Droid Engineer Archive
Thread: (Unofficial)Discussion: Hand-crafting vs. Factory-crafting brainstorm ideas
Malitevv wrote:
The problem I see with this is I consider it very likely that any object in this game has any "memory" of the components that went into it and therefore can't really be deconstructed. The reason I consider it unlikely it remembers the components it was made from is because remembering all that cruft would be a considerable amount of data base space, which currently would serve no purpose. And I don't think adding that kind of load to the database would be worth adding the ability to deconstruct something. I suppose there may be a way to write algorithms that create new subcomponents that are likely different than the ones from which the item was made for the purposes of deconstruction, but that would be considerably less satisfying.
That stuff is all stored at present. For every crafted item with a serial number, the schematic used to craft it is stored as a single instance in the DB. The item itself doesn't track its subcomponents -- only its current stats. However, the serial number references the schematic (this is how you can save and continue create new items from a schematic as long as you have all the parts).
Malitevv wrote:
ArveMennderchukk wrote:
That stuff is all stored at present. For every crafted item with a serial number, the schematic used to craft it is stored as a single instance in the DB. The item itself doesn't track its subcomponents -- only its current stats. However, the serial number references the schematic (this is how you can save and continue create new items from a schematic as long as you have all the parts).of course. I'm talking about knowledge of the stats of the subcomponents and resourrces that were used. Not what the schematic was.
Not to put too fine a point on it Malitevv, but that's what I was talking about.
Each schematic describes exactly what resources and/or subcomponents (with their serials) were used.
Each of those resources has a "master copy" description stored in the database.
Even though a particular item, Widget A, doesn't store what all of its components are, it has a serial number. That serial number can be used to do a lookup on the Widget A Schematic. The Widget A Schematic described Resource B, Resource C, and Sub-Widget D. The Sub-Widget D Schematic describes Resource E.
Each of those references to resources goes to the master resource table in the DB.
This is how if you have an old old old schematic and you manage to find the old old old resources, you can still build it. All of that data is stored in the DB.
All you need to do to disassemble any object is roll backwards through the serial number to schematic to resource chain.
ArveMennderchukk wrote:
Even though a particular item, Widget A, doesn't store what all of its components are, it has a serial number. That serial number can be used to do a lookup on the Widget A Schematic. The Widget A Schematic described Resource B, Resource C, and Sub-Widget D. The Sub-Widget D Schematic describes Resource E.
I know that! Telling me I can use the serial number to look up the schematic and see what the name of the subcomponents are,and then look them up too,is like telling me I can look up the definition of a word in the dictionary, and that if there are any words in that definition that I don't understand I can look them up in the dictionary too. I know that. That is obvious.
What I am talking about is the STATS of the subcomponents that were used. Simple example:Suppose I am holding a droidbattery. The item has a serial number. It's database entry surely contains a record indicating what theobject is (i.e., that it is a droid battery rather than a pair of dress slippers). And that fact contains everything I need to knowto figure out which schematic it was crafted from. Sure, from thereI know which types of resource were required to make it and in which quantities. I can look that up in a table. That is what you are telling me. But that is not what I am talking about.
What I am saying is that there is no reason for the database to store exactly which resources were used. E.g., do I now if the batterywas crafted with steel or with aluminum? I doubt it. Why would the database entry store this? There is no need. The only thing that needs to be stored is the type of object and the in-game stats (in-game stats in this case are the battery charge). Do I know if the OQ of the resources used were 800 or 900? I doubt that too, and for the same reason. But those things are the stats of the sub-components that I am talking about.
Message Edited by Malitevv on 09-15-2004 08:25 PM
It doesn't matter if I make a schematic yesterday or a year ago, I can make more items using that schematic if I have the resources named in that schematic.
All resources that have ever spawned on the server are recorded in the DB, uniquely by their name.
Just like you can roll back to a schematic from serial number, you can roll back from a schematic to a resource's stats by following the resource name from the schematic to the resource master in the DB.
Drashk wrote:
One thing thatwe need to keep in mind is that the loot drop item step up would have to be for a generic item, unless Malitevv's suggestion of 'discovered' items is further fleshed out.
Concentrating on specific loot items and effects, that are visable before use, would result in the ability to price accordingly. Think of the loot components as the 'old fashion' die roll. When you install a loot component, which would fit into key crafted items such as; the final droid deed, harvester deed, completed weapon, completed armor, food, ehancement packs, etc..a random effect, bonus, penality, or failureis added, dependent on the profession involved. By adding in penality and failure categories to the generic loot drop die roll, we would ensure that Factory crafting still has its place, as long as the failure/penality rate is about the same ratio as the effect/bonus rate.
