Major tier upgrade process

[jenny ferr]

If its really a big problem, MA can always create an item upgrader window similar to a trade window.

Sure that, or they can just put a time limit of maybe 10min or so on lending. but if they introduce lending in any way I guess the community will scream for it to be expanded right away so an upgrade "tradewindow" might be best tho.

 

[Oleg]

Well I also gave a rather simple solution. I don't see it as a huge issue.

And do you expect that MA will implement something like that? Or will they not bother paying attention to any of these details as usual?

There won't be that many people doing this, so the impact is marginal. Any maybe, lets hope so, the unsalvaged items return to the loot pool .

If there won't be many people doing it then I ask once again, what is the point of having it at all?

 

[jdegre]

If that is the case then the original problem has not really been solved at all.

i'm not sure what's the original problem.. if you mean "i have a weapon and i cannot upgrade _my_ weapon", well, maybe it's because it was not meant to be like that, in the same sense as you don't "upgrade" an HL6 to an HL8.

what if the concept is more that upgrading an item is like making a completely different item? so, if you have a tier N item, but you want a tier N+1 item, you should put your item in the market, and search the market for a new item.

i know it sucks, compared with the possibility to do your own upgrades. i'm just considering the possibility that probably it was meant to be like that from the beginning.

 

[Witte]

And do you expect that MA will implement something like that? Or will they not bother paying attention to any of these details as usual?

Ok but that is not an argument against a new system. Or it would be an argument against any new system.

If there won't be many people doing it then I ask once again, what is the point of having it at all?

Well for higher-end gear anyhow. The higher the number of items, the more enhancers there can be. If a couple hundred enhancers all own 2 maddox, of which one they maybe use, it wont have much impact. I think it will all level out quite nicely. If needed MA can make some items drop a bit more.

 

[Oleg]

Ok but that is not an argument against a new system. Or it would be an argument against any new system.

Given the history of consistently fucking it up, I'm beginning to think that not bothering with new systems any more is a reasonable option.

 

[Witte]

Given the history of consistently fucking it up, I'm beginning to think that not bothering with new systems any more is a reasonable option.

They should at least first finish it, give a proper tutorial and don't cause false expectations. I am once again stunned how they released this one. It is totally beyond me, and I think the main reason for all the anger.

 

[Jake Rogue]

My understanding of Berthas+Marcos posts, and a humbe attempt to put it in different words:

• One check, that we can think of as a 1-100 roll.
  
• The combined success rate and salvage rates placed on a single 1-100 scale gives three ranges, the 1-50, 51-95 and 96-100 range (using current unskilled numbers).
  
• Roll result gives three possibilities regarding the main issues:

• 1-50: Item upgraded, secondary item kept.
• 51-95: Item not upgraded, secondary item kept.
• 96-100: Item not upgraded, secondary item lost.

(Also some additional residue returns based on tt values etc, not the main issue.)

• Skilling a new profession (after upcoming mini-update that fixes a bug) can improve the above figures, unclear exactly how much.
  
• Lastly, a new item mentioned can possibly be used somehow in relation to the secondary item, unclear in which way.

All this means that with unskilled tier-upgrade profession, and not taking the mysterious upcoming "secondary item"-object into account, there is a 50% chance of upgrading and a a 95% chance of keeping the secondary item.

Is this way of putting it correct?

Mats Wiklund
Stockholm University

However, if it does work in this way (which Marco's most recent comments would seem to suggest), then the stated "Chance of Salvage" variable is confounded with the "Chance of Success" variable.

This would be somewhat of a mathematical cheat/half-truth on behalf of MindArk, given how the system was originally described, as the term "Chance of Salvage" to describe the variable in question would be a complete misnomer.

Perhaps, there is something lost in translation here between the English verb "to salvage" and the Swedish translation, either that or MindArk are banking on the mathematical naivety of the majority of the player base.

The two separate variables should reflect independent events, as by design a "success" never requires a "salvage" attempt. Yet the percentages given to us in this case would be confounded and suggest otherwise.

This would then mean that, the REAL "Chance of Salvage", given that the upgrade fails (x>50 in your example), would actually be 90% (45 possible roll results out of 50 (i.e. x>50 and x<96).

