Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
KrakkenSmacken

Tweaking the crafting model to be less RNG, more progressive.

Recommended Posts

I think this paragraph by Dirkoff from the "Crafting Percentages" thread explains the situation rather well.

 

"IMO the problem with the current crafting system is there is too much RNG. Yes you can bias the dice in your favour but the end result is still a dice roll and it doesn't provide any satisfaction when you have assembled all your components and consumed all your resources and the final roll is a failure. That doesn't give me much incentive to try again. Some players may try and try again to get that max stats but I believe they are in the small minority."

 

 

I pulled this from a different thread because it speaks to something I feel is a bit lacking in the current crafting design. Don't get me wrong, it's already pretty amazing, it's just that it is so random, and with the application of BP's, is going to be very hard to distiguish profressional crafters from lucky amatures that simply spent more resources getting the same results.

 

I propose the following additions.  Not really changes, because the base is already there, I just think it could use a few tweaks.

 

I would much prefer a progressive system to the one in place now.  Currently, because of the BP mechanic, there is literally no reason to spend less than your maximum points when experimenting, as that is the most likely way to get a new "Amazing Success" BP out of the system, with that being applied to the most number of dots, simply because stringing together multiple "Amazing Success" is one of the least likly things that can happen.

 

What I would like to see is you have to build up to an Amazing Success result, by making the you step through the point spending process.

 

When you start, you are at the bottom, with a range of Critical Failure to Moderate Success along your 1-100 range. (note, this range can be any arbitrary range, or adjusted by modifiers)

 

Ex2ShmL.jpg

 

Lets say after your first try you ended up with a success, somewhere in the middle.

 

swinSxM.jpg

 

Your next try also resulted in a success, an excellent 100 roll that put you high into moderate.

 

[image cut due to too many images]

 

Now your on a streak, and you moved into Good Success.

 

pmMn0K1.jpg

 

You have spent 4 points, and climbed into good success. You can now chose to "finish" with as many points as you have remaining, and lock in ALL points at this value, including the ones you used to climb to this point, or keep trying to climb higher.

 

The entire length of the success bar could represent different variances between success levels. so that success is 0.01-0.99 while moderate is 1.00-1.99 along it's entire length. Good could be 2.00-4.99, great 5.00 -9.99 and amazing 10.00-20.00, or whatever values balance out the best in the end. So as the result is going up or down, you would know the final outcome % as you progressed.

 

If you picked 4 dots at once, it would simply roll 4 times and show the final result, but use it as a single check for "complexity".

 

Each range size could also be adjusted, so that skills could reduce for example the size of the "Critical" to reduce total failure chances, or other ranges to make it take less success to get you into Amazing.

 

The range of 1 - 100 would have modifiers, so that player skills could give an automatic + to the roll, and item difficulty a minus value.  (I think our pots at this point show +75 against difficulty -25) that are the current visual representation of skill. +25 would mean you very rarely hit critical failures, while -25 would mean you rarely climb.

 

You could also put into play a second effect.  If for example you rolled a "natural" 100, you could have it so that a second roll is automatically made and the two added together, bringing about a rare (1/100) event that could see you climb as much as +199. You could even repeat that so two 100's in a row could see a +299 climb, etc.

 

I think you get the idea

 

Discuss.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are looking at crafting in isolation without considering how factories and blueprints impact the system

No I'm not.

 

BP's greatly skew everything, as I said above.  

 

Let's say for example I am making white bars of rose gold.

 

If I am perfectly trained and drinking pots with the current system I have say 1/10 chance of pulling an amazing success.  Say it takes me the average time of ten tries, now I have a "perfect" white rose gold BP to work with.

 

I run that the 100 times described in the crafting video.  Total cost (9 * 100) ore for the run plus (9 * 10) for the experimentation, total costs 990 ore.

 

I don't drink pots, and lets say I have half the chance as someone who did. Total cost is (9 * 100) plus (9 * 20) or 1080 ore. A meager 9% increase in cost.

 

The more components, the longer it will take to hit that amazing success, but with careful planning I can totally over come the limitations with more resources.

 

The only thing I can't get without training is more dots, but at lower end resources that really does not matter, and at higher end resources more successes will have to be strung together to spend all the dot's so odds are the differences will be marginal at best.

