Architect Archive

The new values ARE going away... when you redeed something on TC right now, the deed reverts to the REGULAR, unexperimented numbers.

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=architect&message.id=26900&view=by_date_ascending&page=3

Oh no dont take experimentation away....its breathed new life into the profession.

Ok the fusions are silly and some fun to be had with some older hopper sizes...but please dont take away the thing that helps to make being a master worth it !

Bob'the Builder

One last quality to look at is the mallebility of a resource. The high the mallebility, the less critical failures you get on the combine AND during experimentation.

Here is a quick test to run to check this for yourself. Use a material with high unit toughness and low mallebility and check what the experimentation risk is. Then use a material with high unit toughness and high mallebility and again check what the experimentation risk is. It makes a huge difference in the risk. Anywhere from 7% risk on 1 point versus 1% risk on3 points of experimentation.

---

NinjasLovePirates wrote:

---

Wargfang wrote:

In the solar there is a need for chemical, some chemicals dont have a toughness. Do they count as ZERO towards the construction.

For example and remembering the combine is DR33, UT66 I have on hand some

• AFOD (DR 985..mmm nice) but it has no UT attribute.
• I also have some IOPFED with a (UT of 945 and a low DR of 331)

Which is best to use....I guess the affod would max out around 65% sand the IOP at ?70%? pre experiment?

---

If you use a material that doesn't have a stat that affects the product (chems w/o a UT), then they don't average into the rest of your materials.

So, if UT is 66% of extract rate, and DR is 33% of the rate, then here's how it would work (if steel and chem only mattered).

Chem: UT 300, DR 900... Steel UT 900, DR 900
your average would be UT 600, DR 900

Chem UT --, DR 600... Steel UT 900, DR 900
your average would be UT 900, DR 750

ex 1. 396 + 297 = 693
ex 2. 594 + 247.5 = 841.5

So you see, the 'lesser quality' chem in example two yields higher results simply because it doesn't have a UT.

---

Are you sure of this? Where is your information coming from? When I did final assembly using a chemical with no UT, the hoppers ended up badly nerfed. When I used a polymer with good UT and good decay resistance, I was getting great hoppers. My evidence is that what you say above is wrong, so I need to know where you're getting this from.