I do realise that this distinction is purely semantic, however, it would make much more logical sense to the native English speaker if the two dice rolls were independent (i.e. One only attempts to salvage the Secondary item IF (AND ONLY IF) the upgrade is unsuccessful).

 

[Nadie]

They basically fixed every complaint, and people are still not happy. Some people really need a reality check.

They should at least first finish it, give a proper tutorial and don't cause false expectations. I am once again stunned how they released this one. It is totally beyond me, and I think the main reason for all the anger.

Be warned, long post, which is very unusual for me as I can't bear reading them myself

I've been thinking about this a lot while trying to watch a DVD, and this may sound like I'm having a go at you personally Witte, but I'm not. I'm just pointing some things out which you, yourself have said and how it all relates. By all means feel free to disagree with me/ - rep, whatever

Firstly, you have a dig at people who are still not happy, and yet, the reason nearly everyone is feeling this way, is that they can't see, or understand, how this is actually going to work in practise, especially when it comes to the second item needed.

Then throw into the mixture the problems with MA and their choosing of words and descriptions which are almost always something to be desired, completely confusing and often end up not actually meaning what they wrote. I'm English, not young or too old, and they often confuse the hell out of me, let alone all those who have English as their second or third language.

It's MA that need the reality check on this whole tiering issue and specifically having to use second items period!

Do they really, seriously, believe I will deposit $6k+ to purchase a second DOA RJME to upgrade mine and then have it sitting in storage while I wait to reach the next level so I can use it to upgrade again? Then there is my Jungle Stalker and my Foxtrot ME then ofc all my UL armour sets too of which I have four (Shadow, Phantom, Vigi and Gremlin)? I guess they think I will.... THEY need to get real!

Either, drop the second item needed totally, and change the ingrediants, even if it means more Upgrade Replicators in game, by far the best solution as I see it, or, if they really must insist on keeping the need for a second item then implement a safe and secure lending system so we can borrow the same item and upgrade.

If they do that they will make money in the long run as everyone stands the same chance to upgrade. People can help eachother out, good for community and a new profession, Item Upgrader can be born.

Those with unique/rare items or who don't know anyone with the same item can use the Upgrade Replicators or someone's service using a secure lending system.

Win, win all around the way I see it, no?

Then of course, more people will use the Enhancers and more can be crafted. If it stays only useful to add things to (L) items how many people will bother buying any? I won't, unless I want to use them in an event like WoF. If people only purchase them for events surely that will make demand outside of MM, WoF, CL and LG drop, the value drop and everyone will be tt'ing the ingredients for them trying to get as much ped back from a hunt as possible.

And for those who always moan at Ubers having better gear that's good enough not to be upgraded etc. imagine how many Enhancers they could get through in a day or so hunting or mining, if there are enough of them about to be used on a daily basis rather than just events. Great news for the Crafter and for those looting the items to be crafted isn't it?

At least it seems from your latest post, Witte, that you are now starting to understand why people are still angry, and in fact, MA haven't actually fully fixed anything, or, if they think they have, they can't get it across to us, their customers in a way that makes any logical sense.

Essay over and apologies for going on a bit

 

[SpikeBlack]

Given the history of consistently fucking it up, I'm beginning to think that not bothering with new systems any more is a reasonable option.

considering how much is still missing I thought they would have been too busy to add the tiering systems but I guess what ever makes them the most money gets top priority.

Look at makeup, Marco is saying first of half of 2010 so it could be back with us a far as 9 months after the vu10 launch and whats happening with the New Oxford shops and Thorkell tomb shops those owners have been waiting for 3years to get ther deed back.

 

[Luckycharm]

!

I just find it incredibly insane to ask people to take a lucky gamble on loosing or not loosing an item worth US$1000 or more instantly. Such bets aren't available in many casino's afaik.

If there has to be a need for a 2nd item it should always be salvaged or at least till a higher tierlevel. Let's say for example after tier 7 there could be a risk implemented of loosing the item copy, just to prevent too many very high tiered UL weapons in the system.

Yet as people likely deposited an insane amount of reallife cash to obtain an item (or several as 2 are needed already) I feel there should never be any risk of loss. Having to pay for "normal" ingredients and having the risk of failure is already a price that has to be paid, which is not the case for upgrading (L) items.

Markup that people paid to invest in stuff is caused by mindark dropping the loot rate of rare items in the first place. Changing things in such a manner as they seem to have done now is a bit of backstabbing imo.