 

With my proposed changes, those dots, added together with a higher average increase in results due to skill, will put more distance between professional crafters than those just taking a stab at it.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addendum to the original post.

 

The range really should have not been 1 - 100, it should have been -100 to +100, with 0 in the middle. for a chance of hitting any one number being 1/200

 

QVZ3Rxb.jpg

 

The reason being the ability to add penalty or bonus is easier with two sides of the equation 

 

For example, increasing the difficulty to 25 would result in a range of -125 - 100, or RND(225) with the middle being a loss of -12/-13 quality.

 

gAMAzIL.jpg

 

Add in the pots which give +75 and you get a range of 300 RND(300) with the middle result being positive 25, and a chance to go much higher than just +100 in the total range (+175).

 

OoLKyIP.jpg

 

By adding and subtracting on either side of this chance continuum, you can effect the depths you could fall to, and the heights you could climb, in a more progressive manner than the current all or nothing way of looking at things.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are using "cheater" pots to up crafting skill... the experiment part of the RNG is easily circumvented by factory/thrall use on an item than experiments as amazing, the only frustrating part of crafting (besides the damnable take bug) is the actual item assembly fail AND you should know your odds going in.  This mechanic prevents low skill crafters from easily creating things (25% chance to fail).  With higher skills this fail rate can be reduced below 5%, ideally as low as a minimal 1-2%...   There has to be a chance to fail that can be mitigated by skill...   this is not true RNG, it is skill-fail rate fixed rate.  I agree there is something broken in the fail rate because I have seen 4 fails in a row with a 95% success rate which is close to the million lotto odds.


6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krakken...  pots are temporary for testing, we will not have pots in game that increase crafting skill.   I think the fail rate will start at 25% at low skill and be reduced to below 5% at high skill thus your costs will change...   not only that but a low skill crafter is not going to get the BP amazing experiment near as easily.   Low skill crafters will only get success and good success most of the time...   high end crafters will get the amazing success much more often.   A low end crafter could burn through stacks of mats and never get an amazing.

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krakken...  pots are temporary for testing, we will not have pots in game that increase crafting skill.   I think the fail rate will start at 25% at low skill and be reduced to below 5% at high skill thus your costs will change...   not only that but a low skill crafter is not going to get the BP amazing experiment near as easily.   Low skill crafters will only get success and good success most of the time...   high end crafters will get the amazing success much more often.   A low end crafter could burn through stacks of mats and never get an amazing.

I know the pots are temporary.  I was using it as an example because that is what is supposed to represent "end game" crafting skills.

 

If you look at the experiment page where it describes "risk", there are two numbers, Skill and Difficulty.  In every experiment I bothered to look at, the difficulty was 25.  Without pots the skill is at zero, with a pot the skill is 75.

 

Risk 100% can still result in Amazing Success, pots or no pots. and there is a noticeable improvement in success rates when your skill is 75, but that does not appear to be reflected in the "Risk". 

 

My goal was to add additional detail to the current model that would take away it's all or nothing state in current experimentation, and give a more steady increase up to Amazing Success, rather than have it just jump strait to it on a lucky roll as frequently as it does now.

 

When you can BP any finished experiment, and that BP runs several dozen to a hundred copies of the item, there is literally no reason at all in the current system to run anything but the riskiest of experiments. Those will more quickly produce an Amazing BP that stepping through one dot at a time never will. Those BP's will also have the least "complication", so will be ground out by thralls at the fastest pace. 

 

Unless I am missing something, once BP's come on line, the only time you would ever take less than the highest risk possible, would be when you absolutely needed that first item to be made.  

 

After that there is near zero reason to hold back, and every reason to take the risk.

 

Having a system where you climb or fall in incremented steps would change that.  Higher skill would climb higher, lower skill would tend lower, and with a permanent small chance of a lower skill getting multiple rolls in one try, they would still have a "chance", but a vanishingly small one.

 

Unless you can explain to me when taking lesser risks, for longer builds,  when the goal is to get a BP, makes sense.  

