Development Cycle Archive
Thread: Publish 7 Feedback: Crafting System Enhancements
As a Master Bio-Engineer I can say that the new crafting system should be further tested before implementing again. As a Master BE, I can say that the creatures I put togetherwere absolutely horrible...stinky...really bad.There are 5 areas that a BE can put experimentation points into in order bring the level of the DNA back up to previous "normal" level of the creature sampled. This clearly did not happen as one would quickly run out of points after experimenting in just a couple of the areas concerned. One other thing I noticed was the enormous critical failure ratewhen doing initial DNA template combine. Using the "VHQ-Very high quality " DNA, I incurred an abnormal amount of failure 1 in 3.25 to be exact....that's a bit much for a Master.
In conclusion, I would welcome back the crafting system provided it is extensively tested for "ALL" professions and not just the few or majority. 
Also, I deeply apologize to all the professions that expereinced great success. You realize that this new crafting sytem needs to be even across the board for everyone. Thanks for your understanding. 
Bendi_James wrote:
As a Master Bio-Engineer I can say that the new crafting system should be further tested before implementing again. As a Master BE, I can say that the creatures I put togetherwere absolutely horrible...stinky...really bad.There are 5 areas that a BE can put experimentation points into in order bring the level of the DNA back up to previous "normal" level of the creature sampled. This clearly did not happen as one would quickly run out of points after experimenting in just a couple of the areas concerned. One other thing I noticed was the enormous critical failure ratewhen doing initial DNA template combine. Using the "VHQ-Very high quality " DNA, I incurred an abnormal amount of failure 1 in 3.25 to be exact....that's a bit much for a Master.
In conclusion, I would welcome back the crafting system provided it is extensively tested for "ALL" professions and not just the few or majority.
Here's an idea...
Lets improve the forum situation, Sony. Thunderheart, your job is to improve community relations, here's your chance. On the forums devoted to the development process, when posting the message for feedback on a proposed or completed change, include the following poll:
A) This would hurt the game alot
B) This would hurt the game somewhat
C) This wouldn't impact the game much at all
D) Ths would improve the game somewhat
E) This would improve the game alot
Assign A-2 points, B -1 point, C0 points, D1 point and E2 points. If the combined score is really high, then the idea is probably worth pursuing. If the score is really low, then the players are going to complain and you probably want to try something else.
Developers can play to be the one who gets the high score in the forums, and the game can improve a lot.
In this case, you have to understand there are different levels of risk and reward across the professions. When an architect clicks combine and gets a critical failure, they lose a lot more time, resources and credits than when a weaponsmith clicks combine and gets a failure. For a weaponsmith, the risk is usually negligible unless there are mob drops or rare components involved, while for an architect there is a very real risk involved in terms of how long it will take to get the materials back, if the materials are even still in cycle and available.
There is a lot of a difference between those two classes and how they are going to respond when you change critical failures. A weaponsmith cannot produce a sellable item until master right now, and gets almost no experience per combine. Unless you change things so that they can make sellable items or improve the xp gain rate, increasing their chance of a critical failure is going to cause a huge backlash, because it is a horrible, miserable climb to where you can produce items.
Meanwhile, you have more people making that climb to master than you have at master, and the people who have stockpiles of high end materials, who are currently the only ones who can craft specific items are going to backlash if you make it easier for others to produce similar items, regardless of the risk involved. And once someone can make the competetive item, they'll be able to make it in huge quantities, too, especially if the material requirements aren't as rough as they are now.
Your change did both of these things, and so you got a backlash. It's because you aren't in touch with the community and what their needs and expectations are.
By the way, how would you like to have to earn 800,000 experience points by crafting a 100xp item over and over again, 8,000 times in total? I'm betting that you wouldn't be very happy with having to do that for no gain at all in game terms until you were finished. That's how every one of the crafting classes is, more or less, but weaponsmith and chef, in particular, are horrible climbs. Architect you can conceivably recover some percentage of your investment in while skilling up, and the same thing goes for tailor. Most of the other trees don't provide any source of revenue until master.
