CUEmu - Thread Posts

Val_Hunter

Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:13 am

Ackdel wrote:

RagNoRock5x wrote:
It would be imposible for them to do a retroactive one.

They do not store the mateirals used and what experimitation the item got.

This has been said and refuted a lot. The materials and experimentation are irrelevant. The ONLY thing they would need to look at is the percentage of mass the ship has compared to the old max.

X = old mass / old mass max
New mass = new mass max * X

Pretty simple if you ask me.

I'm guessing that it's more of an issue of not wanting to risk breaking anything. In theory, you should be able to just query the database and make the changes. In practice, the databases tend to have odd things happen after being stuffed with tons of data.

I don't mean to sound un-sympathetic. My vendor is still stocked with old ships...I'm out of steel for new ones

Arg0nus

Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:24 am

#15

Niacia wrote:

Right, in theory this is very simple. The problem probably is something else. Probably an item does not know, when it was crafted or under which rules. Therefore, a retroactive change like this would mean that you have to search the complete database, find all items that need to be adjusted, adjust those items, write them back to the database.

This not only increases the downtime (probably not by too much time), but it also requires a lot of testing beforehand. If something went wrong during this process, this would require a rollback of the database.

Now the question from a devs point of view is: Is the discomfort for the players that large, that it makes sense to devote the time for implementing and testing such a mechanism, and additionally increase the risk of a rollback. And a rollback for sure causes discomfort to players.

Now, from a devs point of view, I'd say, the sdiscomfort will be high for a small percentage of players (SW who have stocked many of those ships). It is a minor issue for some other players (pilots and remaining shipwrights). Is it worth the risk of a rollback? Probably not. Does it make sense to implemet and test a database tool, that will probably be used only once? Probably not.

So while I do not like the results, I can understand this decission.

Regards

Niacia

Also...Oracle (the DBase they use) is evil. The company I work for uses it also. It's darn near impossible to make system wide dbase changes without crashing the whole dbase. Even upgrading has a very good chance of crashing to the ground.

Bored of the Grinding. Taking a break for an unspecified period of time.

Ewach

Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:42 am

#16

X = old mass / old mass max

New mass = new mass max * X

Pretty simple if you ask me.

I contend it is NOT that simple.

Take three ships of mass 70K each, A, B & C.

Ship A: Made with poor(red) resources, but experimented by a Master Shipwright.

Ship B: Made with average (yellow) resources, by a mid-levelShipwright grinding them out with only a little experimentation..

Ship C: Made with excellent (green) resources, by a shipwright grinding the profession with no experimentation.

All three end up with about the same mass - however, the inputs to them were radically different. The system doesn't know whether that particular item was fully experimented or what resources were made to create it after the fact.

To simply do (New Mass = Old Mass * Upgrade Factor) could create some situation in which individuals profited inequitably from using lower class resources in the first place.

All that said, I too think it sucks that we get stuck with obsolete (lower mass) chassis - but I can see why they don't have an upgrade policy.

SWG Lexicon: "Every Player" Means "Except Crafters"

Ewach - Founder of Travelers Respite on Sunrunner
Located halfway between Anchorhead and Mos Eisley (2180, -4684)
Visit my Shop at (2030, -4660)

Ackdel

Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:48 am

#17

Ewach wrote:

X = old mass / old mass max

New mass = new mass max * X

Pretty simple if you ask me.

I contend it is NOT that simple.

Take three ships of mass 70K each, A, B & C.

Ship A: Made with poor(red) resources, but experimented by a Master Shipwright.

Ship B: Made with average (yellow) resources, by a mid-levelShipwright grinding them out with only a little experimentation..

Ship C: Made with excellent (green) resources, by a shipwright grinding the profession with no experimentation.

All three end up with about the same mass - however, the inputs to them were radically different. The system doesn't know whether that particular item was fully experimented or what resources were made to create it after the fact.

To simply do (New Mass = Old Mass * Upgrade Factor) could create some situation in which individuals profited inequitably from using lower class resources in the first place.

All that said, I too think it sucks that we get stuck with obsolete (lower mass) chassis - but I can see why they don't have an upgrade policy.

I don't agree with you. It matters not HOW it was made, only the end product matters. All three of the methods you mentioned, when used today, would still result in ships of relatively equivalent mass, all greater than the ships of a few days ago by the same amount.

As far as a systemwide database change goes, I can understand why it's not feasible. I had always thought a method like the old pet trade-in system would be better. It would be very easy for them to differentiate between old and new ships, just throw a boolean variable into ships crafter after the date of the publish. If the ship doesn't have that variable set to true, it's an old ship, and can be turned in for a new one.

I know it's silly beating this dead horse. It's not going to happen, but I'm really disappointed. (I was a Firespray crafter)

Crowne Morril
12pt Droid Engineer - 14pt Artisan (Retired)
Lorde Morril - "He'll zerg your Cloudsong"

Shipwright Archive

Thread: Already made neutral chassi not upgraded