Doctor Archive

Meat 1: DR=488, PE=829, OQ=935
Meat 2: DR=146, PE=851, OQ=868

Used in enhance pack D, i.e OQ == 66%, PE == 33%. counts for effectivness.

This means meat 1 has a "effectiveness" of 890. Meat 2 has an effectiveness of 853. Yet I get buff packs with power 852-857 using meat #2 compared to 843 using meat #1. The gas is identical, and all but ABEC's are identical (they only vary in power by a few points however).

I don't understand why the #1 meat, which is superior in "effectiveness" gives worse results? The OQ of the gas is higher than the "combined"value of OQ/PE of the meats (over 900) but that shouldn't matter.

I don't know the percentage of the final experimentation level but I can check that tonight. The second meat does give me significantly better duration and due to the weird buff pack experimentation, I get one more extra point (I have 11) that I can put on charges. Still I would like to understand how the second meat can result in higher powered buffs than the first. My guess is that it's because I run one less experimentation (due to the better DR) and that it somehow causes this issue. Needless to say, I believe experimentation with buff packs is broken.

Note: ACRDMs are power 66, ABEC's are 13/20 or 14/20 or similar, ASDS are 73.

P.S. Even if I revert OQ / PE (i.e OQ=33%, PE=66%), meat #1 although with a smaller margin.

DR is also taken into account.

Well, in that case it should be even better since DR is ALSO higher on meat #1 (488 vs 146). I'm still suspecting that it's actually a bug in how experimentation works with buff packs. Because of the weirdness related to experimented multiple stats, and when one caps, you start needing 1 experimentation point for each _small_ "dot"... I can almost guarantee that if the first meat had LOWER DR I would indeed get HIGHER power (because then duration would cap earlier and I would have to use another point in effectiveness to max it out).

Something for the doctor correspondent to look into perhaps.

DR is used for charges, not for power.

And, as you said, the ABECS were not the same. Try the experiment again with 100% identical components and see how much of a variation there is.

abecs differed by one point. Trust me, that is not the issue. They only modify the base value, nothing more, nothing less. If I had uses an ABEC with 24 power/10 charges vs 20 charges/10 power, then yes it would of course be part of the reason. However using a 13/20 vs a 13/21 or 13/20 or what not, will not change the end result with 12-17 points.

The more I think about it, the more I'm sure this is due to one less experimentation point used in effectiveness. I.e a flaw in the system.

Not too sure. Your figures are coming out a little wonky, it seems to me, or those ACRDMs you are using are making more of a difference than you think.

The FAQ covers this pretty well. The problem is reading the formula wrong. The Crafting Guide on the main SOE site claims that any time a resource does not have a stat it is treated as a 0. Since the crafting process is an averaged one, then the 66/33 formula would be right if, in both cases, the gas AND the Meat you were using have no PE rating.

But, the SOE guide is wrong in the case where at least one resource has the rating in question. In such a case the other resource, instead of using a 0, ends up duplicating the first resource's rating.

So, what your forumula REALLY turns into in the above example is not 66/33, but 50/50.

So Meat 1 is not rated at 890, but is rated at 882.

Meat 2 is not rated at 853, but is rated at 859.

That's relative only to themsleves, of course. The final determiner is actually made with the averaging against the other resource first, before applying the stated crafting formula of 66/33. So you say you have a gas over 900 OQ. Let's call it 950. (Giving us the numbers on your Gas might help some here as well.

That means we average out the OQs first.

Gas & Meat 1=(950+935)/2=942.5

Gas & Meat 2=(950+868)/2=909

The we figure out the PEs, which for a gas is, I'm pretty sure, non-existant. Not 0, in this case, but null or a duplication, so the average will be axactly what the PE is on the meat.

Gas & Meat1=(829+829)/2=829

Gas &Meat2=(851+851)/2=851

So the final computation would be:

With Meat 1=(942.5*.66)+(829*.33)=895.62 - or 895

Woth Meat 2=(909*.66)+(851*.33)=880.77 - or 880

Now that didn't really prove very much in this case since we see that Meat 2 really should be coming in lower than your Meat 1. The only differences I am wondering about now have to do with the exact ratings on your gas, the exact ratings on your ACRDMs and what level of experimentation percentages and successes you are getting. (In other words, are your numbers for having the effectiveness bar maxed out?)

