Architect Archive
Thread: Crafting Station +43 made
If any of you who are creating these high quality crafting stations are on the Kettemoor sever, please give me a tell in the game. I will gladly pay your price to get a couple of these for my guys.I am impressed that you have taken the time to find all of these high quality resources and put these things together. I just couldn't have nor will I, so I am willing to pay others who are apparantly enjoying doing this. Well done! Email outside of SWG: [email protected].
You know, I really believe these high level stations do not make a difference.
I am using the same station I have since day one. The ones I made that experiemented to 96%effectiveness with 960 conductivity copper with none of the optional items added. My tools also are 13+ with the same copper.
Now, when I got to furniture 4, I noticed a big difference in my crits. I don't crit very often now. I might get a crit out of 20+ structure modules.
Furniture 4 had more of an impact than anything. I have stood at some of these so called better stations planted in houses with public access and have stood at mine and have stood at the public ones by the Starport and it is all the same.
I don't know ifthis is something they plan on implementing in the future but for now, I get the same results since making Furniture 4, no matter what station I use.
This has been my experience...
Better stations do not reduce critical failures (for me). However, as has been said numerous times, I get a LOT more amazing and greats. the only things I don't get amazing and greats on are architecture stuff (except the crafting stations). But every other item I make, from artisan weapons, food, clothes, etc...I get better success rates when i'm near a better station.
Again, I would LOVE to hear an official response to our questions on this.
Fuss, I think you are right.. I mixed a 86 with an 83 last night (mss) and got a BETTER station and the difference was the first one had 2 95% controls and 2 86% mss's, the second had 2 96% controls but a 86% and an 83% mss, and got almost .3 higher. The second should have been about .1 worse..
The experimentation for both Droid SC and Crafting Stations is ARTISAN. Nice, huh?
Tubal_Cain wrote:
Question: I'm Master Artisan and working my way to Master Architect (just need Construction Tech 1-4). If I get Novice Droid Engineer, will I be able to experiment on the Droid Storage Compartments to make these uber crafting stations?
The reason I'm confused (among other reasons) is that I get 11 experimentation points when I make the crafting stations even though I get 1 experimentation point on other architect items. So if I train novice Droid Eng, will I get 11 experimentation points or 1?
Perpetual_Dark wrote:
Here is the one thing I found that is interesting. The micro sensor suite does not require good components, but is instead totally dependent on the resources used. Keep in mind that the resources need OQ and conductivity. I used some copper that I had from a long time ago that was ~950 oq and ~890 cond. The inert I used was 986 OQ and the steel was 986 oq with like 670 cond. The lgo was 986 oq. The problem is the steel, and I am assuming the resources that dont have conductivty ratings it is 100% OQ, but it is entirely possible that the 33% cond required for these components will cap the total capable effectiveness for the micro sensor suite.
When a material does not have a listed statistic it is not included in that calculation. To prove this, make a station using 450 of any kind of metal, then make a station using 400 of the same metal and 50 radioactive (whic has no conductivity at all). You will get exactly the same Experimental Effectiveness% and Functionality Rating for both stations.
I tried making one with all 96% components and then I made one with unexperimented gp modules, 88% control units, and 96% energy dist, and got the same result using the good copper I had.
The Experimental Effectiveness% on the Micro SS does not change depending upon the quality of the Subcomponents used within it, it is based solely upon the raw materials used in it's combine.
Then again, the same is true for the crafting stations, the quality of the components/subcomponents do not affect the Experimental Effectiveness% of the final assmebly, only the CD of the metal used does. BUT the components/subcomponents do affect the Functionality Rating of the final station asesembly. A hidden modifier is carried through the equation.
So my question is this: I don't doubt for an instant that the SS Experimental Effectiveness% was identical on both of the above examples, but when you made a crafting station using a set of each types of the above SS's was the Functionality Rating also identical. I haven't actually tested this particular component yet but I have others and I think the answer will be they have different FR.