 

Otherwise I just don't see it. I see allot of hoops to reach a singular best choice, highest risk every time, make items when you get anything less than Amazing, BP if do you get Amazing.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that, say you get 4 pips to experiment with (green mats) and you have a nice big stack to work a BP...   going all 4 pips at once vs 1 pip at a time is the real question we have about the risk.  Both produce the exact same increase in stats IF (big IF) you get 4 amazing results for the one at a time go rather than 1 amazing result with an all in roll.  IMO the one at a time has a much higher chance of a better result because your risk is down at 11% each pip (mostly moderate success or better) rather than at 50% one time  (mostly fail or better)...  I have gotten 3 amazing and 1 great success a lot and thought that result would probably be OK for a BP (and save a lot more mats for the factory run).  Going 4 pips at once just seems like tossing a lot of mats into poor results, fails and critical fails.  It all depends on the crafters goal, best gear possible or best gear probable (close enough to date my sister kind of thing).  Perfectionists will have to burn a ton of mats to get a perfect BP.   It is working correctly but I think the risk of max pips at once should give maybe 10% better stat improvement than doing 1 pip at a time.

I think it is like this:
1 pip 11% risk:?, most common result (median) Great Success?

2 pips 18% risk?, most common result Good Success?

3 pips 25% risk?, most common result Moderate Success?

4 pips 50% risk?, most common result Success?

5? pips 75% risk?, most common result Fail?

It just is not encouraging you to go 4 pips at once nor is the end result better that one pip at a time and most of the time it will be significantly worse.  Those high risk should bump stats more than they do IF they get those top results.

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm not.

 

BP's greatly skew everything, as I said above.  

 

Let's say for example I am making white bars of rose gold.

 

If I am perfectly trained and drinking pots with the current system I have say 1/10 chance of pulling an amazing success.  Say it takes me the average time of ten tries, now I have a "perfect" white rose gold BP to work with.

 

I run that the 100 times described in the crafting video.  Total cost (9 * 100) ore for the run plus (9 * 10) for the experimentation, total costs 990 ore.

 

I don't drink pots, and lets say I have half the chance as someone who did. Total cost is (9 * 100) plus (9 * 20) or 1080 ore. A meager 9% increase in cost.

 

The more components, the longer it will take to hit that amazing success, but with careful planning I can totally over come the limitations with more resources.

 

The only thing I can't get without training is more dots, but at lower end resources that really does not matter, and at higher end resources more successes will have to be strung together to spend all the dot's so odds are the differences will be marginal at best.

 

With my proposed changes, those dots, added together with a higher average increase in results due to skill, will put more distance between professional crafters than those just taking a stab at it.

I generally like your idea but the system as it is now is not as bad as you seem to think.

You forget that for most equipment ( weapon, armor) you need several steps to craft them. As you said only looking at one special crafting process a master craftsman will have no great advantage.

But let's look at the process after crafting the firt blueprints. If you nedd two more crafting steps to create an weapon and only sell the best a master craftsmen will be caple to sell 1% of the good he crafted. One the other hand a not master craftsmen who has only half the chance of sucess for each stage can only sell 0,25% of the goods he produced. To sell the same amount he would have to begin with 4 times as many blueprints and therefore would need for times the resources of a professional crafter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both produce the exact same increase in stats IF (big IF) you get 4 amazing results for the one at a time go rather than 1 amazing result with an all in roll.

 

This part isn't quite correct.  There is a bonus to your results when you perform an experiment at 50% risk, or above.  Using only amazing success as an example, a low risk experiment (currently 1-3 pips) results in an 8.05% increase per point spent.  A high risk experiment (4 or more pips) is an increase of 12.08% per point spent.  So, four experiments of one point each (assuming all amazing results) would increase your item by 32.2%.  A single experiment of four points, with an amazing result, with a risk of 50%, improves your item by 48.32%.  This is a 50% increase to your results.

 

If your goal is to make the best possible item, you can only do so by using at least four points per experiment, with as few experiments as possible.  Either way, I believe KrakkenSmacken is correct, and the only real factor in determining when to pursue those high risk results is how lucky you are, how skilled you are (to mitigate that luck), and how rich you are.

Edited by Hyriol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally like your idea but the system as it is now is not as bad as you seem to think.

You forget that for most equipment ( weapon, armor) you need several steps to craft them. As you said only looking at one special crafting process a master craftsman will have no great advantage.

