Weaponsmith Archive
Thread: Please stop calling for Resource Nerfing!
Zuplancer wrote:
I think the talk of Ressource issues is not unimportant. The solutions several people post here, are not the goal to get, but when i take a look at swgcraft.com and see that several named ressources spawns 80-100 days ago, then i must bump my head on the table, for this ugly shifting.
SWGCraft not listing a spawn for months is not an argument, because SWGCraft does not account for 90% of the resources that spawn.
Scruftydog makes a very, very important point. Personally, I had no idea as to the experimentation changes on TC. I knew there was a change, but some of the Weaponsmiths on Test are incredibly unreliable sources of information. So, 99% of us probably had no idea because we were being fed this nonsense from Test Weaponsmiths claiming that the change was made in the depths of hell. I really hope they put in char copy soon and reinstate that experimentation change, so I can take a look at it myself.
I like many crafters have to do the waiting game, thats part of the challenge.
All Weaponsmiths on Sunrunner have been challenged by the lack of a Ostrine Ore shift in almost 130+ days.
I can understand 2 weeks, heck I could even agree with 4 weeks.
130+ days and still counting?
Little on the extream.
Arkkyle
Master Artisan
Master Weaponsmith
Master Droid Engy
Minor Archy 4/3/2/1
ccmetal555 wrote:
I agree, but the reason people whine about this is that some resources simply down spawn on a server for MONTHS!I don't think that is fair. I think that through shifting each different type of resource should be available at LEAST once a month. When you hit master weaponsmith, then can't make any advanced components for3 months, I can easily see how people get a little mad.
I dunno, I think it's pretty fair. Gives more reward to the dedicated smiths, and makes it more difficult for bandwagon smiths who grind through the profession and expect to reap riches.
Frankly, I do not think you should be rewarded fame and fortune the instant you become a Master Weaponsmith. Otherwise, we're back to the bandwagon, to the point where we had 43924392 people jumping ship on a get-rich-quick scheme. Contrary to popular belief, Weaponsmith is one of the less difficult professions to master, as was posted above, it's even doable in 3 days. So there has to be something else there to keep our profession from becoming trivial.
Lastly, I have been around as a Weaponsmith since the start of the game. I can count on one hand, the number of resources that took longer than a month to show up between spawns that were detrimental to my profession (excluding the heinous period of forced shifts once a month back at release). Personally, I think if the number is that small, then the problem doesn't lie with shifts, but with players not checking planets for resources frequently enough.
scruftydog wrote:
The answer is to look at the the experimentation changes which were on Test Center, but were howled down. This change was a good change, but because we didnt understand it, we feared it. Lets look at what the Patch Notes said :
- Fixed experimentation formula to use the correct range when determining how much an item attribute changes. The formula was supposed to be based on the resource max range, but was using the entire attribute range. A crit success experimenting with an attribute can push the attrib over the resource max value, but never over the item max attrib value.
There is the answer! So using Plumbum Iron, the input that it provides for the CD of the formula, will only use the range 0-100 instead of 0-1000. This is the correct response from the DEVs to this resource problem.
We need to look into this change again, without fear. Please dont call for Resource/Schematic nerfing.
I agree that the named resources should remain as is, but just wanted to comment on this assertion. From what I could tell, based on the excellent tests performed by the folks on TC, this change is not what you think it was.
What it was, was the percentage increase per experimentation was being based on the entre attribute range, which is 1-1000. We all know the great success yields a 7% increase. This 7% increase was the thing based on the entire attribute range (i.e. 7% increase per great success is obviously the maximum experimentation increase). The changed called for this experimentation to be based on the actual resource range ... what this means is if the resource's key attribute is 500, then great success percentage increases would behalf 7%. This means that on poor resources we'd no longer have left over points - we'd need to expend every single point in damage just to overcome the resource quality inherent poorness. With this change, a gun made primarily on plumbum iron would therefore experience as little as 1% increase per great success.
But the kicker was theother change to make attributes that do not even exist on a resource to no longer be ignored, but to actually count for zero. This is terrible because if you think about advanced power handlers with a 66% reliance on conductivity, but iroluun reactive gas, ostrine carbonate ore, and polymers don't even have that attribute - and there is absolutely no alternative.
I didn't make all this up - I followed the threads carefully on TC and watched the data come in. The first one wasn't necessarily such a bad one, but the second was definitely horribly thought out (even though it was the intended way, it is stupid, stupid, stupid), and neither are beneficial to us in any fashion. Feel free to trace those threads on the TC forum - trust me, we do not want these changes, never, without mitigating changes that go hand-in-hand (e.g. adding all attributes to all resources).
Greets ...
Ok ... let me lay out the situation ...
A) Spawn Rates need to be adjusted.
That should be simple enough for the Dev's ... to make sure that *all* named resources spawn, at minimum every 6 weeks.
If it were less then that we would have a hard time keeping up with the stuff ... and stuff would start to not be *rare* anymore.
B) Weapon Base Damages need to be adjusted.
When they *created* resources, there was a *grand* scheme involved with which types of Iron (for instance) carried what kind of stats. They could not have every type of Iron carry *great* Conductivity ... some have better then others.
