Development Cycle Archive
Thread: IT 7-4: Experimentation Resource Quality
JaatoWaals wrote:
With regard to those professions engaged in multi-attribute crafting, it will become even more difficult for novices to compete. Anyone who is not a master with three or more months of resource collecting behind them will not be able to participate in the market because their products will be vastly inferior to those of the old masters. Then again, seeing that I'm an old master, why am I complaining? This new barrier to market entry will ensure that I make hundreds of millions of credits. And that's a good thing, right?
This is not new by any means, novices have never been able to compete with a master who has months of resources, nothing has changed.
scruftydog wrote:
Try using only 10 gems and let us know the outcomes. We are concerned for all the standard weaponsmiths not those who can afford to spend 40 million on tapes.
No thanks, there are plenty of folks who can test the "average crafter", I will stick with testing the above average one so I can continue to report my findings in those areas.
As for other fears, here is what I have found. Basically, it seems to me that with a good experimentation (yes it takes more experimentation to get the perfect result you want) under the new system you have 2 choices when using good materials, I will use weapons crafting as an example:
- Stop at the old damage delay and put the rest of the points wherever you used to HAM/Condition/Range and basically duplicate your pre-patch weapon.
- Sacrifice the HAM/Condition/Range and go for the gold and break the pre-patchDamage/Delay barrier.
In my case with 2 extra exppoints and a ton of amazing successes (they are pretty common now for me at least), I get to break the damage/delay AND drop points into the other areas... which results in a much better that previously availble weapon.
FYI: the materials I am using are mostly as good as any live server(some better)andin the few cases where my weapons didn't stack up with those I found on live previously, I have now been able to easilly surpass the quality of those live weapons I checked using inferior materials.
One last note, experimentation is a bit random now, even with the same exp result. Example; one experimentation with all greats will not necessarilly give the same result as another with all greats, they can differ by quite a bit. Continued experimentation, especially with amazing results involved, can make a huge difference in what you end up with. Basically, most schematics I make now were the product of an experimentation with 2 or more amazing results (not that uncommon anymore), oddly enough, a moderate thrown in on occassion dosn't seem to hurt that much and some of my best experimentations actually did have a moderate result in the mix as well.
Bottom line, this new system is not nearly as cut and dry as some are making it out to be and simply sitting down and crafting a quick item or two doesn't give a very good feel for it at all.
SWG-Runesabre wrote:
Greetings!
The crafting designers will be evaluating the experimentation changes next week. I would greatly appreciate feedback based on actual testing on Test Center; that will provide the most meaningful feedback we can use for our evaluations.
Please, Runesabre, canyou getcrafters to test it without using extra skilltapes, asmost crafters do not have the bonuses. Standard 10 point crafters should make equal products before and after the change. 12 point crafters should be able to make better, but I dont want 12 points to be required to make what we make now.
Please, do not use feedback from players who will not test without their extra points as they are skewing the data, and their refusal to test standard points shows that they are not really "testing".
If I could get a Weaponsmithon TCtoday, I would happily test everything and write it up, but I will not do the grind again.
SWG-Runesabre wrote:
1) Quality and frequency of certain rare resources. Certain resources spawn very infrequently and when they do they are usually low quality.
Rune, a critical point which you're probably aware of, but I want to make absolutely sure:
Most rare resources are not "usually" low quality. They have hardcoded caps on various important attributes. For example, Plumbum and Polonium iron, which are required resources for several guns (for which Conductivity is usually the most important quality), have Conductivity thatcaps out at around 100.
The last time this was discussed, I believe the only dev comment was "it's important to find better resources", in apparent ignorance of the fact that the system as it stands now does not permit this.
Please make sure that this is factored into your calculations. If I could ask for one change to experimentation, it would be for the experimentation system to "know" about the caps at various points in the resource tree, and base successes on the percentage of "perfect", rather than the percentage of "1000", which is perfect only for an uncapped resource.
For example, a schematic requiring Conductivity should calculate the conductivity of a slot requiring "Metal" as a percentage of 1000. Ditto for a slot requiring "Nonferrous Metal" or "Copper", because any of these slots can be filled by a good Polysteel Copper with 1000 CD. If the slot requires "Steel", it should calculate it as a percentage of the conductivity caps over all types of steel (around 800, I believe). And if the slot requires "Plumbum Iron", it should calculate it as a percentage of the best possible Plumbum conductivity (100).
scruftydog wrote:
Please, Runesabre, canyou getcrafters to test it without using extra skilltapes, asmost crafters do not have the bonuses. Standard 10 point crafters should make equal products before and after the change. 12 point crafters should be able to make better, but I dont want 12 points to be required to make what we make now.