But let's look at the process after crafting the firt blueprints. If you nedd two more crafting steps to create an weapon and only sell the best a master craftsmen will be caple to sell 1% of the good he crafted. One the other hand a not master craftsmen who has only half the chance of sucess for each stage can only sell 0,25% of the goods he produced. To sell the same amount he would have to begin with 4 times as many blueprints and therefore would need for times the resources of a professional crafter.

We want a simple item, pure critical chance rapier.

 

Starting at the bottom, we want the best parts to make the best item.  We are looking for Amazing success on every component along the way, and in the final combine.

 

We also will assume it takes 1/20 tries to get an amazing success before we can make a BP, that it always take 20 tries before getting that BP, and we want to make the longest run of the item possible.

 

We will also assume the stated 100 runs per blueprint is how many you get without any BP quantity improvement training. Time will not matter to us, as we are going to use thralls to grind out the finished goods as soon as we get the necessary BPS.

 

We want a simple item, pure critical chance rapier.

 

The first step has zero BP attrition, we are only

 

So for the base we need metal bars. Making an amazing success metal 

 

METAL BAR + METAL BAR = Weapon blade thin

METAL BAR = Pommel

METAL BAR = Cross Guard

LEATHER = Grip

 

To get to here we would have spent 9 * 20 * 4 = 720 ore to make the 4 METAL BAR BP's and 9 * 20 * 1 = 180 for the Grip. 

 

At this point to produce all the component parts we will spend another 9 * 4 * 100 = 3600 copper, and 9 * 100 = 900 bear leather.  

 

Now is when the risk above regular resources comes into play.  We will make 20 of each component before we manage to get our amazing success, burning through 720 of the 3600 copper, and 180 of the 900 bear leathers.

 

After each of those amazing successes we will end up with 80 of each component after running the amazing success BP's for each component.

 

With the 80, will will have to combine Pommel, Cross Guards, and Grips into a hilt. We will loose an additional 20 of these to non-amazing success results, leaving us with 60 perfect hilts.

 

We will then combine for another 20 times to attach the perfect hilts to the perfect thin blades with amazing success. 

 

The net result will be 40 perfect amazing success rapiers, and where the results were not "Amazing success", and not total loss of the item, we will still have a pile of fairly decent rapiers or hilts for selling, which we can combine with the remaining perfect thin blades, and still make a decent set of weapons.

 

Total cost comes in at 4320 copper ore and 1080 Bear leather.

 

Now, who do you think will make the most money off of the raw resources?  The harvester that can gather the 4320 ore and 1080 bear leather, or the crafter who buys it and can reduce the 1/20 failures to 1/10.  

 

The advantage of 1/10 would be a run of 60 perfect rapiers over 40, I will give you that, but I suspect all the non-perfect ones will be "good enough" for most and that the real trick is going to be who can gather the resources the fastest.

 

In any case it's still basically just a game of chance, rather than a built up to the skill cap.  With a skill system like I suggested at the start, the odds of getting an Amazing Success for an unskilled player is much lower, as instead of one off lucky rolls, the skilled player would be relying on his average advancement per check being higher, and having more checks to reach the pinnacle of crafting for an item.

 

There would also be far more variety, as "amazing success" itself would have a range, rather than a fixed value.

 

EDIT: Just whacked a copper node set to see how much it produces, and without using the large chunks I got 25 clear, 11 white, and 1 green.

 

Given the same results and a 5 minute re-spawn time, 4320 copper would take 14.4 hours of constant mining to gather that much copper from a single node. or 2.8 perfect clear rapiers per hour.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, who do you think will make the most money off of the raw resources?  The harvester that can gather the 4320 ore and 1080 bear leather, or the crafter who buys it and can reduce the 1/20 failures to 1/10.  

 

Neither

 

The real money will be made by the person who is crafting the blueprints

 

Regardless, your entire model depends on a whole bunch of parameters

 

1.  How often does one enjoy an amazing success?

2.  How long does it take to collect ore and transport it safely back to a crafter?

3.  What is the likelihood that you create a blueprint?

4.  How many copies can a blueprint generate

 

Any of these parameters can be tweaked


WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither

 

The real money will be made by the person who is crafting the blueprints

 

Regardless, your entire model depends on a whole bunch of parameters

 

1.  How often does one enjoy an amazing success?

2.  How long does it take to collect ore and transport it safely back to a crafter?

3.  What is the likelihood that you create a blueprint?

4.  How many copies can a blueprint generate

 

Any of these parameters can be tweaked

 

The "real money" for BP's only actually works if BP's are transferable, and the purchaser has thrall production trained high enough to make them worth while.