Message Edited by Zarlor on 01-27-2004 01:11 PM

how many times did you repeat this for each meat type?

What where the experimentation resoults for each step? (Good success, great succses, amazing sucess, failure, etc)?

What was the Effectiveness experimentation % up to on for each?

I posted the ACRDM rating - they are all rated at 66.The only minor variance is the ABEC's.

*goes to swgcraft*

The reactive gas I'm using is OQ 900 (and DR 604)

So doing the math we get:

Meat 1: (890 + (0.66 * 900 + 0.33*829)) / 2 => 878.8
Or alternatively: (890 + 900)/2 => 895

Meat 2: (853 + (0.66 * 900 + 0.33*851)) / 2 => 863.9
Or alternatively: (853 + 900) / 2 => 876

The alternative is what would happen if PE was ignored, not zero, for stats that are missing it.

I.e no matter how we twist and turn, the second meat is better than the first. Do you see anything wrong with the above calculations? As for experimentation results, I believe all "great" in the 843 case (and I have repeated that exact value a number of times). For the 852 case, I believe there was at least one good or failure and the rest good. the other "extreme" at 857 had at least one amazing. In general though, the experimentation (repeated) on meat #1 is consistently ending up at 843 (I haven't seen it higher than that).

Again though, I do experiment with one more point in effectiveness when using meat #2. This almost has to be the reason since all other stats points to #1 being better in all aspects.

I already answered the results (great's mostly, perhaps even a failure in the "better" cases). I don't know what the effectiveness percentage is - I can't check that till tonight (but trust me, I will check it).

I should note that, in terms of OQ/PE, this is the best avian meat in known Starsider history (i.e in swgcraft) and second best ever in terms of OQ/DR (best is the previous Talus spawn).

---

Agent001 wrote:

DR is used for charges, not for power.

And, as you said, the ABECS were not the same. Try the experiment again with 100% identical components and see how much of a variation there is.

---

Ok, then, answer me this if you know it doesn't have any affect. I can use a lower OQ gas than he is using, but it has a higher DR and my final base enhance pack is higher than his (all other subcomponents being the same).

Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I've literally spent hours and hours making enhance packs and writing down formulas, numbers and comparing - and I still don't know how it works fully.

Hmmm.. well I get 879.12 final on with Meat 1 and 864.27, about the same 14 point spread as your first set, just slightly different numbers.

However, the effectiveness line is also used and must handle the Duration calculation as well. Which is a 60/40 formula but we have to factor in the DR of the meat this time, since it has one.

I think, based on the numbers above, our max % on the effectiveness bar for power should be 87% for meat 1 and 86% for meat 2.

Max % on the bar for duration would be 76% for 1 and 69% for 2.

That's an 11% difference for the first one and 17% on the second one.

Now the big question that goes into all of this is the exact nature of the realtionship between these two percentages. We know that if, using the first example, we hit the 78% point that we will have, in effect, topped out the duration. We gain increases from that point on at only half of the percentage gains we were getting before then.

We also know that the experimentation system makes two seperate rolls for that one bar to and only "tells" us the average of the two, but it still applies theresults individually from the rolls to duration and power. (In other words it is possible to get a "Great Success", but to increase the Duration as if it was an Amazing Success and not modify the duration at all as if it were a simple failure (just an example, I don't know exactly how those average out in the final response, but they do average out.)

Of course teh chance for either of those experiemntation rolls to get good results is based upon the OQ & Mal ratings of the resources, but if we can at least get some consistency in the final results and perscentages (and the numbers the generate for the values of Duration and Power) then maybe we can try to better figure out exactly what is happening.

I agree that we are probably looking at some oddity in the way two stats on one experimentation bar interact. The question is, how?

Message Edited by Zarlor on 01-27-2004 02:32 PM