Please, do not use feedback from players who will not test without their extra points as they are skewing the data, and their refusal to test standard points shows that they are not really "testing".
If I could get a Weaponsmithon TCtoday, I would happily test everything and write it up, but I will not do the grind again.
SWG-Runesabre wrote:
Greetings!
I have reviewed this thread thus far. From what I have evaluated, here are the top concerns with the changes to experimentation in Publish 7:
1) Quality and frequency of certain rare resources. Certain resources spawn very infrequently and when they do they are usually low quality.
2) Variety in the crafting market. There aren't enough meaningful attributes that people buying crafted goods care about thus making it so every crafter will be experimenting on the same attributes for weapons, armor, etc. producing clone products.
The crafting designers will be evaluating the experimentation changes next week. I would greatly appreciate feedback based on actual testing on Test Center; that will provide the most meaningful feedback we can use for our evaluations.
Thank you!
I like the fact that good rare resources can sometimes be hard to find. It adds depth to the long term game.
For items where there is only one single bar to experiment on, this new system shows an improvement.
Hence the posts about "great, I got a vehicle to 98% with the same resources I was hitting 91% with before".
But, single-experimentation crafting is *very* different from multi-bar experimentation, as used in the most useful items in the game (read: weapons and armor, the source of cash inflow to the SWG economy).
No offense to the artisans, but please think about the impact this change has on other professions with more complex crafting decisions before you give this change the thumbs-up.
Geno
______________
The Mercantile
Theed, Naboo, Tempest.
Logix wrote:This system, while reasonable on paper, is not a suitable fit for the game.
Smiths of all kinds depend on diversity. In a world of cookie-cutter products, you must have something that stands out. For every suit of armor, the only possibility should not be Effectiveness or Nothing. For every weapon made, the only , it should always provide as many options as possible to the crafter.
With the old system, taking another route in Experimentation did have a disadvantage, but the options were still there. With the new system, no matter how good you're making your weapons or armor as a Master, you will be wasting all of your experimentation points to max out its main quality. Since the vast majority of high-end products require specific rare resources, nine times out of ten you will never have experimentation points left over for anything else. When I used to make Republic Blasters and only use the 6 or so points to max it out, now I must use all ten. Weaponsmiths will be able to max damage and that's that. If I try to cater to Range- or HAM-specialized weaponry, the penalties for the loss of damage are even greater than they are now. Moreover, Armorsmiths have been completely deterred from specializing in low- and medium-HAM suits. It's not a viable trade-off at all, anymore.
Additionally, this sets a greater dividing line between the new Smiths and the elder Smiths. Having 10 experimentation points will no longer be the deciding factor between a "bad" and a "good smith". That bar has been raised to 12 experimentation points with this new system. Experimentation tapes are so utterly ridiculous for most to acquire that placing such a high dependency on them just isn't fair. They should be a pleasure for high-end "elite" crafters to partake in, but never a necessity for all crafters to sell quality products to their customers.
As for the Amazing Success change, I don't think it's all that it's cracked up to be. Amazing success simply raises the bar for experimentation -- Great successes become the "new" Moderate success. Instead of smiths trying to craft a schematic over and over again to get an "All-Great Success" schematic, they will craft it over and over again trying to get a "9 Great and 1 Amazing Success" schematic. So we're back to the same frustration many smiths endure: Crafting over and over trying to get that elusive "perfect" schematic. Putting a different label on it doesn't mean it's not the exact same problem. This too, places ridiculous dependency on skill tapes and things like Research Centers, because having both of those means you will net the highest likelihood of amazing successes.
In summary, I think this is a change better left unimplemented. The biggest problem many smiths face is the huge dividing gap between newer Smiths versus elder Smiths, who have the most time, money, resources, skill tapes and Research Centers. Right now, that gap already wide enough to make it immensely difficult to get your name on the market, but only time, money and resources are the factors that are required. With this change, you put a greater dependency on all of those factors and move skill tapes and Research Centers from the "optional" field into the "necessary for your business" domain. Implementing this system is taking an enormous step backwards in trying to bridge the gap and promote diversity among smiths.
/agree
SWG-Runesabre wrote:
1) Quality and frequency of certain rare resources. Certain resources spawn very infrequently and when they do they are usually low quality.
Agree, but it is hard to grind to Master Weaponsmith ina day. I hope you are planning on making on of the live servers a test server again, so that we can use the resources we use on a daily basis and get a better comparison of what will happen if these changes go into effect.
SWG-Runesabre wrote:
I would greatly appreciate feedback based on actual testing on Test Center; that will provide the most meaningful feedback we can use for our evaluations.