Architects, also, in addition to being the ones who the critical failures hit the hardest, have the added bonus of having no repeat business since the introduction of redeeding harvesters. Buildings, factories and harvesters never "wear out" anymore, so in addition to suffering the most from the critical failures, they are sufferring the most from other changes you have made as well.
With the same crafting tool, station, resources, and skill enhancements, I made Advanced Biological Effect Controllers (ABEC) and Advance Liquid Suspensions (ALS) on March 16 and March 17 (the 1 day the changes were in effect). The assembly and experiment rolls were all great successes.
Wheat, Ydin PE570 OQ855 and fiberplast, Ploeka OQ786 UT818:
Mar 16 ABEC: power 13 charges 20
Mar 17 ABEC: power 9 charges 20
Berries, Asce PE661 OQ958 and water, Snechosrad OQ987:
Mar 16 ALS: power 175
Mar 17 ALS: power 171
ABECs, with two lines of experimentation, obviously suffered more, but even the single experimentation ALS--which supposedly should have turned out better--didn't do as well. I'll also note that on Mar 16 I maxed the ALS using 9 experiment points, leaving 1 left over; whereas, on Mar 17, it took all 10 points to achieve 171--there was one more potential box there for experimentation, but alas I only have +5 to med experimentation.
FYI to the non-medics, ABECs are sub-components used in every medicine that people care about: stims, buffs, and wound packs. So I ask all the single line experimentation crafters who were pleased with the change to please look up from your crafting stations and consider the wider implications of the changes.
I'm delighted the devs listened to the community and reverted the changes. I hope that communication continues to improve and issues such as this will better discussed when in concept.
--------------------
Pirotess al'Khairan
Master Doctor, Scylla
On a very superficial level I've not found any problems with the system. I've had some crit failures - but then I expect that. One was in a Deed construction and the other was a food item.
Naufragus wrote:
jasski_vaarl wrote:The newbie crater will never be able to compete, unless there happens to be a magic spawn of everything they needed that was better then the previous 6 months. Not going to happen...
actaully i am a master and i cant compete now....My steel is like 10 or so points away from getting a 14 BER harvestor...my 950 UT steel needs to be 970...too bad i have like a million units of it...
now basically the 50+ harvestors i made last month are now just junk....all any one is going to want is a 14....sure i can make them but it will be at the whim of the resource spawns..may tommorrow may be next week, maybe 3 months from now
I have been seeing this concern voiced many times during this thread. However on Kettemoor where I live there does not seem to be a problem. I have been looking for any BER14 harvesters with no success. My customers still buy BER13s (and even BER10's) so Architects still have a market. As for my personal fleet I already have a full set of BER 13's so I have no reason to buy anything for myself other that BER 14's which I can't find at any price.
-Indene-
Wow, still taking commentary? I'm shocked!
How about a summary of experimentation from the devs perspective?
How about an explanation of the true role crafting tool and station ratings play in crafting?
How about proposing methodologies for improving experimentation for crafters besides skill tapes and the like?
Fivo Asia
Carissima wrote:It's working really well.
The system was backed out (if you did not read the entire message) the day after it was put in. It has not yet been turned back on.
Here is how the existing system works.
At 0 in all stats an item needs, you get a 0% item that cannot be experimented. At 1000 in all stats, you get a 30% base in every bar that can be experimented, and the experiments cap at 100%. It is a linear scale between these points. On items where more than one stat is needed, you average the stat from all resources involved in the construction that have the stat and then multiply by the percentage and add it. This gives you the 0 to 1000 value.
I'm not sure how the new system actually functioned.
Sony maintains there is a 5% chance of a critical failure on an experiment. This appears to be incorrect. In general, I can craft 100 items to 150 items without any critical failures with the existing (old) system. When a critical failure occurs, it almost always occurs as a cluster. Incidently, critical successes also occur as a cluster in the current system. You almost never see single successes or failures.