 

[Witte]

...

What I basically do not understand is why people can get so emotional over a video game. If they mess up your investments I can understand it, but in this case it is just a feature that didn't work out as everyone expected. It comes across to me like a child not getting his candy. It seems to me that most reactions only focus on short term entertainment, a quick fix, not thinking about how the suggestions would effect the game in one or two years.

I will admit that I don't know what the best system would be. I would have to study it extensively first, and I would need access to all information MA has. I do know however that just giving people what they ask for will destroy the game for sure.

 

[Huskie]

What I basically do not understand is why people can get so emotional over a video game. If they mess up your investments I can understand it, but in this case it is just a feature that didn't work out as everyone expected. It comes across to me like a child not getting his candy. It seems to me that most reactions only focus on short term entertainment, a quick fix, not thinking about how the suggestions would effect the game in one or two years.

I will admit that I don't know what the best system would be. I would have to study it extensively first, and I would need access to all information MA has. I do know however that just giving people what they ask for will destroy the game for sure.

The whole problem with the "if you don't like it, don't use it" argument, is that if using it becomes mainstream, and you do not adhere, you will be at a disadvantage, just like people who decided to stick to old school UL weapons as SIB stuff got implemented.

I do not know whether I should find it funny or hypocritical, that everyone who defends this tier system with teeth and claws keeps on telling people upset by it that they do not need to use it if they don't want to, and at the same time say that ppl who do not adapt do not belong in EU. Bit of a contradiction, no?

 

[PeteHines]

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out ...

A percentage of the TT value of the consumed ingredients is added to the TT value of the upgraded item and any excess is returned as residue.
Originally posted on Entropia Gateway

I think if we manage to upgrade our unlimited items(in the future) it will raise the TT value higher making them smaller versions of some of the unlimited SIB weapons already ingame keeping ped tied up in the items themselves.

 

[Huskie]

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out ...



I think if we manage to upgrade our unlimited items(in the future) it will raise the TT value higher making them smaller versions of some of the unlimited SIB weapons already ingame keeping ped tied up in the items themselves.

According to that guy's experiment with upgrading a M2100, the added TT value means only the same as repairing the item if it's decayed and getting the rest of the ingredient's TT value (not sure if all of it, or just those 95%)as residue, if it reaches maximum TT through the addition.

 

[SpikeBlack]

the issue I have is that it seems to widen the gulf between the higher up players and the new ones.

In a years time we'll have most of the ubers running around with tier 10 weapons and armor and expecting everyone else to try and compete. Can you imagine next years MM?

Honestly I think they'd have spent their time more productively finding more things to add to game play than just stat tweaking.

 

[billairboy]

the issue I have is that it seems to widen the gulf between the higher up players and the new ones.

In a years time we'll have most of the ubers running around with tier 10 weapons and armor and expecting everyone else to try and compete. Can you imagine next years MM?

Honestly I think they'd have spent their time more productively finding more things to add to game play than just stat tweaking.

I think the purpose is the oposite, the system should make it able to low level players improving their "ordinary" weapons.

 

[GameEducation]

However, if it does work in this way (which Marco's most recent comments would seem to suggest), then the stated "Chance of Salvage" variable is confounded with the "Chance of Success" variable.

...<some text deleted>...

This would then mean that, the REAL "Chance of Salvage", given that the upgrade fails (x>50 in your example), would actually be 90% (45 possible roll results out of 50 (i.e. x>50 and x<96).

I do realise that this distinction is purely semantic, however, it would make much more logical sense to the native English speaker if the two dice rolls were independent (i.e. One only attempts to salvage the Secondary item IF (AND ONLY IF) the upgrade is unsuccessful).

Aha, I didn't realize this aspect of the description, not being a native english speaker myself. So regarding the second item, putting it 90% salvage chance (assuming upon upgrade fail) rather than 95% salvage chance (assuming per click no matter the upgrade outcome) would be more natural? I see your point (if I understand you correctly and that is what you meant).

We are talking about the same chance, though, just different ways of putting it, right? Or do you suggest the 95% point on my single scale should be at 97.5%? I would very much like it if that is the case, however I doubt it. In any case, it would be nice to have confirmation if it works according to my theory or not (and even nicer to have confirmation it works according to your 97.5% version (again, if that is what you meant)). I´m not sure although my theory is my interpretation at the moment.