I will have to find a DE to make me some good dsc's and see what kind of difference it makes.. I notice no difference as far as my crafting goes, but my partner is a master armorsmith and was seeing a 1% difference in the experimental effectiveness of composite armor with a 36+ station vs a 4+ station..
That is great news. Could you get more documented statements like that? Or confirm this one as being 100% correct?
Fuss, I think you are right.. I mixed a 86 with an 83 last night (mss) and got a BETTER station and the difference was the first one had 2 95% controls and 2 86% mss's, the second had 2 96% controls but a 86% and an 83% mss, and got almost .3 higher. The second should have been about .1 worse..
Now this is a very interesting developement and does confirm Fuss's statement before. Wasn't a fluke it seems.
Yea the subcomponents of the SS defintly increase the total value of the Station. I already tested this once by making a station out of SS's built from the same raw materials, but High Quality subcomponents and another built with the same SS raw materials but Low Quality subcomponents. You defintly get a much better station in the first example.
As far as the better station from mismatching components. I didnt get a better station, I got the same station as I would have if I used 2 of the subcomponents instead of mismatching 1 good one with 1 bad one.
Fuss
my best so far is a 40.873 armor station. My microsensors were only 86% and that's why brought me down from the maximum of 50 (yes 50, not 45)
The problem is, and has always been, getting metal with high conducitivy AND high overall quality.
If anyone ever finds metal with both of these stats over 900, hoard it, it will help you make a +50 station.
Fuss wrote:
As far as the better station from mismatching components. I didnt get a better station, I got the same station as I would have if I used 2 of the subcomponents instead of mismatching 1 good one with 1 bad one.
Yep, I understood that to be the case. Sorry if you thought I thought that you said something different. 
I have actually surrendered novice DE and master artisan today so i can't do some experiments I would now like to, I dont suppose someone could help me out?
I would like to see three stations made all with the same materials in the final assembly: one with no optionals at all; one with a Droid SC only; one with a Control Unit only.
If anyone could do this and report back with the (1)Functionality Ratings of the 3 different stations, (2) the conductivity of the metal used in the final assembly (has to be the same in all 3 cases), (3) the Experimental Effectiveness% of the Control Unit and (4) the Experimental Effectiveness% of the Droid SC.
I have a good working model of how FR is calculated but need some more data to see if it fits. If anyone wanted to also do one with the same base metal in the final assembly but with only a Sensor Suite also then it would help too. The experiment with the SS would require the Experimental Effectiveness% of the SS and the Experimental Effectiveness% of the subcomponents within it too.
Some comments.
If you make a station with mismatched components, the game only looks at the first one you dropped into the slot. So you can drop an 86% MSS and then a 0% MSS, and the functionality rating of the crafting station be no different than if you used two 86% MSS's. Same for the other components.
If you make a schematic with mismatched components, the factory ignores any serial numbers for churning out products. Say you make a station schem with 998CD Copper, a 98% and 0% CU, and 86% (98% CU, 98% GP, 99% ED)and 0% MSS, and one 96% DSC and 4random other DSC's. Withall greatsexperimentation, this station schem comes out to 42.61. You then put the station into a factory, load up 450 of 998CD copper, and two 48% CU's, two 60% MSS's, and 5 84% DSC's. Fire that mother up...and you get a station with 42.61 functionality rating. Using not a single good component in the construction of the actual station. Yes in the schem, but not the station.
Sound goofy? I think so too. But I did this as a test. It came out with the same rating as both the hand crafted stationI made with all top parts, the factory made ones with all top parts, the hand made one with mixed parts, and the factory made one with mixed parts.
Not sure if there is some hidden rating that is actually affected by this.I am hanging on to theaformentioned "goofy" station to test them with a high sample size of some oddball product. When I have time to do 3000 combines. But making products intended for sale using this loophole would border on exploiting. In my opinion of course. It is nice that you could make something like walls using this, so as to avoid being stuck at 99 of them...for those that are lucky enough to have the ore for 1000 walls. But quality of wall means nearly nothing, therefore quality of SMs means even less. But for a product like Crafting Stations, where price is totally dependant on rating, a way to fudge the rating is wrong. In this case, fudging the rating by using sub-par components in a schematic for factory use, a hand-made one, or in the factoryrun.