Based on Sony's assertion, if I experiment one box at a time, I should see a critical failure experimentation once every other item. In fact, I will see a critical failure on experimentation on approximately every 50th to 75th item. Based on Sony's assertion, this isn't based on the complexity of the item nor the skill. However, on an instrument assembly, there is a marked and statistically measurable difference with the existing (old) system. On this tree, because entertainer is not finished out, I don't have the maximum possible assembly, and I have no SEA.
The incidents of critical failures occur as frequently if I do single boxes of experimentation as if I fill the full bar at once. However, on many items, with the existing system, it is possible to exceed the experimentation limit by filling the entire bar at once. On other items, filling the entire bar at once is a bad idea because it increases the risk of an item that isn't perfect being produced, but it doesn't improve the finished item at all.
Each experiment can add between 0% and 10% to the bar. The system generates a value and rounds up. On some items, risking multiple experiment points at once greatly improves the odds of getting a maximum item. On other items, risking only one point at a time is a better strategy, because risking multiple points doesn't offer any bonus. For example, an advanced rifle stock experimented one point at a time will have a lower damage than one that is experimented the full bar at once, but a 2H Curved Sword will have the same stats either way, and you're more likely to get a higher percentage by doing a single box of experiment at a time.
The big issue here is that the risk for experimenting is almost nonexistant. Lets say that I'm trying to make T21's, for example. What I'm going to do is experiment to make a single advanced blaster power handler. These will then be massproduced, most likely 1000 at a time if I have the materials for it, from a factory, and all will be exactly identical to the single handler that I took the risk with. I can fail a lot making the schematic, but once the single perfect item is created, I'll get 1000 of them.
In most cases, I will be able to make 99 identical T21's from the factory, each at no risk, once I succeed in a single experiment. One trick here is that you make the ABPH schematic, you make 10 each from several ABPH schematics, and then once you get a max experimented T21, you'll always be able to make 99 of them identical to it (because you can make a factory run of whichever ABPH schematic works).
This is the issue with the current crafting system. The people who can make 80% or 90% T21's can make huge numbers of them with no risk at all. They have huge stockpiles of materials, and can produce hundreds of thousands at a time.
The featherweight FWG5 and similar schematics have this same problem. Allowing the single component to make the schematic, and using the same techniques, you can get 4995 identical perfect weapons from a single dropped schematic if you have the stockpiles of resources. Essentially, the number of uses only impact weaponsmiths who don't have the huge stockpiles of materials -- i.e. new weaponsmiths.
I think that the biggest issue is that Sony doesn't understand how the system actually works, or how it fits into the game well enough to be touching how it works. I see this in the combat sections of the game, too, where we go through "lets balance this" "oops, it unbalanced things we better tilt the other way" "oops, that's unbalancing too."
For example, a weapon's damage over time is roughly the average of minimum damage and maximum damage divided by speed. If that value is similar for two weapons, you are very unlikely to notice a difference between them in most circumstances. The damage type and armor piercing come into play, but that average per-hit damage over the delay between damages is the primary factor.
The issue with the crafting system isn't a 10point shift. The issue is a T21 uses 10 ABPH's. If you shift the game so that ABPH's can be made at 90% or above by most weaponsmiths, the damage for the T21 shifts up by 100 points. If you shift the game so that advanced blaster rifle barrels are viable for new weaponsmiths, you add another 15 points and remove around .4 to .5 delay between shots. If you then allow the experiments on the gun itself to go outside the current range (amazing success, etc.), you're adding about another 50 to 100 points there as well and subtracting about another .5 delay.
Instead of most of the T21's being around 400 damage and the theoretical pre-slice 700's being restricted to only a handful of smiths per server, now every weaponsmith will be producing weapons with 33% more damage.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but seem contrary to both stated policy and previous actions. It seems unlike that Sony intends to shift the damage of this item up by over 33%.
And note I say over 33% -- this is because the delay is also tied into damage and not experimented separately. So in addition to improving damage, the delay will drop by over a full point, which actually makes the increase in average damage over 40% off of the sorts of changes we saw with the last patch.
I really think that Sony needs to consider the implications of this sort of a change before they make it.