Architect Archive
Thread: Question # 2
Brandon81 wrote:
What is the formula for calculating the effects of a higher quality crafting stationover alower one. Period.
That sounds pretty good. Don't think they can dodge that without just refusing to answer.
Cafa wrote:
Pawlin wrote:
Brandon81 wrote:
What is the formula for calculating the effects of a higher quality crafting stationover alower one. Period.
That sounds pretty good. Don't think they can dodge that without just refusing to answer.
Gotta agree. That's pretty golden. I'm looking at it and saying, "No one couldn't understand what we are asking!".
Fivo Asia
While this is a well worded question, I don't think an answer to it will provide any new information. From my experience crafting, and the info gathered reading posts here, the higher ratings for stations are nothing more than biases. That is, the higher the rating of a station, the better the curve on the 'die rolls' you get. The better the tool and the station the more likleyhood of a critical success and the less likelyhood of any failure. There is no bonus to experiment points or max itemrating that can be achieved with any particular set of resources. The answer to the question would be this answer in numbers, nothing more. I have seen that question asked and answered in various forms through the months I have been on the boards.
The question concerning OMUs, however, is a good start. I also have that problem when crafting harvesters.
A suggested modified question :
"Will there be a rework of the factory crating scheme, including OMUs, to allow for more items per crate?"
Spryte [Haven] - Haven - Corellia - Scylla
Master Artisan / Master Architect
Scout 4/0/4/0 - CH 0/3/0/4
Marksman 4/0/0/0 - Novice Rifleman
I think Bandola is on the right track here. We need hard statistics on how the Tool/Station work. And to just let TH run off with a 'They are working as intended' quote is not cutting the mustard. If they are working as intended, HOW are they doing this, What is the difference between a 10.0 Station and a 45.0 Station when in the crafting process, and a 35.0 difference is NOT acceptable here.
I honestly think that it needs to be addressed and not just given the old 'It's working as intended BS'.
How do we know they are working as intended when we don't even know why we experiment on them to bring them into the 30's and 40's.
We need hard proof that the difference between a 10.0 Station and a 45.0 station is dramatic enough to give us reason to experiment on those items. Other than having a contest between Arch's there is no reason to have such a high number on there. Does a 10.0 station give us a +1% modifier towards a success where as a 45.0 station give us a +5% chance? We need to know this.
Ok ... On the tool/station topic.. I think that there is only one thing that is obvious and we really dont need to get any clarification from the devs to proove... And that simply is that the Bonus from these stations Is not enough that there is a true advantage to using a 10.00 rated station verses a 43.5 station.. That is the issue the stations bonus needs to be reworked .. Period.... If I use a -13.5 tool and a -13.5 station I damn well be able to tell that I am using that because of all the failures I am getting.. If I use a 0.0. tool and 0.0 station then I should notice average rolls.. and If I use a 14.0 tool and 43.5 station I again .. Damn well be able to tell because of all the Great Successes and amazing successes I am getting.. It looks like one of our Top 5 issues will be addressed and implemented Very Soon .. when that happens I suggest we make this one of our current Top 5 Issues.. and Use our question on something else..
On the cratingIssue.. this is one of our top 5 issues and I am grilling the devs on this right now as we speak .. (and gaining ground) I will push for me to be allowed to give you an update on this As soon as possible... So lets curb this question because I am actively on this as I type....
So with that being said .. What question shall we ask?
Dvnce wrote:
So with that being said .. What question shall we ask?
The majority of the people in this thread appear to think we should ask the question about the tool and stations formula.
Are we voting or not?
I personally feel we should not continue to beat a dead horse with the crafting station question. We were told it's "working as intended." We know from experimental data that ratings currently don't have a great effect on results. So, I ask you, why do we care about the formula required to calculate these small effects? Regardless of whether the effect is significant or not, people still buy the highest-rated stations because everyone wants the "best." Forget that "best" in this case is just a meaningless number, it's still desired.
I get the sense that part of the motivation for asking this question again (albeit more carefully/strongly worded) is to FORCE Thunderheart to answer the question, rather than allowing his total non-answer to stand. However, I wonder if rubbing his nose in the non-answer is worth passing up an opportunity to ask another question. I was just as irritated as anyone to read the non-answer, but why spin our wheels?