 

I don't think your right about number 1, in my model (original post) it would be clear how often you got amazing success. As it is now we have no clue what the RNG is doing under the hood.  Obviously the current models numbers can be tweaked, however I think the core premise, that the best way to get the best item is to go for broke, will have to remain. This is simply because it is far easier to roll one lucky "Amazing Success" than 4 in a row, or you have to skew the numbers so far up per pip, the current +12.5% "Risk" isn't even close, so as to make using more than 2 pips in a would be ridiculously fool hardy.  

 

For example, even with a simple 50/50 odds, the in a row frequency scales.

 

1 =1/2 (50%)

2= 1/4 (25%)

3= 1/8 (12.5%)

4= 1/16 (6.25%)

 

 

Adding each pip has to be exactly double the last pip in difficulty, or one of the options always has better odds. Take the above 50/50 above.  If adding 1 pip only reduces your odds by 30% after starting with a 50/50.

 

1 = (50%)

2 = (35%)

3 = (24.5%)

4 = (17.15%)

 

In this case it is always better to pick 4.  If you go the other way and change the odds to 60% worse per pip.

 

1 = (50%)

2 = (20%)

3 = (8%)

4 = (3.2%)

 

So the only way for pips to have any sort of "choice" in the trade off, is if each pip reduces your chance by exactly 50%. 

 

 

Number 2.  My numbers were based on current node production, which can obviously be tweaked.

 

Number 3. I'm not sure I understand, or you don't.  The "Create Blueprint" part of the process is when you "Name" the finished object.  Between that and taking the item there is no more random events.  After X time, you get to "Take" the finished BP.  Other than the current take bug, there is no chance you don't have the opportunity to make one.

 

Number 4, true enough.  There is also a line of training which increases the amount your BP's can manufacture.  I was going on the 100 mentioned in the Demo Video.

 

Bottom line really is at point 1 however. In the current model, unless each added pip always doubles the odds or worse of failure at any given point, regardless of skill or other modifiers in play, there is no choice to be made for those who understand the math.  

 

It's simple statistical odds that one choice is always the best.

 

EDIT:  Holy crap, I think I figured out what "Risk" is after thinking about how I worded this post. We know that 100% risk can still produce Amazing success, so it's not failure rate, so what is it?

 

3= 1/8 (12.5%)  12.5% is 1/8th of 100%

 

Currently the usual behavior of adding a pip is to add 12.5% to risk.  If you can add more this number changes, but 12.5% is the base. Without skills or special materials, tends to cap out at 100% at 8 pips.

 

So I think the math may work this way.  

 

if I have a 10% chance of getting an amazing success, that is 1/10 or 0.1.

 

This is also equal to 0.10 / 1 = .10  (I know this is obvious, but keep with me.)

 

If I add  1/8 risk, I add 12.5% risk.  This may get reflected in the formula as 

 

0.10 / 1.125 = 0.08888...

 

When you reach 100% risk the formula ends up being

 

0.10 /2.000 = .05  

 

Apply that to all positive results, and then that would naturally increase the failure/critical failures as you add to 100%. 100% risk would double your chances of a failure, and halve the chances at any specific level of success.

 

If that is the way it works, then it's ALWAYS going to be more beneficial to take the maximum risk, as the scale on a 10% chance would look like this.

 

Tries in a row selecting 1 pip each try and getting Amazing success each time.

 

1 =1/10 (10%)

2= 1/100 (1%)

3= 1/1000 (.1%)

4= 1/10000 (.01%)

5= 1/100000 (0.001%)

6= 1/1000000 (0.0001%)

7= 1/10000000 (0.00001%)

8= 1/100000000 (0.000001%)

 

[Note: the above is generous, as it does not count the first risk reduction in odds like the one below does. It was just better to represent it visually this way.]

