Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

FYI: Crafting exposed

Ionar

Ionar

Alpha
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Posts
652
Location
Sweden
Society
CRT
Avatar Name
Fritz Ionar
After month of detailed logging of my crafting runs and a lot of time analysing the data, I'm now ready to present my first findings.
As it's a rather extensive material I don't intend to post it all in forum posts. Instead I'll provide a word document with my report and a supplemental excel document with the data. Please feel free to read and post comments/feedback here.

You can dowload the documents below, I currently host them on Google documents. Let me know if there is any problem accessing the documents.
Word doc
Excel doc

For your convinience I've added the conclusion part of my report below (to see how I've come up with the formulas you have to actualy read the report):

Conclusion

I believe all BP’s in game follow the same basic formulas. Granted my study only involves electronic components, so as far as other BP-types are concerned this is just an unproven theory from my side.
The formulas I’ve deduced from my data so far are as follows:

1. TTOut = 0,9 * TTIn
2. TTP = 0,6 * TTIn * RWF
3. TTR = (0.9 – 0.6 * RWF) * TTIn
4. Rx = Ix / Itot * TTR
5. RWF = TBD*

*RWF is yet to be determined, but it follows these basic rules:
- 1 >= RWF > 0.
- RWF is based on the factor SCV / SPV.
- The higher the factor SCV / SPV the closer to 1 RWF is.

Abbreviation list

TTOut = TT value of output
TTIn = TT value of input
TTP = TT value of crafted product
TTR = TT value of residue
RWF = Rounding waste factor
Rx = TT value of residue of type x
Ix = Number of different ingredients of residue class x
Itot = Total number of different ingredients
SPV = Value of a single unit of product
SCV = Value of a single click
 
Last edited:
hmm was a nice read for sure... but I don´t think I got the new theories you put in there... just too much math for me.
I guess that is why I am not a good crafter maybe. :yay:
 
Subscribing, as a beginner crafter I found this interesting.

Carefully presented theories supplied by good amount of data.
Much better read than "I KNOW its this way cause I feel so:p"
 
Very nicely done and written up :)
 
Excellent documents. This whole study proves that game was designed for players to lose money in the long run whatever they do. Only way to make money in crafting is to... well... there is no way to make money crafting I'm afraid.:)

Thanks for the interessting read.
 
Very interesting reading :)
 
Interesting read, especially the product vs residue relationship.

In hunting for example, the average loot without globals/mini accounts for around 50% of the TT input based on my recordings.

This way is very easy for MA to tweak the tt return of the playerbase.

@Cuga:
To profit in crafting like any other profession in EU you need to cover the tt loss and markup of materials/items used by the markup of stuff crafted and/or skills.

There's no other magical way to profit in EU based on tt, at least none that I know of.
 
What is your theory? You should state your hypothesis first. You discussed your results, but I don't see what that discussion is trying to prove.
 
Thanks for all the kind replys and +rep :yay:

Superhal said:
What is your theory? You should state your hypothesis first. You discussed your results, but I don't see what that discussion is trying to prove.
Click to expand...
I guess the theory is that you can deduce a formula for the output of a BP that will work for any BP in game. I thought it would be to much work for FPC/MA to set up new and unique "formulas" for each BP in game so I asumed that a basic set of rules would have to be used for each and every BP out there.

The actual results, the formulas I belive govern all BPs, can be found under "Conclusion" at the end of the report (page 6).

I'll add it to the OP for your convinience :)
 
I have been colecting data in excel sheets on crafting components too and i agree that it "can" be formula or at least it is really close aproximation of it ;) and of course your data is for quanitiy ;) (i have tried quantity and condition on basic filters and it seems that for them swapping product output with residue output works).

But my data colection is a bit different type: i also note materials back.

For example data on BSM (the most i have colected - mayby not much but i am in middle of colecting):
clicks: 24600
product: 54,12%
residue: 31,11%
materials back: 5,32%
Sum TT back: 90,55%

seems it fits into your formula ;).

I do it mostly to get average info on product (something like statistical predicitng or inteligent learning ;)) so when i type price on selling pruduct and residue and price on materials i will get average return including markup ;).

Problem is i have done it for components mostly. And if i read it right you have done it for components too. I have noticed that for other items your formula may not fit so right (but of course my data colected is way lower so mayby it needs bigger sample). For example try crafting generic leather texture - you will get many (L) blueprints that are neither clasified as residue or product but have TT value.

Keep it up and you may crack the crafting like it has been done with armor ("how armor works").

Falagor
:bandit:
 
Nice work. The formulas seems to match what i believed, you got 50-60 % tt back the items crafted, and about 30% in residues. But crafting enhancers don't work this way, you get much less tt in crafted enhancers and most of the tt return are in residue.
 
@ Falagor
Yes, I craft on full quantity and I've done allmost exclusivley components so far so I might very well be way of when it comes to other kinds of crafting. I'll try something else eventualy, but I feel I need to build my skills a bit more first.

