can be simplified and would always work, because players have different expectations for when something "works" or different playstyle, or what is "fast" or "big".

Since the first step of the reasonning seem to be problematic in your particular case, as mentionned there's no way for me to provide any help beyond. If you think i'm saying something wrong please feel free to point out the mistake in what appears to me comon sense. But when i inquiry "what is the best setup for you ?" if you answer "this one according to my monte carlo simulation" you have failed to understand the question unfortunately in my view. And if you insist your legendary setup is the "best" to make legendary material, i am going to point out that's it's not very serious to propose a setup full of legendary when the question is "how do i get them in the place ?" for many players.

Just in case in can help for more clarity, i was inspired this comparaison with the famous potato again. I feel like you're arguing about the method to measure something, like a potato, because you think the bigger number is the better potato, but your measurement method is wrong because it's only the circumference you're measuring, and you're claiming you've find the "tallest". Even if the measurement method was correct in the practice it would still be inappropriate to use to conclude about "the best potato" , and i feel like your answers are along the line of "ok let's forget about that and let's measure another one". So that's why i'm saying it appears to be a problem in the early step of reasonning that prevent me from providing help in that direction.

[coffee-factorio]

I think my choice of questioning Fulgora's benefits wasn't taken well. Hot's hot, so maybe my defense was not good.
I might be a donkey but I can see eye to eye with you on that.

That's not about taking it well or not , i thought it made no sense to claim that the "mining bonus" is what should drive anyone to upcycle in Vulcanus or makes it "the best place" and to present your method as "the best" without any context and what you consider "the best". That's was borderline trolling imo as you did so quoting a post emphasizing the futility of searching for the best setup without defining such concept first.

I tried to understand why you'd say so and you added that Fulgora is surface limited which is unrelated and also no different than Vulcanus late game, so wrong, eventually you called me angry and backed your claim with what you called a monte carlo simulation on some other unrelated thing which wasn't one you admitted it ....

It would be nice if you could be a donkey without calling the others the same thank you.

I stand by my advices that the setup you should consider only after considering your goals and objectives and situation and that there is no generic answer as to which is the best that can be simplified and would always work, because players have different expectations for when something "works" or different playstyle, or what is "fast" or "big".

Since the first step of the reasonning seem to be problematic in your particular case, as mentionned there's no way for me to provide any help beyond. If you think i'm saying something wrong please feel free to point out the mistake in what appears to me comon sense. But when i inquiry "what is the best setup for you ?" if you answer "this one according to my monte carlo simulation" you have failed to understand the question unfortunately in my view. And if you insist your legendary setup is the "best" to make legendary material, i am going to point out that's it's not very serious to propose a setup full of legendary when the question is "how do i get them in the place ?" for many players.

Just in case in can help for more clarity, i was inspired this comparaison with the famous potato again. I feel like you're arguing about the method to measure something, like a potato, because you think the bigger number is the better potato, but your measurement method is wrong because it's only the circumference you're measuring, and you're claiming you've find the "tallest". Even if the measurement method was correct in the practice it would still be inappropriate to use to conclude about "the best potato" , and i feel like your answers are along the line of "ok let's forget about that and let's measure another one". So that's why i'm saying it appears to be a problem in the early step of reasonning that prevent me from providing help in that direction.

And regardless of the merits or why I'm sorry our conversation went the way it did.

The assumption that I was admitting anything by saying that I'm using the map editor is not accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon%27s_needle_problem You don't need a computer to perform a Monte Carlo style simulation. A person in the 18th century dropped pins and figured out the constant PI to a reasonable amount of digits. I'm calling what I do in a map editor a Monte Carlo simulation because as far as I understand it I can throw a bunch of needles at a piece of paper and get a result of increasing accuracy.

My setups aren't the best. Where I'm from production means a something a bit different. I'm not putting up production setups. Right now what I'm doing with h.q. droid is figuring out how certain kinds of operations perform. My theory is not biggest or best. My theory is at a 15 or a 240/s rate, I can touch N*1000 samples and be within 10%, but 240 is going to be more convenient.

If I understand the rate of machine speed. Then I can total the number of normal inputs into a machine. If I set up a production line on a surface, disable enemies (biters love things that run for hours), I use iron at 240. I get out 27774 after 10 hours at 64 speed. 3600 seconds * 10 = 36000. And 240*36000 is... a number I'm copy and pasting from a calculator.

Droids' program is accurate, as far as I can tell. But I've got no idea what he's using. Wherever he's getting his numbers from they match mine. Including the one where I make a foundational mistake.

If you propose that this is not a method, I can give a blueprint that anyone can copy and paste into a map editor and run using gears that will produce the same outputs given the same inputs.

Droid can explain what they're doing.

There where a number of limitations to what I was doing that I discussed. Those are the classic limitations of Monte Carlo style simulations. If I didn't honestly discuss those limitations. Then I probably couldn't have a discussion with droid. Well, they'd get to say my math was faulty a few more times if they thought it was worth the effort.

Now if you don't like that approach, I can drop that for a minute to show why you need a list of methods and not to engage the problem with "and this method is best" approach so you know more or less I'm not limiting a persons options. I can also show you one of the ways that quality creates a situation which causes a person to be inherently contradictory. Biolabs is a solidly defined problem where we can see that you are very clearly right.

I think it's best if I say why you are right for a moment?

[mmmPI]

And regardless of the merits or why I'm sorry our conversation went the way it did.
I think it's best if I say why you are right for a moment?

I'm sorry you think it's a conversation. I think it's best if you adress personnal message in private.