Mats Wiklund
Stockholm University

 

[aridash]

...If they mess up your investments I can understand it, but in this case it is just a feature that didn't work out as everyone expected. ... It seems to me that most reactions only focus on short term entertainment, a quick fix, not thinking about how the suggestions would effect the game in one or two years.

oh i think the reaction of many is precisly looking at the long term, anyone who has brought UL items is seeing there utility and relative worth eroded. despite MA dropping new SGA related UL items, i see that with tiering they dont want the UL stuff upgraded, only the L.

 

[Nadie]

oh i think the reaction of many is precisly looking at the long term, anyone who has brought UL items is seeing there utility and relative worth eroded. despite MA dropping new SGA related UL items, i see that with tiering they dont want the UL stuff upgraded, only the L.

Agreed, and I think my rather lengthy post looked well into the long term. I never expected to be able to upgrade my weapon to just Tier 1 overnight. I don't mind if it takes 6 months to a year, but I would at least like a safe, sensible option to start with, not to be given no option at all!

 

[SpikeBlack]

I think the purpose is the oposite, the system should make it able to low level players improving their "ordinary" weapons.

that might be the original thinking behind this but if the lower players use L type weapons and armor to compete they'll have to unlock all the tiers from scratch everytime the item decays to minimum level and they have to replace it, they may never get an L item past the first few tiers before it breaks. In the meantime the ubers and the UL players will be using the tier 10 permanently.

 

[Witte]

oh i think the reaction of many is precisly looking at the long term, anyone who has brought UL items is seeing there utility and relative worth eroded. despite MA dropping new SGA related UL items, i see that with tiering they dont want the UL stuff upgraded, only the L.

Agreed, and I think my rather lengthy post looked well into the long term. I never expected to be able to upgrade my weapon to just Tier 1 overnight. I don't mind if it takes 6 months to a year, but I would at least like a safe, sensible option to start with, not to be given no option at all!

In the thread Marco already stated it will be possible to upgrade without a second item. And like I already explained, it is very likely there will be enhancer services that will do the tiering up for most items for you, so without taking the risk yourself. So you will have 2 alternative options to tier up your item. I don't really under what more you can ask for.

 

[Marco|SDS]

My understanding of Berthas+Marcos posts, and a humbe attempt to put it in different words:

• One check, that we can think of as a 1-100 roll.
  
• The combined success rate and salvage rates placed on a single 1-100 scale gives three ranges, the 1-50, 51-95 and 96-100 range (using current unskilled numbers).
  
• Roll result gives three possibilities regarding the main issues:

• 1-50: Item upgraded, secondary item kept.
• 51-95: Item not upgraded, secondary item kept.
• 96-100: Item not upgraded, secondary item lost.

Is this way of putting it correct?

Yes, that is a good summary of the process.

 

[aridash]

I don't mind if it takes 6 months to a year,

thats along the lines i expected for balance, the L would tier up quick (they have to) while the UL might take '000s of peds to unlock the next tier. it would have favored the active. instead we get the opportunity to upgrade after a days hunting, but as it stands if your item is of any value its an empty opportunity.

In the thread Marco already stated it will be possible to upgrade without a second item. And like I already explained, it is very likely there will be enhancer services that will do the tiering up for most items for you, so without taking the risk yourself. So you will have 2 alternative options to tier up your item. I don't really under what more you can ask for.

the first we havent seen yet, so have no idea if its better or worse (or that it will come). as for the "enhancer services", unless we suddenly have a secure loan system implemented there is no viability to this idea. so at this point there are no options and what we can ask for is no second item required. find another way to balance it.

 

[Marco|SDS]

However, if it does work in this way (which Marco's most recent comments would seem to suggest), then the stated "Chance of Salvage" variable is confounded with the "Chance of Success" variable.

The terms are Success Rate and Salvage Rate.

 

[Witte]

the first we havent seen yet, so have no idea if its better or worse (or that it will come). as for the "enhancer services", unless we suddenly have a secure loan system implemented there is no viability to this idea. so at this point there are no options and what we can ask for is no second item required. find another way to balance it.

Everything points in the direction that with that substitute you wont need a second item. The fact the details are not known yet is no reason to panic. And there is a secure loan system called collateral. But a PvP enhancer window would be a good idea.