Oh, on the subject of rating formula, my theory....the base resources add up to 15 and each slot adds up to 10 to the rating, only dependent on the first item in that slot. Total possible is 45. Figuring by subtraction on my stations as listed above. -.03 for the copper, -0.2 for the CU, -0.4 for the DSC, -1.4 for the MSS, (and -0.2 for the GPM, -0.2 forthe CU, -0.1 for the ED used in the MSS). Total loss of 2.53, Actual loss was 2.39. We know the game truncates the experimental values, otherwise the 998CD copper would translate to 100% experimental effectiveness when creating the station. Truncation would more than explain the 0.14 difference between this theoretical value and the observed rating. The variance is less than 1/10th of the loss due to one component.
It is also possible that the component slots are weighted differently, based on the number of resources required to fill it, just like the raw resource slots. Meaning the the MSS and the DSC qualities are much more important than the CU's. The game would have to figure the weight of each slot, then multiply each slots weight by its quality, sum those values, calculate the value this adds to the item's functionality rating, then add that to the value gained from experimental effectiveness. I just think they would have coded it as a straight value for each slot. Easier that way, andless processing hit on the server.
Enough out of me.
so tweaky lemme get this straight.. you are saying you can make a great station schematic (lets say 40+) then you load the schematic into the factory but use lesser parts and the factory spits out the 40+ stations anyways?
I already had figured out that it only cares about the rating of the first subcomponent and not the others, but thats really crazy if the factory works that way.
The more stupid little bugs like this I read about, the more it makes me wonder if the programming team is actually a couple guys sitting around hodge-podging this together. I mean, I cannot think of one feature of the game that works thoroughly and completely.
It seems that the hidden values of materials are affecting pretty much everything, but when they finally show us some of these numbers on the final products, we learn that the numbers they get to are so badly botched that you can get around them at least 2 different ways..
But like the MSS, where you can use any grade of subcomponents to get the same results in percentage, the actual final hidden result on factory made stations will most likely screw you up in the end. Of course, who is to know.. Even if they were crappy stations that showed a high percentage, nobody has been able to pin down exactly the effects of a 43 station over a 13 station.. There is a lot of speculation, but no definative proof.
The only thing I have seen as proof, I have not verified, or even tested. My partner made a composite chest with her old station, then made one with a 36+ station I made. She got a 1% higher starting point with the new one. Of course, she may have mistakenly clicked the wrong resource in the first one. I will try to test this sometime. If I can show a definative difference in crafting results, then I can take a "good" station made from bad parts and test the two against each other. Until then, I am resigned to thinking that it is all bugged, and I wont trust a good station from bad parts in a factory.
Yuhjn wrote:
my best so far is a 40.873 armor station. My microsensors were only 86% and that's why brought me down from the maximum of 50 (yes 50, not 45)
The problem is, and has always been, getting metal with high conducitivy AND high overall quality.
If anyone ever finds metal with both of these stats over 900, hoard it, it will help you make a +50 station.
I had some copper with something like 890 oq and 910 cond. I was using it in mss's but I only had like 80 of it.. The steel is the killer here.. it is required, and the best I have is 986 oq with like a 610 cond. Find a steel with cond over 900 and oq around 980 and you will be making 95% mss's easy. With a 95% mss and 99% everything else, you will see if acheiving over 45 is possible. The hidden value in the mss is always going to be lower than the theoretical limit because the 3 subcomponents can only get to 99% thanks to rounding. that means 97% for the subcomponent contribution and finding a 990+ for both oq and cond in one steel is not gonna happen. So even if the +50 is theoretically possible, I dont think it will be possible to do it. However if 50 is the limit, I think eventually someone will prove it by breaking +45 with a really good mss.