Chef Archive

Thread: Chef patch notes....

sciguyCO
Tue May 10, 2005 9:20 am
#1


I came across these in today's patch notes, figured they could use some exposure:


  • Double xp has been turned off (except for Chimaera).

  • non-combat profs eligible for respec. {ahem} I said non-combat profs eligible for respec.

  • Adjustment to resource stat calculation


    • Note: this mainly affects resources with narrow min/max stat caps. I'm not sure yet how big of an impact it'll have on food, since flora/meat either aren't capped, or they're pretty high.

  • Food/drink components moved into "component" category. So if you're not seeing "alcohol" underneath "accaragm", scroll up.

  • Eat/drink options removed from food components. The "craft soypro and eat it" grind method stopped being viable after CU went live, but now at least it doesn't look like you should be able to eat it.

Message Edited by sciguyCO on 05-10-2005 10:21 AM





Kriles Ch'artoff , Chilastra server
Master Chef (retired)
Currently doing....stuff
Pheerce
Tue May 10, 2005 10:52 am
#2

> # Adjustment to resource stat calculation
>
> * Note: this mainly affects resources with narrow min/max stat caps. I'm not sure yet how big of an impact it'll
> have on food, since flora/meat either aren't capped, or they're pretty high.

At first glance, I wondered if this would affect our Garrmorl stats... but I guess not?



----------------------
Pheerce Graype
Master Chef 4/4/4/4
- Master Pistoleer 4/4/4/4
- Novice Merchant 3/0/1/2
sciguyCO
Tue May 10, 2005 11:07 am
#3






Pheerce wrote:
> # Adjustment to resource stat calculation
>
> * Note: this mainly affects resources with narrow min/max stat caps. I'm not sure yet how big of an impact it'll
> have on food, since flora/meat either aren't capped, or they're pretty high.

At first glance, I wondered if this would affect our Garrmorl stats... but I guess not?




That's.....an interesting possibility I hadn't thought of.


I don't think it'll work like that, though. There was a crafting change along with the CU where stat caps were taken into account when calculating the "quality" of the resource. If a resource's stats were in the range of 250 - 750, a 600 would count as (600 - 250 ) / (750 - 250) = 70%. Prior to the change, the crafting calculations used 1000 as the "max point" for all resources, regardless of their stat caps, so that 600 used to be 60%. With today's change, they now ignore the minimum value, so a 600 would count as 600 / 750 = 80%.


Unless I was testing before they put in the first change, Garrmorl's max Nutrition/Flavor experimental percentage was equal to 33% of the OQ of the bone/hide used. However, I will try playing with it tonight to see whether my assumption is true.






Kriles Ch'artoff , Chilastra server
Master Chef (retired)
Currently doing....stuff
sciguyCO
Tue May 10, 2005 5:22 pm
#4

Just tested Garrmorl: and no, this change didn't affect it's capped experimentation.





Kriles Ch'artoff , Chilastra server
Master Chef (retired)
Currently doing....stuff
Cafa
Thu May 12, 2005 2:21 pm
#5

Wild rice may actually be worth something now...! WooT!



- Strength In Numbers - Loyal Subjects of the Empire
Asia Brothers Industries - Asia Hall SiN CiTY, Dantooine (Offers Vendor at -4703 -1404)
A player bodyguard can't protect you either, something agroes you, you are dead. The
only difference between a pet and the person, is you pay the person to stand there
and watch you die. -- Straker Atrella

jadeew
Fri May 13, 2005 7:51 am
#6






Cafa wrote:
Wild rice may actually be worth something now...! WooT!





Buyout, please offer to the wp in the sig



APEX Foods
400 -5555 South of Coronet
Aelea Laree ~ Head Chef

Pocketpool
Sat May 14, 2005 1:55 am
#7

hmm, just a thought does this mean that a resource with all low stats has as much potential as one with all high stats because of the low differential? In other words do they take the highest stat that a particular resource has and then compare it in range with the lowest stat that the resource has or is there just a maximum stat for a given resource group that they are reffering to that is not necessarily 1000?
Page 1 of 1
Previous Next