When they *created* the weapons, there was a *grand* scheme involved with which guns did the most damage and what type.
Both of those are good things ... the problem is not in either of those ... the problem is that when they designed the *weapons* they did not look at the already created resource schema and factor those *limitors* into the base damage.
The solution would be to factor in those limitors and adjust the weapons back to where they should fall in the damage schematic.
They looked a DH17 vs a Scout vs a FWG vs a SR combat and saw that the DPS based upon a *perfect* gun was good.
But ... you can't make perfect 1000 guns. (1-1000 scale) ... but the system was designed as if you could.
Below are real world examples of weapon average quality.
DH17's = 955
Scout's = 920
FWG's = 705
SR = 491
The fix is to look at the *average* percentage of each of the guns and balance damage based upon that. If they fix the *damage* of the guns, they don't need to mess with resources or experimentation or any of that.
Fixing the *damage* on the guns is actually the *proper* way to fix this situation ... cause resource qualities have a lot of interdepencies on them ... you can't just make all of the resources just as good as all the other resources ... that is *outside* of the game design.
Fixing the *damage* on a gun has nothing to do with any other system ... it's a lot easier changed then anything else ...
So ... let's get on the *Fix the Damage* of the gun based upon resource quality band wagon ... and off all the other wagons. This is the *proper* fix for the problem ... everything else causes other problems and casades.
This is not true. Check the threads closer. Much FUD was spread around, and not all of it was true. The missing stats change did not happen.
Kershakk wrote:
But the kicker was theother change to make attributes that do not even exist on a resource to no longer be ignored, but to actually count for zero. This is terrible because if you think about advanced power handlers with a 66% reliance on conductivity, but iroluun reactive gas, ostrine carbonate ore, and polymers don't even have that attribute - and there is absolutely no alternative.
I agree totally with this. We need to calculate the theoretical maximums of each component and have the outputs (dmg, hams, etc) scaled correctly.
Hero_DarkJedi wrote:
But ... you can't make perfect 1000 guns. (1-1000 scale) ... but the system was designed as if you could.
Below are real world examples of weapon average quality.
DH17's = 955
Scout's = 920
FWG's = 705
SR = 491
The fix is to look at the *average* percentage of each of the guns and balance damage based upon that. If they fix the *damage* of the guns, they don't need to mess with resources or experimentation or any of that.
Fixing the *damage* on the guns is actually the *proper* way to fix this situation ... cause resource qualities have a lot of interdepencies on them ... you can't just make all of the resources just as good as all the other resources ... that is *outside* of the game design.
Fixing the *damage* on a gun has nothing to do with any other system ... it's a lot easier changed then anything else ...
So ... let's get on the *Fix the Damage* of the gun based upon resource quality band wagon ... and off all the other wagons. This is the *proper* fix for the problem ... everything else causes other problems and casades.
Hero_DarkJedi wrote:
Fixing the *damage* on the guns is actually the *proper* way to fix this situation ... cause resource qualities have a lot of interdepencies on them ... you can't just make all of the resources just as good as all the other resources ... that is *outside* of the game design.
I disagree. The amount of weapons and components completely gated by this resource problem is too large, and rebalancing them would be an incredibly inefficient way to go about it.
I personally do not see how Rhodium Steel and Plumbum Iron being naturally low in conductivity is detrimental to the game in the slightest. Rhodium Steel and Plumbum Iron are only used in Weaponsmith items. No other crafted item in the game requires these metals. So, why are we going about the hard way of fixing something just to avoid changing a resource that only affects us in the first place?
Lastly, before you say "adding another potentially higher quality steel/iron to the game would negatively affect it" -- There are already Irons and Steels known for their qualities. Kammris Iron, Doonium Iron and Duralloy Steel are notorious for their reputation of being high quality metals for their type. Whereas Rhodium Steel and Plumbum Iron -- outside of Weaponsmithing -- are grind metals, period. No one uses them, no one seeks them out, they are not detrimental to the economy in any way, they are just wasting space. Adding one more average-level steel/iron is not going to change anything, Doonium/Kammris and Duralloy will still be more often sought out. Fixing them would solve a lot of Weaponsmith issues a lot faster, than going through a painful and slow rebalancing phase of adding damage manually to certain weapons and components.
If you change Plumbum et al, to have CD 0-1000, you destroy the work of existing smiths who have tracked and collected resources. All current resource stock of these metals would be worthless. This is an enormous impact.
Logix wrote:
I disagree. The amount of weapons and components completely gated by this resource problem is too large, and rebalancing them would be an incredibly inefficient way to go about it.
I personally do not see how Rhodium Steel and Plumbum Iron being naturally low in conductivity is detrimental to the game in the slightest. Rhodium Steel and Plumbum Iron are only used in Weaponsmith items. No other crafted item in the game requires these metals. So, why are we going about the hard way of fixing something just to avoid changing a resource that only affects us in the first place?
I certainly would not praise this change. We all want all weapons to be useful, but I think this change has the most detrimental impact.
Logix wrote:
Advantages > Disadvantages. I see nothing but praise if this change were to be made, time wasted on obsolete resources would seem miniscule at the idea that we would have over half of our firearms schematics being made actually worthwhile.