Doctor Archive

Frankly I think this is busted. I tried again today by using only 1 experiment point at a time since some other thread mentioned rounding issues with multiple point experiments perhaps.

ABEC 21 charge/15 power

ACRM 67

ASDM 72

Avian 68 decay, 893 PE, 983 OQ

Reactive Gas, 735 Decay, 999 OQ

15.0 medical crafting tool, 45.0 medical crafting station

Great assembly 16% charge, 28% ease of use, 21% effect

Using 1 experiment point at a time here is the effectiveness after each experiment

Experiment (1 point each time) Effectiveness

021

128

235

3 42

449

5 56

6 63%

7 68

8 71

9 74

10 77

11 79% -> maximum possible experimentation

Now, does someone want to take a stab at explaining why the 7th great experiment yielded 5% amd every one after that yielded 3% until cap at 79%?

I'm going to take a stab at it. The decay on my avian is extremely low at 68. Now, the effectiveness is actually increasing duration and strength along two different formulas. Duration is 40% OQ and 60% decay which means that the maximum possible experimentation on duration alone would be (0.4 * (983 + 999) + 0.6 * (68 + 735))/ 2000 = 0.7982 or 79.82%

Max possible experimentation on power (strength) along would be (2 * (983 + 999) / 2 + 893) / 3000 = 0.9583 or 95.83%

Since the gas does not have PE it does not come into play in determining maximum power - only duration.

Ok well if we look at the maximum experimented value of 79% we can see that it matches the theoretical maximum of 79.82% which was for duration. So the developers are using the lowest of the two numbers to scale the effectiveness. Well lets see what happened at 68% which I believe is a hard cap and that experiment could never have gotten more than 68%. This was tested with another enhance D after getting an amazing assembly, that experiment with the amazing assembly went from 64% to 68% - it was still capped at 68%.

So whats the meaning of this hard cap here at 68% when I could not get 7% for a great experiment? Lets see. 79.82 / 95.83 = .833 scaling. Meaning that we expect the duration to cap at .833 of the way to the maximum power. Now seeing that the scale of the effectiveness line is using the duration experimentation as the number. Then .833 * 79.82% = 66.49%.

Well, well, what do u know, we have shown that if the effective % number is being shown as duration even though it means it is maximum power, that .833 of that power, which really represents the duration means that when the effectiveness is 66% that the duration can no longer be increased. So once the effectiveness reaches 66%, only power can be experiemented on, not duration, duration is already capped. This is where further experiments yield less than 7% because only power is increasing, not duration. What is broken with this experimentation is that the power should be at this point about 29% + 7 * 7% = 78%. After using 3 more experiments at 7% on power, I should have reached 78% + 3 * 7 = cap at 95.83%. Actually this bug may have to do with theassembly not making the initial power 29% as it should have.

This is a glaring bug in the experimentation along lines that have two different formulas. They should simply have used the effeciveness percentagescale appropriately up to themaximum of eachand always increase 7%. The only problem is the initial assembly value to show. Perhaps the best solution would have been to just add the two numbers after giving correct assembly and experimentation to show the scale. For example, a great assembly on duration would be .3 * 79.82% = 23.95%. A great assembly on power should have been 95.83 * .3 = 28.75%. So these two numbers would be added together and divided by 2 to yield an initial assembly of 26.34%. From then on, under the covers, each great experiment would yield 7%. Under the covers, the power and duration would increase each by 7% until duration was capped then a little less after that because the effectiveness represents experimentation on duration plus experimentation on power divided by 2.

SWG attempted to do what the paragraph above described but I bet there was a bug in the assembly code so that the power did not originally start at 29% as it should have. Making it impossible to reach 95% power with 10 experiment points. This is a bug for sure.

Fixing it as I described would have shown the following during experimentation:

Great assembly would show 24% experimentation

experiment points duration power effectiveness (this is what is displayed)

0 (assembly) 24% 29% 26%

1 31% 36% 33%

2 38% 43% 40%

345% 50% 47%

4 52% 57% 54%

5 59% 64% 61%

6 66% 71% 68%

7 73% 78% 75%

8 80% - capped 85% 82%

9 80% 92% 86%

10 80% 96% - capped 88%

Thus capping experimentation using 10 experiment points as it should have been capped. This formula will work in all cases. Its simple math. Experiment two lines using two formulas under the covers but display it as a single line and average the experimentation values. This is what I think SWG intended to implement from the start but there was a bug in implementing it as designed. I can't imagine designing it any other way. If a single line has two formulas, then average the values from the two formulas to get the result, why would one formula have weight over the other. In other words the way SWG implemented it, because the avian has low decay, it is not possible to maximize the power even though the power formula has absolutely nothing to do with decay.

In this way, the duration would have been maxed at 80% and the power would have been maxed at 96% after using only 10 experiment points.

THIS is a glaring bug and what happens when you hire programmers that do not understand math.

All crafting correspondents should address this bug as it affects all experimentation lines that have two different formulas not just the effectiveness line on enhance D kits.

Obata Lightingflier (Deceased): Master Doctor, Master Combat Medic - Wanderhome
Opos Odet (Deceased): Master Artisan, Master Merchant, Master Musician - Wanderhome

The replies to my original post show that others have experienced this same bug. As for the 3% increases, its correct to say that its half of the 7% but the original assembly is bugged as the average would never yield 21% effectiveness. And the scale is wrong because the maximum experimentation equals the maximum on duration instead of the average of duration and power. It's clearly bugged and dissappointing because any crafter that does not have 11 points should be allowed to get the maximum potential from his resources using the 10 points.

For example, how would you feel if you were a new weaponsmith, spent a ton of money getting resources or time getting the best resources and then couldn't get maximum experimentation because you only had 10 points. Well same goes for doctor, the resources I am using are in the top 3 to ever spawn on Bria and I am unable to produce 90 med use packs because the decay on the avian is preventing me from maximizing power due to the bug in crafting since day one in the game.