Bio Engineer Archive
Thread: Adv. Guide to BEs: Shame on SoE
Page 4 of 4
Kevm
Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:55 am
#40
Ahh thanks. I guess I missed it the first time I looked at it.
NancyJ wrote:
As for the 'new' disclaimer - that was always there.
billy128
Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:09 am
#41
Albion_DeCrappaive only read your first few posts on this thread , its obvious you know absolutely nothing about how SOE work .
GotharMarath
Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:31 am
#42
Actually the BE community has been very patient in waiting for this guide, mostly because we hoped it would help us along the route of making valid, callable pets. It isa great noob guide, but it doesn't bring us any closer to knowing what is valid in a pet or not, which I think is what most of us feel we were going to get.
I personally have made a 4000/3000/1800 HAM CL10 pet with 18% Kinetic 75 Dmg with Intimidate and it was deemed invalid 7 days after the person trained it, and was not callable from that point on without a stat or class change. I have also made several 11000/8000/4000 HAM CL10 with 60% Kinetic 45% Blast Cripple/Dizzy with 160 Damage that I can still call 3 weeks after I made them. Is this balanced? Should this be the case? What was the reason that pansy one was made invalid, but these uber non-CH tanks I make are still kicking butt?
Yeah, I know, I know, "We need to police ourselves Gothar. You shouldn't even be making something so out of line with the system. You will throw the universe out of balance." Well good! I don't feel like the universe is particularly balanced anyway. The pansy one I tried to make within reason gave me an angry customer and more work and frustration. My Ubers work every time. I sell them for 150K and always give a disclaimer about SWG nerfs, but people don't care. If SWG actually starts to worry about balance, they will probably nerf these and still not give us the parameters of what is valid, but until then I don't care.
I have asked several times on the round table, in these forums, and anywhere else I felt appropriate that we get some guidance on this issue or get it fixed. If neither are important enough for SWG to do, then they really aren't too worried about us as a class. If they feel the need to spend more time on jedi, fine, just remove the pet checks and deal with the "inbalances" until you can fix us or give us guidance.
I am really tired of using my Eyes of Mesra to determine whether I have created a valid pet or not. I do have a couple of those on my vendor for 100K if you want to try it though 
Craigins
Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:16 am
#43
Kevm wrote:
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.
Actually, the random function does not return a truly random number. It usually uses the contentents of the state buffer to seed a non-linear feedback equation. Since the state buffer is in constant flux, the formula has a very long period (the amount of calls it takes before it will return the same number). But, if you know the equation and the state of the seed (in this case the state buffer) you can predict the result.
Sorry.../geekmode off
Message Edited by Kevm on 04-21-2004 10:23 PM
yes I know how the rand() function works. But when you can predict the values of it, please tell me and we will go to vegas and play some video poker.
its just like predicting the CL value(not really but sort of )
BM-Lion
Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:41 am
#44
They could always make life easier for themselves by doing a Stat validation check on final pet creation. Adjust the CL level up to "Thier standards" without asking, since we dont know what th CL level will be, we'd never be the wiser. Or even give the option to cap it at CL10 and let the system lower all the stats to keep it within that limit. They still wouldnt have to part with the formulas, and we get what we need.. a pet deed that has the CL level that wont become invalid after taming.
Agissar
Agissar
BM-Lion
Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:45 am
#45
Craigins PM
yes I know how the rand() function works. But when you can predict the values of it, please tell me and we will go to vegas and play some video poker.
its just like predicting the CL value(not really but sort of )
Predicting the outcome of Rand() isnt hard when you set the seed value manually. It will ALWAYS be the same.
Agissar
Does it strike you as odd that so many BEs are either good at math or know programming if not both?
MajorNME
Sat May 08, 2004 4:59 am
#46
BM-Lion wrote:
Craigins PMyes I know how the rand() function works. But when you can predict the values of it, please tell me and we will go to vegas and play some video poker.
its just like predicting the CL value(not really but sort of
Predicting the outcome of Rand() isnt hard when you set the seed value manually. It will ALWAYS be the same.
Agissar
Does it strike you as odd that so many BEs are either good at math or know programming if not both?
and how exactly does this help?
Do you say you can predict the seed?
in reality there's no way to know the seed and even the programmer itself
cannot predict the outcome of a rnd() function, because the seed is usually an equation involving ticks since last boot, current datetime and probably another Randomize().
Ixtli
Sun May 09, 2004 9:16 pm
#47
Albion_DeCrappa wrote:
SoE didn't put the least amount of effort in the so called "Advanced Guide for Bio-Engineers".
In other words "there's your guide, now shut up".
What the hell else did you want... all the programming code that's behind BE cloning? Are you honestly stupid enough to have assumed that the Adv. BE Guild was going to contain any more information then it did? Honestly, whatDID you expect?
Message Edited by Albion_DeCrappa on 04-19-2004 12:58 PM
I personaly would have loved to see the code. 
Nothing personal, but sometimes I have dreams of how it was put together. Guess it must be the rouge developer in me.
{You know those bubbles you catch inside your head someties, yeah... I'm tracking them down as we speak}
Devero
Mon May 10, 2004 5:40 am
#48
The only thing that bothers me about the Advanced BE Guide is that Thunderhart signed it, thereby taking credit for co-authoring it.
Did he, or didn't he co-author it? if not, then he should remove his name from the credits.
If he did.. then kudoz to TH.
Page 4 of 4