Bio Engineer Archive

*edit*

Last line, first paragraph above should read "not" a code mistake.

Benechi

i hate that word, it is bad design IMHO

First, as to the subject of the thread, they will eventually remove the ability of Bio Engineers to make these pets.

First they will fix the formula which I think is needed. Second they will nerf the pets. Like Sumo said, expect to see a lot of unhappy poor people whose CL7 pet has become CL27.

Try making $1M credits in a month as a BE prior to the patch. Now, you can make it in a week if not a day.

And you don't see this as a problem to the current economy/inflation that's running rampent in the game? No professions should be able to make 1 million credits a week.

Is it a bug?

Yes, it was most likely an error in logic on the part of the developer who designed the system. Either he missed something crutial which was developed by another person I.e. the creature developer, or his numbers were wrong. The problem stillpersists that we have Non Creatures handlers using creatures as a tank. Unfortunatly there are some Bio-Engineers in the game who care more about having 50 million credits then having proper game mechanics. And as we all can see, with the rampantly inflating economy, it is ruining the game.

You're right, if the devs come out and say it is an exploit I will be on the bandwagon

I just think we should wait until then to call everyone names and get excited.Like I said, my bh charachter with a rancor at novice ch back then, just enjoyed it until it was nerfed then deleted and forgot about it.

As a master ch if and when they say it is an exploit and a cheat and condemn it "officially",I will then refuse to train these pets for people and such, as I do not wish to exploit. As a BE itdoesn't matter to me as I mainly care about making level 50 and above pets for myself and other master ch's.

A nerf probably wouldn't hit any non-ch pets I have made too hard, if at all.

Does anyone think that making so we can't sample from be made pets would fix this?If we can't/shouldn't inbreed them way down in level ,why sample them.Maybe they should adjust the samples from clones so they only come out the same level as the original, so we can actually ,literally "clone",as in duplicate.Then you can only re-produce what you can do first gen, not lower the level.

On a side note, I think it is unfair of the devs even to call people cheater and exploiter when they admit their code is incomplete and that is what people have been "exploiting". They call their own errors bug.My instructor would fail them too. LOL

that would make BE really lame, its so cool the way you can like be all med scientist and get it down, i think its so cool, it would stink if u just cloned crap, i would then just be a CH and just tame crap.

I disagree with your attempt at semantics here Stuckey. But whatever you want to call it we're still talking the same thing and it's not what should exist.

Being a person who has programmed a lot in the past, I can empathize with the devs. Even small, seemingly easy bugs can be hard to track down. Just take a look at all the bugs and exploits and code not working as intended and whatever else you want to call it in Windows or Unix or any program out there on the market.

I do want to note that we may not have seen action on this because of the holiday season that just passed. This is afterall work for them and I doubt many of them were about at the end of the last month... perhaps not even after the last patch release. Several are probably just getting back to work now.

As to why I don't propogate the problem and sell these uber non-ch pets, just take a look at what they did to probots. They were uber ways of getting easy tanks. All you had to do was store them and they would be fully healed again. Now, they have laughable HAMs and can be completely destroyed.

My greatest fear now, because of these uber non-ch pets, they give us a system that is like or worse than the old one again. That probot change was many months ago and DEs still haven't recovered from it.

The DEVS at least need to comment on this bug.

Let us know if it is a bug, exploit or fine as is.

It wouldn't take 5 minutes for a DEV to make a post about this supposedly, HUGE problem.

I wish we could get a responce from either our corrispondant or a Dev on whether anyone at SOE is working on this. I think if it is a bug, there is enough data flying around the forums to raise a flag at SOE. Either way, I wish someone would say something to us so we could get back to trying to figureout how BE works instead of every other post asking whether it's a bug or not.

Al, we have had word from our corrispondant... Talth has said that Keld knows about the problem, says it is a problem, and is working on a fix.

Spectacular, thanks!

Scorus,

I didn't miss the point that the correspondent and the lead Dev consider it a bug. In response to the original question, I stated, pretty clearly I think, that I believethat the eventual outcome will to change the code so that BEs can no longer make these pets. I further hypothesized that changing this game mechanic would be low risk and relatively simple.

I also stand by my statement that changing every player-crafted creature pet in existence will be much more difficult than making sweeping changes to a class of creature (e.g., the Piket in my example).

What Sumorex pointed out, and you seem to be agreeing with, is that the Devs don't have to change the pets - they just have to change the logic by which pets are called thus rendering the "Uber-durnis" of the universe uncallable. I agree with you both that if they do in fact nerf these pets, this is how they will likely do it.

Lastly, anyone with apprentice level knowledge of SQL and a copy of the database schema could create a query that would return a list of all player-crafted pets that matched a certain profile- say for example CL < 11 and any HAM stat >3000. But, coming up with a balance scheme across the spectrum of creature levels from 1 to 70 and then implementing that to all the player-crafted pets in existence is not so easy. Especially if the database is large,complicated and in production.You don't just off executing update queries that affect tens of millions of records. This isn't Microsoft Access featuring the Jet query engine.

At the end of the day, I would like to see SOE and the dev team preserve the ability of the BE to make a good living with there creations. End of story.

---

Stuckey99 wrote:

However, if I write a program for my programming class,and I called something like that a bug I would fail the assignment.If I write lines of code and the instructor sees that the program is not doing what is intended or assigned, but IS doing what I told it to do, i.e. I got the assignment wrong,my instructor dislikesstudents who call their progaramming oversights "bugs".

---

Have to say Stuckey. The only thing then that would ever count as a bug would be a hardware bug then. Which means 99.9% of all bugs aren't. I think you instructor was trying to get students from distinguishing there mistakes from bugs in the compiler/interpreter/os. Please note however that bugs in the compiler/interpeter/os are just mistakes made by other programmers in the instructions they gave to the computer. In essense when the devs here make a coding mistake or fail to account for certain situation in there coding, then its a bug. What more one of my instructors had a wonderful dissertation to the effect that any program longer than 10 lines has at least one bug per 10 lines of code. Thats a lot of bugs.