The BROKEN 3rd Ench/Mtrwrk percentile

Hey folks, I know this is a topic for the crafting channel BUT I feel it’s important enough to be here and there.

I’ve been crafting in SoTA since persistence and my Enchanting and Masterworking skills are up 48% – 49% on the 3rd tier. I do A LOT of Ench & Masterworking, A LOT. I’ve kept stats on this for the last few weeks and through the lasts 340 3rd Ench and masterworks I performed only 57 made it, WTF … that would make it x3 lover percent wise than stated. This is super frustrating.

Let’s NOT EVEN talk about how much materials are wasted. Let’s look into an ERROR somewhere in the math OR if there are other factors affecting this WE NEED TO KNOW. Just last night I was making wands for a friend, 13 wands made it to 3rd Ench and out of the 13 w/ 48% stated success 2 made it. This morning I made 7 necklaces & all 7 made it to 3rd Ench and GUESS WHAT -- NONE made it though the 3rd Ench.


Again, if the chance is lowered from some factor PLEASE REFLECT it in the percentile shown, otherwise your “crafting” “Richard & Starr Long” is very disappointing and misleading.


I am aware its Randomly Generated, but statistics reflect the chances correctly. Please look into the MATH behind the scenes and either fix this or let us know what IF there are other factors that play into this which erroneously are not being shown.



Thanks you,



Fzol

 

I concur with Fzol. It appears the percentage is based on a random number generator which is based on another random number generator and does not reflect the actual percentage of success. If this is the case then asking for a true representation of the percentage of success is not unreasonable and neither is asking for a correction to the programming or code that is causing this error. Please just let us know what the true percentage of success is for enchanting and the like.

Respectfully,
Theraysa Claire

 

I concur as well. Further, if there are going to be instances where a fifty percent chance to craft an item is going to result is 0/10, then there also has to be instances where the same fifty percent chance results in 10/10. Thus far, we are seeing plenty of the former and none of the later.

Cypher Black

 

I am a GM Enchanter and have had similar results as Fzol. I would make a series of 10 +1 rings (done this a few times now), enchant them to 2nd and about half make it if I am extremely lucky, but on the third enchantment I have failed all of the attempts many times yielding none to third. Please look into this. It costs me a huge amount of time, ore, and other resources just to watch it explode on 2nd or 3rd enchantment sooo many times.

 

I would have to agree. I have a 70 something for my second enchant but I am seeing more than 50% breakage. I also would like to add there is an issue with the % math on collecting as well. I frequently get two or three failures in a row with at 95% chance to collect the material. I understand that we are in pre-release but with all the talk of live release soon, I would have expected the math to be a bit more spot on at this point.

 

I think it is worth looking into the formula and the reported percentage. I love the game and I realize it is still pre-release.
This is simply another area that needs addressing.

Of course, this is probably something that is only seen within a smaller group of players; those that reached GM level or around there in crafting.
But the fact that it is an area which impacts a significant material and time investment is what makes it frustrating among that group of VERY dedicated players.

I know Mangar (Fzol), in-game, and he is very dedicated to SoTA.
So I feel I can say that he is bringing this up, out of a desire to make the game better for all of us.
I know his crafted items are popular among players. He has GM'd most, if not all, the crafting professions.
He knows what he is talking about, in my opinion.

 

The problem is Cris always answers that it is all working as intended witch it is not. They have always said in the past that at times they change the % to decrease production and do not show the %. But overall this system just is not fun or fair. Cris had a big debate this week about this randum system. The point they missed is that if a Dev has to debate the players on how bad the system is and if it is fair then they should always go with the customers /backers are always right. We would not complain if it was fair and we liked the system. Even if he thinks it is fair isn't this game paid for and being made for us? Is it more about him being right or is it about us having fun?

 

So, what would be more fair and not exploitable?

 

Well for starters Unity has a well known broken RNG so go with a system more like UO. Its not randum. It should go by skill level.

 

UO used a pseudo-random number generator, just like SotA does, and it was endlessly complained about.

 

UO had a diminishing return but also a parabolic curve to skill check success... it was brillantly done. Bad RNG streaks would happen, and sometimes you wondered if your skill was even progressing at all, waiting for that +.1% in the logs ; but most of the time it didn't happen regularly and in a consistent manner because of the mitigating algorythm.

I can't beleive I'm the one that remembers all those details... there is much more saavy people on here. I shouldn't be the one that recalls those things that made UO so fun.

 

IMO, the UO skill system was not all that fun.

 

I guess thats why tens of thousand still play to this day, from all countries in the world... there are free shards in every damn language on earth, asians owning the bulk of it.

If you said why you think the system was not fun, that would help further the discussion instead of cutting it short

 

I didn't say that it was not fun. I said that it was not all that fun, meaning not as fun as you're making it out to be. I understand that there are lots of people still playing on free shards (although I think your estimates may be a bit exaggerated) but I still have very vivid memories of losing all my materials on a failed crafting attempt and riding around in a boat to find spots where I could actually gain some skill. I also remember having to stand perfectly still to shoot an arrow and then stay perfectly still while the arrow was flying otherwise it was an automatic miss. Golly, super fun.

 

Indeed, you think I exaggerate, because its an underground network the free shards, and they don't all connect through Razor.

Yes you lost alot of material in UO, that was also much easier to gather and not all mining spots required you to PvE or PvP for it.

The arrow issue was definately a bug, like the two screen homing arrows, even in beta you didn't have to stand still that occured due to some superimposed system for Age of Shadows if I recall well.

You seem to have alot of anecdotes that push me to tell you that you were unlucky and got discouraged pretty fast.

I play UO since the closed beta... thats quite alot of years so yes many bugs... but even then some freeshards and emulators did it twice as good as EA without any budget.

 

So, essentially you're saying that SotA should do everything like the free shards did? Because your assertion that UO didn't use pseudo-random numbers to determine success is flat wrong.

[edit] I'm assuming you meant that the free shards implemented some system that didn't work off of random chance.

 

I'm sorry, I can't ask you to study as much as I did to understand how a parabolic success curve superimposed algorythm mitigates pseudo-RNG shortcomings. You just skipped over my explanation...

 

You mean by averaging random values in order to make them less random. All that would do is produce way less failure and way less exceptional. In other words, make it more mediocre.

 

I can't say that... thats a gross generalization, I'm saying they should have listened to their major errors and maybe some of the solutions they found because they didn't have the budget to hire people like EA and still managed a great result.

I can say however, that SOTA should HAVE NOT gone the Age of Shadows path, which we clearly do... in fact yesterday I wanted to purchase something to encourage Portalarium but I was struck with a form of paralysis, everything I saw reminded me of the Age of Shadow crew...

I'm someone who gets amazed with childlike innocence pretty easily... some houses in UO had so much effort in them that it made me cry, I'm easy to move.

But yesterday I was struck... unable to get moved for one, single thing.

Oh I'll get over it... but I'm shocked at the similarities...

 

An algorythm isn't an average... *rubs temples*, and even less a parabolic curve driven one.

But yeah anyways, thats what is happening right now ! minus less failure... which is WORSE.