 

VS one Risk of X pips

 

1 =1/11.25 (8.888...%)

2= 1/12.50 (8%)

3= 1/13.75 (7.2727...%)

4= 1/15.00 (6.666...%)

5= 1/16.25 (6.153%)

6= 1/17.25 (5.714%)

7= 1/18.50 (5.333%)

8= 1/20.00 (5%)

 

If that's the way it works, its more severe than I first though.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krakken,

I actually like the idea, but on a personal level, I dont necessarily see the problem with the current one either. 

Yours does seem more FUN to me. However as opposed to the skill tree, this is an area I wonder if development time vs value is really there? Even though it looks more fun, since most crafting will end up being done via thralls, will the players really see all the work required to go into the new system?

Being really frank... Id rather them spend this Dev time on the passive skill tree, or focusing on how to make PVP not a zerg vs zerg fest, or just sheer development of the game, than to tweak something that isnt really "broken" just for the sake of improvements.

Just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krakken,

 

I actually like the idea, but on a personal level, I dont necessarily see the problem with the current one either. 

 

Yours does seem more FUN to me. However as opposed to the skill tree, this is an area I wonder if development time vs value is really there? Even though it looks more fun, since most crafting will end up being done via thralls, will the players really see all the work required to go into the new system?

Being really frank... Id rather them spend this Dev time on the passive skill tree, or focusing on how to make PVP not a zerg vs zerg fest, or just sheer development of the game, than to tweak something that isnt really "broken" just for the sake of improvements.

 

Just a thought

 

That is a very reasonable position.  Obviously if the system would take a great deal of time to re-write, then yea, throw it on the back burner. My biggest worry is that very quickly with the current design it will cease to be any sort of game, and every "best choice" will have been calculated, so that there is no real reason to play against the odds. 

 

I see all sorts of efforts and complexity and choice, number of pips, different tiers of resource, scaling odds of "risk", difficulty, skill, and final product complexity.  I would just hate to see the goals of that system entirely boiled down to what is essentially non-choice where there is always the same "best play" move, max the pips, BP Amazing successes.

 

 

I also know from my experience with building gambling software, that the smallest difference in both method and perception makes a huge difference in play.  For example the slots in Vegas typically pay out between 90-96%.  I don't have my churn rate calculator spreadsheet handy, but the difference in experience between small margins is huge.

 

Assuming a 1$ bet, a 100$ stake, if you play the 90% game you will have 90$ left after 100 tries.

Assuming a 1$ bet, a 100$ stake, if you play the 96% game you will have 96$ left after 100 tries.

 

Round 2

 

90 = 81 after 90 Total plays 190

96 = 92 after 96. Total plays 196

 

Etc.

 

Right now the craft game seems to offer lots of choices, but from my playing with it in testing, and from my past experiences, it really feels like it narrows down to one best choice in all circumstances, which will be discovered and published very quickly, which is not what it looks like they were shooting for with all the details they put into the leavers.

 

If it's not able to do the job it's intended to do, I think that is broken, people just haven't seen the wheels come off yet.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very reasonable position.  Obviously if the system would take a great deal of time to re-write, then yea, throw it on the back burner. My biggest worry is that very quickly with the current design it will cease to be any sort of game, and every "best choice" will have been calculated, so that there is no real reason to play against the odds. 

 

I see all sorts of efforts and complexity and choice, number of pips, different tiers of resource, scaling odds of "risk", difficulty, skill, and final product complexity.  I would just hate to see the goals of that system entirely boiled down to what is essentially non-choice where there is always the same "best play" move, max the pips, BP Amazing successes.

 

 

I also know from my experience with building gambling software, that the smallest difference in both method and perception makes a huge difference in play.  For example the slots in Vegas typically pay out between 90-96%.  I don't have my churn rate calculator spreadsheet handy, but the difference in experience between small margins is huge.

 

Assuming a 1$ bet, a 100$ stake, if you play the 90% game you will have 90$ left after 100 tries.

Assuming a 1$ bet, a 100$ stake, if you play the 96% game you will have 96$ left after 100 tries.

 

Round 2

 

90 = 81 after 90 Total plays 190

96 = 92 after 96. Total plays 196

 

Etc.

 

Right now the craft game seems to offer lots of choices, but from my playing with it in testing, and from my past experiences, it really feels like it narrows down to one best choice in all circumstances, which will be discovered and published very quickly, which is not what it looks like they were shooting for with all the details they put into the leavers.