My data actualy contains returned material as well, so it's possible to calculate it the same way as you have done. Unless you mean that you track all ma<terial returned on each click and not just what is left at the end of the run?

Thanks for the encouragement!

@ billairboy
Interesting about enhancers, mabye I should try that next. Just got to find one or two enhancer BP's that I can click a lot on without draining my PED-card to much :D
 
Nice work!

I came to the very same conclusions and numbers as you for metal components (this was about 3 years ago).
 
theres a question i want to ask you. your forumlas are great. but for those who are of skill level and have good bps why is it they get 65% loss and 45% gain. what determines this ??
 
Grengoshi said:
theres a question i want to ask you. your forumlas are great. but for those who are of skill level and have good bps why is it they get 65% loss and 45% gain. what determines this ??
Click to expand...
I'd love to answer, but I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Could you try to clearify it for me?
 
Are all of these on Quantity? They appear to be. TTP in your formulas would change depending on where you set the bar and what you are crafting.

Product vs Residue
Enhancers, as someone pointed out, will give you a high ratio of residue compared to product, and weapons on quantity will give you a large TT in product but very little residue.

What would be interesting and what i've been doing a little bit of myself is looking for the "breakpoints". There is a maximum number of each type of component that can be made in a single click, everything over that is returned in residue. There should be a point on the crafting slider where every normal success gives you around the max number of components with a minimal amount of residue left over. Normal success being defined as the average TT value of the lowest "level" success.


Your theory on the metal vs enmatter residue depending on the number of ingredients may need more work, It is possible that it is affected by the TT value of each input, or the number of each input, or random. The theory works for the two examples you did but it might be good to test a few more blueprints with different configurations.

Precious Stones
You get a lot more of them crafting on condition for sure. You obviously need a global with at least the value of one stone to get one, but you don't always get one, and I have no idea if the type of stone is directly related to the blueprint type, or level. I have gotten a lot of garnets from crafting components and vehicle parts, but few of anything else.

ROI looks similar to what I get, I like your data and presentation. I'm afraid I probably only helped you ask more questions rather than given you more answers though.
 
Excellent data and work.

Run data can be used to estimate return rate (RR), but cycled PED's per run should be reasonably large. An easy way to check this is using a histogram of RR per run. If the shape of the histogram looks similar to a normal distribution, then run size is large enough.

Fig. 1 Histogram of RR of single run data


Ionar’s data is on the limit. RR distribution is positively skewed and this is an implication of high loot. Nevertheless, also if data is on the limit, estimates for mean RR are quite reliable. From observed mean and standard deviation we do get a 95% CI ranging from 86.9% to 92.2%. Using bootstrapping we do get 87.2% to 92.6%.

The only thing that I don’t understand yet is, why Ionar’s returns form 2008 are lower as those from 2009 and 2010? Respective RR’s are 83.2%, 93.0% and 93.5%. The difference between 83.2% and 93% is statistically significant (U-test, p = .021) as well as 83.2% to 93.5% (p < .001).

Has data been collected in the same way?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your feedback Falko.

As for my data, the old stuff from before 2010 was not done in the same way. That contains both shorter runs as well as runs on BPS I didn't yet have max COS on. I suspect that is why my returns was lower in 2008. The old data is included as curiosa only. The detailed logs is what I refere to in my report.

Before the auto crafting mode was introduced I rearly did runs over 200 clicks. Now I allmost exclusivly do 1k clicks per run.
 
@ Karmic
Yes, all my runs are on max quantity.

Distribution of diffrent types of residue is something I'll continue to investigate. And I do plan to add more different BPS to my tests. I'll get back once I have significant data to present.

Thanks for your feedback, more questions are allways interesting even when there are no answeres :D
 
Could you also test with a qr 100 SIB blueprint?
I'm really curious if the tt returns are higher when the CoS is higher.
 
Harmony. said:
Could you also test with a qr 100 SIB blueprint?
I'm really curious if the tt returns are higher when the CoS is higher.
Click to expand...
The Solar 8V Gel Batteries BP is a SIB print. I didn't have 100 QR on it when I started, but it was enough to have max COS (the green bar has not moved since I started the logging and I am at QR 100 now).

Now the RR on the batteries alone is currently over 100%, but that is most likley just a mater of to few runs for the initial extrem luck to even out. Allso I iroicaly get much less product (45%) on the Batteries than on the non SIB Modulators (60%). But this is due to the rounding waste that the high TT batteries suffer from.

A problem I have with SIB prints at the moment is finding one that produce something I can sell without loosing more than I can afford.
 
Ionar said:
As for my data, the old stuff from before 2010 was not done in the same way. That contains both shorter runs as well as runs on BPS I didn't yet have max COS on. ..
Click to expand...

That might explain it. If COS is the culprit, then my interpretation might change. Till now I've thought that a lower COS is compensated with higher loot. Your data wouldn't suggest this.
 
