Bio Engineer Archive

Well the 'Advanced Guide' is up again. Looks like some proofreading was done this time. None of the obvious typos from the original are there now.

Also this little disclamer at the start of Chapter 8:

I know there are many people who are looking for more insights into the inner workings of SWG's virtual genetics. The best known resource comes straight from a Bio-Engineer from our community. Kudos to Mirrl on both the method of experimentation and the results:

Basically I guess that means there wasn't any Dev time devoted to this 'guide' (as we all suspected). I'm curious about that since Q-3P0 stated the reason it took them so long to do this was because of the Dev time needed.

I guess its all pointless now anyway. Their 'promise' was fulfilled in their eyes, even though by any other standard nothing was delivered.

Zardo has hit the nail on the head I think.

There seems to be two schools on this, those that want BE to be some sort of mysticalvoodoo where even the basics are just guesses and then there are those that want it to be a science.

Those that want it as voodoo don't want to know the basic "laws" of the "universe and romanticise about the mysticism of it. Interestingly enough, one of the definitions on mysticism is "Obscure or irrational thought"...

Those that want it as a science want to know what the basic "laws" of the"universe" actually are. If you don't know how the basics are supposed to work, how can youadvance further?

To put it in the chess context, the "BE Mystics" don't want to know anything. They want to figure out how the pieces move and why there is a checker-board pattern and how the pieces move on that pattern. That way they can be the "Lord High Pontiff" of the BE "religion". Sure, that can be fulfilling, butthey aren't exactly operating at the edge of the envelope. BE under that system isa system of religious beliefs and rituals.

The "BE Scientist" wants to know what the moves are for the pieces andhow they interact with thechecker-board pattern. they want to know that so they can move on to develop higher level strategies without getting bogged down with "But if the 'horse thing' can make 'L' moves, why can't the 'castle thing'"?. A chemist is told/taught how/why chemical reactions take place, complete with detailed formula for the basics. They then move on todo their own work and make their own discoveries and expand the science further.

Set in the universe of Star Wars the only mystical thing is supposed to be "The Force", not Bio Engineering...

Message Edited by Albion_DeCrappa on 04-21-2004 01:15 PM

---

Albion_DeCrappa wrote:

Having the CL/HAM/Resists formula would allow everyone to make 100% pets with 0% effort.But what then?

*sadly shakes his head*

---

Actually we have the resists formulas, we know how to calculate them, we know how to work everything out except the most important part - the CL.

If a customer comes to me with a set of requirements for a pet I can with confidence say yes I can make a pet with those attributes.
Ofcourse then you factor in CL, I have no idea what this is going to come out as when i put a template in a skin, I can make an educated guess but sometimes for no reason that guess will be WAY off, or the slightest change can make a pet jump 5 levels, or losing loads from the template can only drop 2 cls
And for all the hard work the community has put into discovering these formulae - this is just something we cant seem to figure out because there seems to be no logic behind it at all.
Then you factor in validity checks added after pet creation and you have a lot of pissed off BE's.
We're not asking for the moon on a stick, but a nudge in the right direction would be a start.
The ONLY reason we want to know how they calcualte CL is because its so damn frustrating, since we cant see it on the template as we experiment.

And for all the hard work the community has put into discovering these formulae - this is just something we cant seem to figure out because there seems to be no logic behind it at all.

Trust me, if it's done in a computer there has to be logic.

Then you factor in validity checks added after pet creation and you have a lot of pissed off BE's.
We're not asking for the moon on a stick, but a nudge in the right direction would be a start.

Ok, this is a ligitimate request. How about this. Instead of asking for a guide, which is whatyou got.Howabout a BOLD post a day. Every day someone makesthis post.

"HEY THUNDERHEART, HOW ABOUT TELLING US WHAT MAKES A PET INVALID?" It's ligitimate, constructive, doesn't break any rules. Why no try it?

