Heh, sometimes they listen...

cronic · Post by **cronic** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:57 am

Touchez, Sony.

gnome001 · Post by **gnome001** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 9:18 am

its about freakin time...now that all my skills are 220+..

Achy Wrists · Post by **Achy Wrists** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 9:58 am

I was thinking about this and I imagine they'll implement it the way spell menus are implemented now. That being you click on something then scroll down a menu of recipies and click on that. Every time. So if you want to tradeskill up you'll still have a bunch of clicking to do. Much less than before, but still a significant ammount if you're skilling up. I wonder if SOE will thinking this through enough to put a box up asking how many times you want the recipie done? So that you only have to select it once.

bob_the_builder · Post by **bob_the_builder** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:02 am

I still think if Im trivial in something I should be able to put a stack of 20 of each item in the container and make 20 at one time... or 5, like th emass enchant ...

Bob

MQSEQ · Post by **MQSEQ** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:38 am

Bottom line if it's trival that means you have mastered the making of that item and you should never fail on it. There whole Trade Skill system is flawed. they should have it that it takes x amount of times to master that skill level and then base the failures in achieving that level. For example say to you at lvl 100 and you want to get to level 101. Make it so it takes atleast 20 successful combines (non trivals) to increase the level to 101. Now it may have taken 20 attempts or 100 attempts (with failures). By doing this you know how many times you need to go before next level etc.

For Sony to make it skill up on a failure is pure stupidity and that makes the system flawed from the onet. This concept is just like any RL example after you do it enough it becomes second nature. For example you learn to ride a bike early in life and may not ride it for 40 years but when you get on it you will remember how (yes you can fall aka failure) to ride it. Now if you just ride it in a straight line you dont have any problems doing it (so if you fall you might want to stay off the bike

).

Doodman · Post by **Doodman** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:40 am

bob_the_builder wrote:I still think if Im trivial in something I should be able to put a stack of 20 of each item in the container and make 20 at one time... or 5, like th emass enchant ...

Bob

I've always thought this.

Perhaps making the the trivial for "stack" combining 1.5 times (or something higher at least) the original triviail (but not allowing skill ups to that level). That would only allow you to do mass combines reliably for things that are way below your trivial to prevent too much abuse. And, doing mass combines above your level would be auto-fail (no change of success and no chance of skill up). Would seem like a good system to me.

Doodman · Post by **Doodman** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:44 am

Oh, since they are displaying the items them must either be sent to the client or stored client side. Either way, it will allow "collecting" the recipes in a reliable format.

Looks like I'll have some work to do on PacketCollector to collect those for EQEmu.

Plus, I'd be interested to see the network traffic that happens during these combines to see if it can be safely spoofed. If so, then you'd be able to do any combine by clicking, even those above your level.

Doodman · Post by **Doodman** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:52 am

MQSEQ wrote:Bottom line if it's trival that means you have mastered the making of that item and you should never fail on it.

I disagree here. There is always a chace of faiilure. People have bad days. People make mistakes. There should always be a chance of failure.

MQSEQ wrote:For Sony to make it skill up on a failure is pure stupidity and that makes the system flawed from the onet

Again, I disagree. This is more life like. You learn more (or should) by mistakes than you do by success. If you make soup and add sugar instead of salt, you learn very quickly that sugar is not good in soup.

MQSEQ · Post by **MQSEQ** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:11 am

True if you add sugar instead of salt you failed in making the item but you didn't follow the reciepe tho. Practice does make perfect and PERFECT is the key word.

Here's an example if you are skill lvl 200 trying to make a lvl 20 item and in 100 attempts you have a 10% or so to fail. Now it RL you really have less than 1% in failing (which I could live with) but the problem is there margin of failure is set to high.

That would be more realizitic, how about you need a heart surgery and your doctor is Dr. Debakey (the best in the world) would you expect you to screw up and snip the main value and say oops I had a bad day because the EQ gods din't role in my favor? I hope not. Just like you expect to go in for a heart heart surgery and don't expect to walk out on one leg either.

Rat_Bastard · Post by **Rat_Bastard** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:12 am

If you make soup and add sugar instead of salt, you learn very quickly that sugar is not good in soup.

Hopefully you only make that mistake once...and NEVER after you "master" soup making.

Doodman · Post by **Doodman** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:52 am

MQSEQ wrote:True if you add sugar instead of salt you failed in making the item but you didn't follow the reciepe tho. Practice does make perfect and PERFECT is the key word.

Fine better example: You're making mac-n-cheese.. You boil the water and then add the cheese packet, boil for 5 mins then add the noodles. You failed to make mac-n-cheese, but you've learned a lot in the process.

MQSEQ wrote:Here's an example if you are skill lvl 200 trying to make a lvl 20 item and in 100 attempts you have a 10% or so to fail. Now it RL you really have less than 1% in failing (which I could live with) but the problem is there margin of failure is set to high.

At that level you are at 95% success (which is the max). Everything (except no-fail combines) have a minumum 5% failure rate. Now, to your point, that might be a little high.

MQSEQ wrote:That would be more realizitic, how about you need a heart surgery and your doctor is Dr. Debakey (the best in the world) would you expect you to screw up and snip the main value and say oops I had a bad day because the EQ gods din't role in my favor? I hope not. Just like you expect to go in for a heart heart surgery and don't expect to walk out on one leg either.

True, but people go in for minor surgery and end up leaving in body bags. Things happen. People screw up. Nothing is for sure.

All I'm saying is your model does not fit real life either. Every once in a while a master chef will make a bad batch of cookies.

MQSEQ · Post by **MQSEQ** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:27 pm

For your mac and cheese example everytime I follow the directions they come out as expected, it's only when you don't follow the directions do they come out wrong.

The 95% success rate might be fine for EQTraders and Alakhazam but sit down and try it and you will see in most cases you will miss more than expected.

I understand what your saying and nit picking details will never stop on the points becuase I can disprove you then you will disprove me, back and fourth, back and fourh.

Bottom line there current method is not realizitic, in a RL scenario.

Raebis · Post by **Raebis** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:27 pm

i like sugar in my soup.....

Doodman · Post by **Doodman** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:28 pm

MQSEQ wrote:The 95% success rate might be fine for EQTraders and Alakhazam but sit down and try it and you will see in most cases you will miss more than expected.

Well, the PRNG must not like you much, then. I actually usually get better than 95% success on items that are low trivial.

There is a widly know formula for finding your the skill level required for obtaining a certain success rate based and it is not linear So, keep that in mind.

(success_rate+trivial-70)/1.15 = skill_level

Examples:
Something that trivials at say 20 you get to 95% success at skill 39.
Something that trivials at say 166 you get to 95% success at skill 166. (break-even point)
Something that trivials at say 200 you get 95% success at skill 195.
Something that trivials at say 250 you get 95% success at skill 239.

MQSEQ · Post by **MQSEQ** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:01 pm

The problem with the formula it's not taking in account of Wis/Int/Str, so it's a hard coded guestament.

I not trying to split hairs since I know it you ran 5 - 100 runs, you might get: 97, 95, 100, 94 , 96 as you running totals then you avg all the runs to get your actual % of success. That's why they are called odds and if you can 100% get them right all the time then Vegas here you come.

We'll just leave it as this, I think they need to revamp the Trade skill system and you don't think they do.