Doctor Archive

Crafting is broken:

OKthis isaproblemthat is not going to be easy to explain but I will do my best..

For all purposes hereafter, unless otherwise stated, I will be using the Advanced Liquid Suspension as an example.

It should also be noted that Zeka of intrepid first brought this issue to my attention.

Advance Liquid Suspension's require two resources: Dantooine Berry Fruit and Talusian Water Vapor.

It also states in the Ingredients that Experimental Effectiveness is weighted like this for Power:

Overall (OQ) Quality 66% and Potential (PE) Energy 33%

For the record the stats and names are taken from extinct and available resources on theIntrepid Server.

I will use three resources:

Elocre: (extinct) OQ=972 and PE=562 on the resource calculators available at swgcraft and others its total value is 826.98

Hiawhe: (current) OQ=629 and PE=941 - its calculated to be 725.67 total value.

Eriger: (extinct) OQ=973 it has no PE so Im counting that as 0 as do the Total value calulators which score it at 642.18

** Note total value is calculated by taking the schematics weighting percentages and applying them to the values ... IE: Elocre is OQ 972 and PE 562 and since its OQ=66 and PE=33 then we do 972 x .66 = 641 and 562 x .33 = 185,add the sums of those two equations together..641 + 185 = 826 Total Value.** The same calculations are done for the others above to determine Total Value. Total Value is used to express what SHOULD be the BETTER resources to use for this particular subcomponent based on that sub components percentage weighting of a resources individual properties. By Total Value, Elocre + Eriger should yield better results, actually by the game itself Elocre and Eriger should yield highest outcome. Im adding total value as a way of expressing what the game tells us is the equation it is using to determine final outcome of the quality of the item.

Now using Elocre(TV=826.98)+ Eriger (TV=642.18) end result in crafting is 53 before experimentation. After is 168. Affirmed by 4 doctors on various crafting tools and at varying quality crating stations.

Using Hiawhe(TV=725.67) **note this is lower than Elocre**+ Eriger(TV=642.18) end result in crafting is 54 before experimention. After is 171. Also affirmed by 4 doctors on varying crafting stations and tools.

This is NOT in keep with the percentages given to us buy our own crafting stations and its logic fails me...

This same logic holds true for a number of different resources and schematics inculding doctor buffs and so forth..

My question here today is this - what am I missing ?

Lumache...

You error is in making the no PE rating of ryou water equal 0. In reality it is a null value, or mor appropriately it uses the PE value ofthe other resource. The big thing to remember is that all crafting is avergaed, not addative.

So in this case you must first average the OQ of your berries with the water and use that as your .66 value. Next you would simply use your PE value straight as your .33 value.

So wht you come up with is:

Elocre + Eriger = (((972+973)/2)*.66)+562*.33=827.31

Hiawhe + Eriger = (((629+973)/2)*.66)+941*.33=839.19

And that is why the second combination works better. You have to remember that the formula applies only after all values have been averaged out first.

what this means is that the formula is more heavily weighting the PE of the resources which is not what is stated on the crafting schematic itself its fundamentally misleading.

Lumache

So wht you come up with is:

Elocre + Eriger = (((972+973)/2)*.66)+562*.33=827.31

Hiawhe + Eriger = (((629+973)/2)*.66)+941*.33=839.19

What the outcome of both of these formula mean is that Potential is given a higher NET WEIGHT in the formula than 33 as stated - its misleading as one would tend to think that 66% and 33% meant just that - its supposed to be an expression of the resources requirments for crafting. What it is, is misleading.

Since roughly their importance is closer to 50/50 as is expressed by your spot on calculations. ok thats what I was missing.

in essence the values are being pulled from this equation and offered as net effect on end product - at least most take it as implied effect on net quality not that those values are part ofsome unknown and absentequation. It should be changed in the schematic to reflect their percentage effect on end product not 'here are some number yanked out of an equation we dont show here'.... they are misleading shown in their current form..

The net effect using that formula has on the values is that they have *roughly* a 50 / 50 effect on the final product. All things being told - PE is given a slightly great impact on quality than the OQ far as I can tell or guess .... I havent worked it out to the nats eyebrow but it certainly appears to be the case. In either case, they are close to 50/50 and not 33 66 or 66 33 - those are values plucked from an equation and stuck onto a schematic label.

But thanx for the formula I seem to recall that being posted by someone a long time ago now that u mention it and me not paying much attention to it at the time - since its end result was 50 / 50 I think I dismissed it then...

Just want to toss this out there - imagine if this was applied to the mixing of say Insulin for Diabetics.... would your doctor to be given JUST the crafting tools take on the mix ? and not the real effect ?

Well it turned out kind of 50/50 in this particular case. But the formual is simply to add the OQs of all resources togther and get an average, then add all PEs and average. THEN you apply the 66/33 weighting.

The problem comes in that if any one resource does not have any one required rating then that rating is not 0, it ends up being nullified in the equation, or effetivly duplicating the PE of the resource that does have it.

So the schematic is not misleading, it is exactly correct if you remember that it ttries to average everything beforehand first, but also realizing that unlike what they;ve stated previously an unlisted quality is not 0 if any of the other resources have it.

Now in this case Water will never have a PE rating. So in that instance you can always work from averaging out your water's OQ rating to get the 66% value, then just take the PE straight as a 33% value with no need to average.

But it is misleading as people - and go ask around - tend to think those percentages mean how that value of the resource is counted and its not really the case at all - its the multiplier used in an equatuon .. those numbers have no real meaning until washed through the equation ... I would bet most people see them as an indication of the weight each attribute of resource has .. rather part of an equation ... I see you point and Im not arguing the math I think some better indicators should be made available -- this leaves me feeling like someone went through a bit of trouble to make murky an other clear and simple process...

Oh I completely agree that the whole system is not well documented and it's been a major issue for us to bring to the Devs for a very long time now, and not just for us but for all crafting professions.

It also confuses folks that if they use two resources with PE ratings attempting to boost power to forego charges (since no resource has both PE and UT) they actually tend to make their power worse if the seocnd resource has a lower PE. Most folks think these things shoudl be addative, but they aren't. They are all averaged out.

BTW, the 66/33 formula does not list itself as part of any particular resource, so I don't think it is misleading, per se, that it only affects the final figure, not the individual resources. It's just firguring out the crafting formula to begin with that causes all the confusion. So yes, it does need to be documented better, IMHO. But only because it not particularly clear, not because it is necessarily misleading.

It's not well documented, and requires a little investigation, but is in no way misleading. Misleading would be that you are given incorrect information, or correct information withandincorrect way to interpret it. In this case, we have been given correct information, but no interpretation. Therefore, your post on the fact that the crafting system is misleadingis in fact MORE misleading than the crafting system itself.

I disagree - but nice word twisting there - bottom line is most people see the percentages and think they related directly to the end prodcut and they have been given nothing to indicate otherwise - when in fact the percentages are completely misleading - when you take into account that everyone that first sees them assumes roughly the same thing - so they are misleading and should be explained in more detail - give me that much information and a few drugs that you will need to inject into your body and see how you feel about misleading or not at the time of injection !

Hold up there folks. Its misleading to some but not to others. Ok? No need to start with quips on each other over semantics.

In this case the forumla does apply directly to the final product, just not directly to the resources. You have to average out eh resources first, so it is technically correct IF we are properaly informed as to how the resources interact with each other, whic is not clear (and in fact incorrect if you read the advanced crafiting guide which implies that a no-rating is always a 0.)

Suffice to say that it is on the issues list and the Devs are aware of the problem.