Remember the movie Shawshank Redemption? Send them a letter a day, after a while they will get sick of ignoring you and give you what you want just to shut you up. But my guess is that if they started banning people from the forums for it most of you would pull a Peter.

Message Edited by Albion_DeCrappa on 04-21-2004 02:06 PM

---

Albion_DeCrappa wrote:

Of course you've missed the point of what a lot of us want. We don't want the exact formula. What we do want to know is what makes a valid pet valid for its CL and what makes a pet (crafted with their crafting system) now invalid in their world?

I do agree, they need to fix the invalidity of pets, but not withthe bandaid of telling us what is valid and what is not. They need to fix the code so that we cannot clone invalid pets. Yes I agree with you all on that respect. But to be honest I think telling us what is valid and what is not would give away to much of the current system and make BE a cookie cutter profession. And that is what I don't want. I would rather not sell Pets because of the chance of invalidity then be told the "laws of the universe" like someone else had said.

But, about CL10 pets... they tell us that we can make pets better then their wild versions. Let's define the word better. Is $1,001 better then $1,000? Ok, now that we have that settled. Standard CL10 pets (If you check them out at swgcreatures.com) are around 900/900/900 Ham, 0 Resists, 40-50 damage, no Special attacks or Ranged. Would a pet that has 1200/1200/1200HAM, 0 resists, 50-60 damage, no special attacks or ranged be better then the standard wild creature? Of course it would. The problem is that the standard BEs version of "better then wild" is 12000/12000/12000 HAM, 60% kinetic, Dizzy, Knockdown, with ranged Poison or even 3000/3000/3000HAM, 20% Kinetic, Intimidate with no ranged. Of freaking course those are going to be invalid. But you might be able to make a pet that is 3000/3000/3000HAM as long as Resists are all vulnerable, damage is 10-20, with no specials or ranged. That in my opinion would be a good CL10 pet.

This is the general rule of thumb that I use when making a CL10 pet (and I think TH and the devs would back this)

If any non-Creature Handler can use any BEd pet to tank then the pet is invalid. Tank = (healing recieved* T) / (damage taken * T) > 1. (T = time)

I bet if you follow that general rule you will never get a BEd pet at CL10 that is invalid.

In my opinion, all non-CH pets should be cannon fodder. I.E. something that you would send at an attacker when you are about to die so that you can have a little get away time. I have one of these that I set on guard while taking DNA samples. That way if a creature aggros me Ihave time torun to my bike and get away. I can worry about storing and healing my cannon fodder later.

Anyway, I am done.

---

---

Albion_DeCrappa wrote:

Ok, this is a ligitimate request. How about this. Instead of asking for a guide, which is what we got.Howabout a BOLD post a day. Every day someone makesthis post.

"HEY THUNDERHEART, HOW ABOUT TELLING US WHAT MAKES A PET INVALID?" It's ligitimate, constructive, doesn't break any rules. Why no try it?

Remember the movie Shawshank Redemption? Send them a letter a day, after a while they will get sick of ignoring you and give you what you want just to shut you up. But my guess is that if they started banning people from the forums for it most of you would pull a Peter.

---

http://www.station.sony.com/en/services/help/procedures.jsp

---

Albion_DeCrappa wrote:

Trust me, if it's done in a computer there has to be logic.

Message Edited by Albion_DeCrappa on 04-21-2004 02:06 PM

---

---

Craigins wrote:

---

Albion_DeCrappa wrote:

Trust me, if it's done in a computer there has to be logic.

Message Edited by Albion_DeCrappa on 04-21-2004 02:06 PM

---

please figure out the logic behind the rand(); function and predict future results.

---

Sorry.../geekmode off

Message Edited by Kevm on 04-21-2004 10:23 PM

I think the calculations were done by sumorex but mirrl actually wrote the guide.
The other guys are mentioned at the end of the article.
As for the 'new' disclaimer - that was always there.