I personally vote for inquiring about housing storage limits. This is not just an architect issue, but it is a strong deterrent toInterior Design as a viable profession, so we have the most logical connection to it. There are plenty of ways to word it; two possibilities are:
- When can we expect to see a true 75-items-per-lot formula implemented for item storage in structures (without the 250 item cap)?
- When will the storage capacity of large homes and PA Halls be proportional to their lot requirements?
Or, if we don't like questions starting with "when," I'd support:
- Does the Dev team ever intend to apply a true 75-items-per-lot formula, without the 250 cap, for item storage in structures?
Respectfully,
Moxxinal wrote:
...We were told it's "working as intended." We know from experimental data that ratings currently don't have a great effect on results. So, I ask you, why do we care about the formula required to calculate these small effects? ....
Bandola - are you sure of that? I have 2 static BER13 Miners which are sitting on the exact same resource % at the moment, and one definitely uses more power and maintenance than the other. Its not much of a difference but a definite difference does exist between the two.
Next chance I get I'll do a proper comparison and see if I can narrow this down some more (everything is tied up mining OQ1000 Talusian Water, OQ999 Inert Gas and OQ9xx Dolovite Iron).
It never rains, but it pours on Valcyn.
Pawlin wrote:
Moxxinal wrote:
...We were told it's "working as intended." We know from experimental data that ratings currently don't have a great effect on results. So, I ask you, why do we care about the formula required to calculate these small effects? ....
We don't know for sure if it is really working as intended. I think it is very likely that it is not and SOE doesn't realize that it is not but they just tell us it is working fine because they don't realize or believe it isn't. It wouldn't be the first time. And it shouldn't surprise anyone if SOE is wrong about something like this. The answer we were given was so vague that it does not inspire any confidence in its accuracy.
If their first answer to our first question was vague and mostly useless then what makes you think their answer to a second question on another topic would actually be useful?
We can continue to ask various questions and get non-answers or we can push for good answers. I'd prefer to at least try and get a good answer on the first topic before we move on and ask another question to just get another non-answer.
About half of the answers offered by TH were actual answers by some estimations. I guess I'd prefer we try different questions and hope for a good answer than to continue to push the same issue and continue to be blown off or force TH to do his verbal dance.
But I can completely see your perspective on this too. Push for a clear answer until we get it, then move on and set a level of expectation that we have for what constitutes a "good" answer.
My feeling on the crafting station issue is that they could be wrong, we could help them realize it, and then they could fix it...but that seems more unlikely IMO than getting a straight answer to a question about another topic. That being said, I know damn well we won't get a straight answer to the storagequestion (unless the answer is "we aren't changing it").
/shrug It's hard for me to get too excited about any of these iterative communication processes with the devs because they all seem to break down sooner or later (usually sooner).
StumanKadir wrote:
Bandola - are you sure of that? I have 2 static BER13 Miners which are sitting on the exact same resource % at the moment, and one definitely uses more power and maintenance than the other. Its not much of a difference but a definite difference does exist between the two.
Next chance I get I'll do a proper comparison and see if I can narrow this down some more (everything is tied up mining OQ1000 Talusian Water, OQ999 Inert Gas and OQ9xx Dolovite Iron).
It never rains, but it pours on Valcyn.
I am as sure as I can be, althought I don't harvest any of my own resources anymore I used to run a small set of mediums. I usually found a spot near my house where I could pull high concentrations of chems and gasses, I regularly put down a few gas and a couple of chems to keep stocks on reactive and lube oil. I always took them up to around 5k power and 5k maintenance and was always topping them up at the same time and with the same amount of power and maint, they never varied more than a couple of credits or power units. If that had been just the gas or just the chems then it could have just been that they were made in the same run so were identical, but the gas showed no difference to the chems. I suppose there is a slim chance that the % on gas and chems were the same, but that would be pure coincidence as they were made a long time apart. I surmise therefore that there is no difference in power and maint usage.
However, these were mediums, so it is not inconceivable that heavies work differently, although I cannot convince myself that a different model would have been used when coding this.