For Chefs
- Increased/Reduced Stomach fill
- Increased/Reduced Attribute Bonus
- Random added stat bonus (HAM and substat bonus for the duration of the food)
- Random food attribute (Bonus to Dodge, Crafting, Wound treatment, etc)
- Crafting Failure
For Doctors/Combat Medic
- Increased/Reduced Medical Use Skill
- Increased/Reduced Effectiveness
- Increased/Reduced Number of Uses
- Random added Immunization (Poision, Disease, Fire Innoculations)
- Crafting Failure
For Weaponsmiths
- Increased/Reduced Weapon Damage
- Increased/Reduced Weapon Speed
- Increased/Reduced HAM Costs
- Random Damage type (Acid, Electricity, AR1)
- Crafting Failure
For Armorsmiths
- Increased/Reduced Resistance
- Increased/Reduced HAM Costs
- Random added Resistance type
- Increased Color Palette
- Crafting Failure
For Architects
- Increased/Reduced Storage Capacity (Houses, Factories, Harvesters)
- Increased/Reduced Maintenance Fees (Houses, Factories, Harvesters)
- Increased/Reduced BER rating (Only effective to the absolute max rating. IE Heavy = BER 14)
- Random Housing Bonus (105% Medical Healing, 105% Entertainment Healing, etc.)
- Crafting Failure
For Tailors
- Increased/Reduced Clothing Condition (Dependent on Condition working correctly)
- Increased Color Palette
- Random Skill enhancement bonus (+1-3 Cover, Experimentation, Assembly, Etc..)
- Random Resistance Bonus (+5% Kinetic AR0, +5% Blast AR0, Etc)
- Crafting Failure
Bio-Engineers
- Increased/Reduced Pet HAM
- Increased/Reduced Pet Damage
- Increased/Reduced Bio-Effects (Nutrients, Active Biosensor, Etc)
- Random Effect added to Bio-Effects(Treat Injury/Wound gains Bleed Resists, Etc)
- Crafting Failure
Droid Engineers
- Increased/Reduced Droid HAM
- Increased/ReducedCombat Rating
- Increased/Reduced Module Effects
- Random Effects added to Armor or Damage
- Crafting Failure
If you will notice, I left out the Basic Professions in the above listings. They could be added, if others feel it appropriate, however I feel that only the Advanced Professions should be included in such a revamp. I also did not include any of the professions that could be considered crafting dabblers such as Smugglers, Rangers, Musicians, and Dancers. I guess I ran out of 'creative' juices for ideas for each of those professions.
One thing that I should note about the Increased X suggestions. For reasons of balance, the increase should be no more then +5% with the Maximum value of 100% being an absolute. This would finally allow people that have 95% and above successes the ability to achieve 100% successes, after the crafting process. A +5% bonus could be extended beyond a 100% success, but I would have to caution that such a suggestion could 'overpower' certain items such as Armor, Weapons, and asome Droid Modules, to list a few.
Now, for my suggestion on how to make the process work...
After Experimentation if completed, you would have the choice to Complete the Item, Create a Manufactoring Schematic, or Add Loot Component. Chosing the 'Add Loot Component' option would bring you to a new crafting screen that would list the current attributes of the crafted item and 1slot for a loot component. Once the Loot item is installed, and the 'Retune' button is pushed, we see the final result of Good, Bad, or a lost item.
As an alternate suggestion to Loot Components -
Someone else mentioned the suggestion of the Phase 1 Crafting quest Mini-game. The above mentioned ideas could easily be adapoted to a 'Recalibration' mini-game such as we see in the Phase 1 Crafting Quest. Basically, we would once again have the choice of Complete the Item, Create a Manufactoring Schematic, but instead of Adding a Loot Component, we would see Recalibrate Item. Chosing 'Recalibrate Item' would open up 1 of X number of puzzles, where X would be the maximum number of mini-games that were created. The puzzles could range from Red, Blue and Green Wires, to the more complex slider puzzles we see in the Phase 1 Quest. The random factor of which puzzle you recieve would determine 'the payoff' if you suceed, or fail. The simple 'Rock, Sissor, Paper' style puzzles would result in the lowest Risk/Return factor while a puzzle such as the for the Solid State Array mini-game, from the Phase 1 Quest, would offer the highest Risk/Return and could even result in a lost item, if the puzzle is failed.
Comments?
Message Edited by Jjiaah on 09-15-2004 08:30 PM
ArveMennderchukk wrote:
Of COURSE you know the stats. The exact resources used are recorded in the schematic.
It doesn't matter if I make a schematic yesterday or a year ago, I can make more items using that schematic if I have the resources named in that schematic.
All resources that have ever spawned on the server are recorded in the DB, uniquely by their name.
Just like you can roll back to a schematic from serial number, you can roll back from a schematic to a resource's stats by following the resource name from the schematic to the resource master in the DB.
So you really think that every single battery ever crafted has 6 records in its database entry? one for each of the four boxes that are in the schematic to indicate exactly what resources were used, another to indicate that it is a batter, and sixth to indicate what the charge is? Why would they store all that information? None of that detail is needed for anything. In the case of the battery, you are telling me that what could be a 2 record database entry (object type, and charge) is actually stored as a 6 record entry?? That means every batterycurrently takes 3 times as much storage in their database than it needs to! It means that amore complex object may be taking 5 or 10 times more database space than it needs to!