 

So maybe I dont fully understand your system then. I didnt read the most recent post, just the OP and your second post.

 

Currently, people will just grab Amazing success on each pip, make a BP and then craft it 20+ times

 

Wouldnt your system be similar? Get 4x Amazing success, make a BP and craft it 20+ times

 

So the crafters jobs will essentially be to craft a TON of 1 thing, to eventually get that "4x Amazing success" or whatever (based on 4 pips) and then bam, BP it and send it to mass crafting.

 

Im not entirely sure the difference your system offers, since the end result will still be the same goal: 4X amazings -> BP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe I dont fully understand your system then. I didnt read the most recent post, just the OP and your second post.

 

Currently, people will just grab Amazing success on each pip, make a BP and then craft it 20+ times

 

Wouldnt your system be similar? Get 4x Amazing success, make a BP and craft it 20+ times

 

So the crafters jobs will essentially be to craft a TON of 1 thing, to eventually get that "4x Amazing success" or whatever (based on 4 pips) and then bam, BP it and send it to mass crafting.

 

Im not entirely sure the difference your system offers, since the end result will still be the same goal: 4X amazings -> BP?

 

In short, it creates a difference between quality of Amazing Success, and gives incentive for you to take things one pip at a time.

 

swinSxM.jpg

 

Swap out the above range for these two, unskilled easy, and skilled hard

 

QVZ3Rxb.jpg

OoLKyIP.jpg

 

The goal of the system is to keep pushing your luck up the line, until you reach that amazing success, and then lock in the rest of your pips at that level. Every chance you take has a good chance of lowering your existing results, but if your skilled you have a better chance to improve it from the current.

 

If you do pick 4 pips at a time, you could get a first Amazing Success, and then have it canceled out by the later 3 pips poor checks.

 

One really good pip Amazing Success, only carries you into Moderate for the experimentation.  Then you need to try again to get into the higher areas.  At some point your going to be sitting on a good or great success with the option to either lock in and BP, or try your luck at improvement. This adds meaningful choice.

 

By adding a range of results so that for example good success 2.00-4.99 improvement per pip, while great is 5.00 - 9.99, there is incentive to take a really big chance, when you on the cusp of a new level, vs standing pat on a baseline win.

 

It makes it more like Deal/No Deal or press your luck.

 

Edit: from the other thread I carried the "risk" talk to in economy, the range could probably currently be represented by -25 and the positive represented by +75.  Average result +25.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, it creates a difference between quality of Amazing Success, and gives incentive for you to take things one pip at a time.

 

Let's assume that your "one pip at a time" investment scheme has a best move at any given stage.  

 

In this case, one can create a probability density function governing success type that duplicates the payoff from your system.


WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume that your "one pip at a time" investment scheme has a best move at any given stage.  

 

In this case, one can create a probability density function governing success type that duplicates the payoff from your system.

It may have a best move due to given result, just like blackjack does.

 

So for example it may be that with one pip spent, and a perfect Amazing success, your best bet could be to lock in at that point.  However if you only rolled a success, or are right on the edge of a jump in quality, your best move may be to try for a second pip to push you into the next range.

 

It creates a rather dynamic choice matrix that only gets more complex the more pips you have available to spend. The less it leans towards one direction or the other, good or bad results, the more difficult the choice becomes.  

 

Part of the current problem is the apparent value of 25% chance of fully negative outcome is too low, it should be closer to 45% in a system like this, with skill pushing it down to as low as 35%.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may have a best move due to given result, just like blackjack does.

 

I was actually thinking of blackjack as I read through your posts (maybe since you had posted before about gambling software).  You start off with two cards, check your results, then hit as you deem necessary while you build toward a perfect item; that 21.  Is it a fair analogy to say the current system might be playing blackjack by drawing X number of cards and hoping for the best? lol

 

I linked this two month old video for someone about a different topic, but I realized that the experimentation phase was a little different in that very early prototype.  It looked like your maximum pip was still limited by your resources, but scoring successes actually increased the maximum number of pips you could spend on the same stat.  Have a peek; I'm curious if you think that implementation would have been relevant to your idea:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og_DJoG08T4&t=516s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...