Karmic said:
Your theory on the metal vs enmatter residue depending on the number of ingredients may need more work, It is possible that it is affected by the TT value of each input, or the number of each input, or random. The theory works for the two examples you did but it might be good to test a few more blueprints with different configurations.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to adress this a bit deeper. In the example of Modulators, the matal component of the input makes up 2/3 of the input TT-value. The metal component of the residue is closer to 1/3 of the total residue. So I don't think TT-value has anything to do with it. But you are absolutley right that I need to try it on more BPs with different relations between inputs to be sure my theory is right.
 
Ionar said:
Just wanted to adress this a bit deeper. In the example of Modulators, the matal component of the input makes up 2/3 of the input TT-value. The metal component of the residue is closer to 1/3 of the total residue. So I don't think TT-value has anything to do with it. But you are absolutley right that I need to try it on more BPs with different relations between inputs to be sure my theory is right.
Click to expand...

My data from cloth textures suggests the TT value is irrelevant, or certainly much less relevant than the number of items. Overall the amounts of metal residue I get are similar to the amounts of tailoring remnants, even though the TT of the ingredients is almost entirely on the tailoring side (e.g. 1 pec extractor, 60 pec wool).
 
Skills Factor

Thanks for the great time and effort put into this, but for me it would be much more beneficial to have the skills factored in. We know that skills play an important part in crafting success, so in the instance of Solar 8V batteries, the following skills come into play for the crafter in respect to results. Manufacture Electronic Equipment, Intelligence, Electronics, Engineering, Blueprint Comprehension (If unlocked), Industrialist (If unlocked), Equipment Methodology (If unlocked).

Cheers,

Sitka
 
Cuga said:
Excellent documents. This whole study proves that game was designed for players to lose money in the long run whatever they do. Only way to make money in crafting is to... well... there is no way to make money crafting I'm afraid.:)

Thanks for the interessting read.
Click to expand...

That is still not quite correct.

If returns average to about 90% of materials put in (as it seems in hunting/mining/crafting), what remains to you to BREAK EVEN is sell the result materials for at least (1-0,90)/0,90 = 111%.

This is possible, but rarely crafting components-
 
n55w131 said:
Thanks for the great time and effort put into this, but for me it would be much more beneficial to have the skills factored in. We know that skills play an important part in crafting success, so in the instance of Solar 8V batteries, the following skills come into play for the crafter in respect to results. Manufacture Electronic Equipment, Intelligence, Electronics, Engineering, Blueprint Comprehension (If unlocked), Industrialist (If unlocked), Equipment Methodology (If unlocked).

Cheers,

Sitka
Click to expand...
Unfortionaly I have not tracked my skills or profesional level (though I'm currently at about lvl 19.3 Electronics enginere). I can only keep track of so much before it drains all the fun out of it and becomes work rather than a hobby :)

Any way, I base my study in the belife that skills only mater in that they contribute to your profesional leven wihich in turn helps get your COS up. And once max COS is attained more skills will do no difference at all. I have no prof of this though (other than the fact that my returns haven't changed noticably during the time of this study), and you are ofcourse free to dissagrea :)
 
Skills vs COS

Ionar said:
Unfortionaly I have not tracked my skills or profesional level (though I'm currently at about lvl 19.3 Electronics enginere). I can only keep track of so much before it drains all the fun out of it and becomes work rather than a hobby :)

Any way, I base my study in the belife that skills only mater in that they contribute to your profesional leven wihich in turn helps get your COS up. And once max COS is attained more skills will do no difference at all. I have no prof of this though (other than the fact that my returns haven't changed noticably during the time of this study), and you are ofcourse free to dissagrea :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Ionar,

But I do belive that skills do matter and do play a significant role in COS and since we don't really know what max COS truely caps at we can only assume that the better your skills the higher your COS. Perhaps you can expalin in your quote above otherwise how max COS is attained.

Sitka.
 
n55w131 said:
Thanks Ionar,

But I do belive that skills do matter and do play a significant role in COS and since we don't really know what max COS truely caps at we can only assume that the better your skills the higher your COS. Perhaps you can expalin in your quote above otherwise how max COS is attained.

Sitka.
Click to expand...

The BPs themselves will tell you your COS on them. Hover your cursor jusr below the bar graph on the info screen for a BP. Not on the bar, but just below it. It will display your COS in a % value.

I'd say max COS is probably somewhere around max on that bar =p
 
n55w131 said:
Thanks Ionar,

But I do belive that skills do matter and do play a significant role in COS and since we don't really know what max COS truely caps at we can only assume that the better your skills the higher your COS. Perhaps you can expalin in your quote above otherwise how max COS is attained.

Sitka.
Click to expand...
I have screen shots in my report showing what I consider to be max COS on the COS bar in the crafting interfrace. Ofcourse skills play a significant role in attaining this max COS. I didn't meant to imply that skills are useless. What I do say is that I belive that after you have acived max COS (as defined by the screen shots) more skills will not change your oucome for that BP any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top