 

[Nadie]

In the thread Marco already stated it will be possible to upgrade without a second item. And like I already explained, it is very likely there will be enhancer services that will do the tiering up for most items for you, so without taking the risk yourself. So you will have 2 alternative options to tier up your item. I don't really under what more you can ask for.

I know he did, they are Upgrade Replicators. I'm one of the ones that's been telling people that and I even mentioned it in my post. As for Services, I covered this also stating that unless a secure lending system is implemented this will never happen. How many people could afford to run this type of business without one? Imagine needing a duplicate of all weapons in game + providing collateral for someone to hand theirs over as well. Even providing just the collateral and using Upgrade Replicators would mean an insane amount of ped needed with some of the weapons and items people own.

thats along the lines i expected for balance, the L would tier up quick (they have to) while the UL might take '000s of peds to unlock the next tier. it would have favored the active. instead we get the opportunity to upgrade after a days hunting, but as it stands if your item is of any value its an empty opportunity.

Yes, precisely my way of thinking. I didn't think I would get to 0.9 on my UL gun in a couple of hunts. I was expecting it to take a few weeks or months and tonnes of ammo so keeping (L) attractive and giving incentive for UL users to be active and rewarded for such.

 

[Mega]

If it works and is popular people will use it.


If it works in a manner of putting your dick in a guillotine and throwing a 20 sided dice as to whether the blade will fall, they wont.

 

[Witte]

I know he did, they are Upgrade Replicators. I'm one of the ones that's been telling people that and I even mentioned it in my post. As for Services, I covered this also stating that unless a secure lending system is implemented this will never happen. How many people could afford to run this type of business without one? Imagine needing a duplicate of all weapons in game + providing collateral for someone to hand theirs over as well. Even providing just the collateral and using Upgrade Replicators would mean an insane amount of ped needed with some of the weapons and items people own.

A pvp enhancer window would suffice. No need for a lending system. And about the insane amount of PED, banks also have that. Its not that different.

Just a general note, thinking in problems will get you nowhere, thinking in solutions will.

 

[Jake Rogue]

Aha, I didn't realize this aspect of the description, not being a native english speaker myself. So regarding the second item, putting it 90% salvage chance (assuming upon upgrade fail) rather than 95% salvage chance (assuming per click no matter the upgrade outcome) would be more natural? I see your point (if I understand you correctly and that is what you meant).

Precisely.

I guess that this is more a matter of semantics (depending on what MindArk are actually trying to convey) than anything else.

From my own perspective, it seems much more natural and proper to treat the two factors as separate independent entities given the proposed subject matter.

We are talking about the same chance, though, just different ways of putting it, right?

Correct. They are both just different ways of expressing the same mathematical odds.

However, given that it has been stated by Marco that the system has been designed such that a successful upgrade always results in the secondary item being salvaged irrespective of anything else, the use of the term "Chance of Salvage" could be superficially interpreted as misleading depending on how it is read.

A more technically apt description might be "Total Chance of Salvage" or "Chance of Salvage irrespective of Upgrade Success". Although, I can fully understand why neither of these terms would be particularly appealing to use within the context of an online game where such precise scrutiny usually isn't necessary.

Maybe I'm just a pedant, I guess that you can thank my formal training as a scientist often involved in peer-review processes for that!

Or do you suggest the 95% point on my single scale should be at 97.5%? I would very much like it if that is the case, however I doubt it.

That all depends on how MindArk intend their own system to work, regardless of the most technically apt ways to describe the odds and what happens to be the most accurate reflection of reality.

The first post in this thread does seem to suggest that just a single “check” is performed, so by definition a value of 96 or above on your scale (95% chance) would indeed represent a loss of the secondary item. This "chance" may be confounded with the initial "Chance of Success", but if that's how MindArk intend the system to work within the game, then who are we to argue that it should be more "realistic"?!



EDIT: And there's the confirmation:

Yes, that is a good summary of the process.

 

[Jake Rogue]

The terms are Success Rate and Salvage Rate.

Although, given that they are both expressed as percentages and hence represent probabilities, it wouldn't change the point that I was trying to make.

I fully appreciate, however, that it is a subtle and nuanced argument for the benefit of the "Math Geeks" only, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.