Dude, if that is the way their database is organized, then they need to fire every programmer who had any role in designing it. If that is the way the database is organized, they couldcut their current database storage requirements for all the objects in the game in half (or likely better) if they just changedit to work the way I already outlined. All of that detail which you think is there is just wasted space in the database if it is there, I just can comprehend why it would be.
Message Edited by Malitevv on 09-15-2004 08:42 PM
Droid Battery
schematic serial
crafter
current charges
DB UID (hidden)
Droid Battery Schematic (accessed through serial)
schematic serial (this is the DB UID)
schematic type (references another table with all schematic types)
resource A: Mufulufugus (this is UID of a resource)
resource B: Qididigitus (this is UID of another resource)
Resource Master Table
resource name (this is UID, like Mufulufugus)
resource type descriptor (TYPE_SILICLASTIC_LOWGRADEORE)
Message Edited by ArveMennderchukk on 09-16-2004 07:12 AM
ArveMennderchukk wrote:
I pretty much agree with everything you've said above Mal, with one small caveat. I'd like the "crafting drop" have the potential to drop more than a single serial. In combat loot drops you can sometimes be really lucky and get multiple items with the same serial (like three pieces of same serial heavy leather). It would be nice if the more complex the item being handcrafted were, the better the chance of dropping a multiple-serial "crafting loot" would be.
yeah. I didn't mean to necessarily exclude that possibility, though my post does read like maybe I did.
Straker_Atrella wrote:
Drashk,
The Xp idea is a bad idea IMO. Using a crafting macro and grinding componants, you can get a lot of XP really fast. Not fun, and not giving people a reason to hand craft. Plus you open yourself up to people using mouse click programs.
Well the other two suggestions that I have are an AP cost or a direct Credit cost.
The reason that I am pointing out a cost, if we are suggesting a stepping away from the loot drop items, is that we need to have the contengency plan of having it place in case the suggestion of a crafting based credit system is rejected. The best plans, in my opinion, always cover many different aspects in case the focual point, in this case the CIC, comes under 'attack'.
Maybe instead of cost, I should be using the term limiting factor. I know that there is a suggested overall cap on how many CICs can be aquired at one time, however we might also want to look at another type of limiting factor, as in the case of the current loot items with serial numbers. In order for any suggestion to have the chance go through its paces, we need to have a lot of different possible options listed, so that the core system is flexable enough to make its rounds with all craftering communities.
Basically -
- Core CIC idea
- How to earn CICs
- Through Crafting
- Randomly aquired
- Percentage based on Schematic complexity
- Through moderate to easy aquired loot items
- Profession specific
- Generic loot item
- Listed/Non-Listedattributes
- Through quests
- How often can the quest be preformed
- What type of quest missions
- Through Junk vendor
- XP cost
- AP cost
- Credit cost
- Resource cost
- Would CIC be tradeable
- Would they be profession specific
- Would they be non-profession specific
- ETC
I'm just trying to point out all sides that this proposal could be looked at from, from the DEVs persective and the crafting communtiy perspective. Remember, theremight needto be some kind of 'checkers' involved.
And as a retort to your counter-point of 3rd party programs, the same could be said about CICs being earned through crafting.
Drashk wrote:
Straker_Atrella wrote:
Drashk,
The Xp idea is a bad idea IMO. Using a crafting macro and grinding componants, you can get a lot of XP really fast. Not fun, and not giving people a reason to hand craft. Plus you open yourself up to people using mouse click programs.
Well the other two suggestions that I have are an AP cost or a direct Credit cost.
The reason that I am pointing out a cost, if we are suggesting a stepping away from the loot drop items, is that we need to have the contengency plan of having it place in case the suggestion of a crafting based credit system is rejected. The best plans, in my opinion, always cover many different aspects in case the focual point, in this case the CIC, comes under 'attack'.
Maybe instead of cost, I should be using the term limiting factor. I know that there is a suggested overall cap on how many CICs can be aquired at one time, however we might also want to look at another type of limiting factor, as in the case of the current loot items with serial numbers. In order for any suggestion to have the chance go through its paces, we need to have a lot of different possible options listed, so that the core system is flexable enough to make its rounds with all craftering communities.
Basically -
- Core CIC idea
- How to earn CICs
- Through Crafting
- Randomly aquired
- Percentage based on Schematic complexity
- Through moderate to easy aquired loot items
- Profession specific
- Generic loot item
- Listed/Non-Listedattributes
- Through quests
- How often can the quest be preformed
- What type of quest missions
- Through Junk vendor
- XP cost
- AP cost
- Credit cost
- Resource cost
- Would CIC be tradeable
- Would they be profession specific
- Would they be non-profession specific
- ETC
I'm just trying to point out all sides that this proposal could be looked at from, from the DEVs persective and the crafting communtiy perspective. Remember, theremight needto be some kind of 'checkers' involved.
And as a retort to your counter-point of 3rd party programs, the same could be said about CICs being earned through crafting.