Significant drop in success rate

[Skaffen]

A Line Meant

They are just aligning crafting and mining to hunting returns - less opportunity for tt+.

I presume hunting turnover is starting to dip relative to Craft n Mine.

 

[Strangelove]

One thing I have not seen mentioned in the past few pages is that, at least for me, my results went to hell as soon as migration was over. It could be that a fair number of hunters are "taking a break" and crafting and mining are feeling the effects.

As for me, I did enough amped triple drop runs on Ark to see a very pronounced dip in loot....measured in TT and MU. That means no more mining in the near future. Most of the miners I know that carpet bomb day after day are reaching that point if they have not already.

I believe loot really sucked about this time last year as well.

CO

 

[Shard-Angel]

QUANTITY	....	....	....	....	....	....	QUALITY
90% CoS	....	....	....	....	....	....	3% CoS(?)
I craft products to sell	....	....	....	....	....	....	I craft for residue and HoFs

Dear Mindark.

I don't want or need residue. What makes you think I need it? I craft to sell in my 7 shops!

Please give the people ACTUAL Success Rates stated on the craft machine CoS chart.

We don't need any stinkin' BS about 90% actually meaning 40% spin. (IMO this is ILLEGAL when it comes to RCE)

We can adjust our OWN sliders from 90% <-----> 3% if we wish more residue or gambling chances.

Do NOT assume to think that WE are stupid sheep who will say "Hail to the King" with every exploit you deliberately create to fund your vacations!

 

[forgo]

still horrible runs, I am clicking only my 1.00 QR prints at this time. Shops cannot be restocked, and I wont try.

.... fixed my crafting success chart for a visual look at how it has changed over the last several months. These are quality slider bar only runs.

Success chart since may. Notice the lack of red/orange before august 20th or so. (beginning of migration)

If you would like to keep track of your own runs in a simple copy paste form,feel free to Register the invitation code is: Atrox.

The more data we can shove in their face the better.

I dont consider the total ped returned as any reliable figure, as it often is largely made from material (residue) purchased outside of the run.

 

[dr3w]

Shit, what a drama.

 

[Neil Stockton]

still horrible runs, I am clicking only my 1.00 QR prints at this time. Shops cannot be restocked, and I wont try.

.... fixed my crafting success chart for a visual look at how it has changed over the last several months. These are quality slider bar only runs.

Success chart since may. Notice the lack of red/orange before august 20th or so. (beginning of migration)

If you would like to keep track of your own runs in a simple copy paste form,feel free to Register the invitation code is: Atrox.

The more data we can shove in their face the better.

I dont consider the total ped returned as any reliable figure, as it often is largely made from material (residue) purchased outside of the run.

I'd like to see it with the runs under, say, 20 clicks filtered out. Or maybe combine totals for each day.

 

[whiteknut]

still horrible runs, I am clicking only my 1.00 QR prints at this time. Shops cannot be restocked, and I wont try.

.... fixed my crafting success chart for a visual look at how it has changed over the last several months. These are quality slider bar only runs.

Success chart since may. Notice the lack of red/orange before august 20th or so. (beginning of migration)

If you would like to keep track of your own runs in a simple copy paste form,feel free to Register the invitation code is: Atrox.

The more data we can shove in their face the better.

I dont consider the total ped returned as any reliable figure, as it often is largely made from material (residue) purchased outside of the run.

Survey Probe 10 592 0.0% 78.41 PED 2013-09-12 07:01:16

Hmm so you got 592 survey probes in ten attempts to make survey probes?
Same with alferix ingot bit lower..

 

[Neil Stockton]

Daily log of test runs, 500 clicks each. Full statistics since I'm not doing any other crafting till the bug gets fixed.

http://arkadiaforum.com/showthread.php?9211-Neil-s-Success-Rate-Log

We can adjust our OWN sliders from 90% <-----> 3% if we wish more residue or gambling chances.

I like the idea! I think the best would be to give 100% (or more) average TT returns on the 3% slider and lowered TT returns (80%?) on the 90%. This would provide for a balancing of resource MUs: low MU resources would be better to craft on condition, creating more demand for them, while high MU, rare resources would not be unnecessarily wasted resulting in the product shortages we commonly see. I think it would be great for the economy... basically allow crafters to do much of the work of the balancing department... probably more effectively than MA can do it.

 

[Shard-Angel]

I'm watching this thread a.k.a. investigating.

I hope you're with the FBI!

 

[~CHOPPER~]

Do NOT assume to think that WE are stupid sheep who will say "Hail to the King" with every exploit you deliberately create to fund your vacations!

They're not exploiting to fund their vacations...

They're skimming off the top for their Christmas bonuses.

 

[forgo]

I'd like to see it with the runs under, say, 20 clicks filtered out. Or maybe combine totals for each day.

Good Idea Ill work on that, it was a quick job just to show the data over time, but I will look into making sorting available for this and other members' charts.

Survey Probe 10 592 0.0% 78.41 PED 2013-09-12 07:01:16

Hmm so you got 592 survey probes in ten attempts to make survey probes?
Same with alferix ingot bit lower..

Yes, that is zero success for an amp of some sort, would have to go thru and see the other materials returned to make sure, havn't completed that reverse lookup yet. The probes just happen to be the 1st thing in the summary, without any success'.

The alferix is from an armor mark.6a run that resulted in zero plates.

 

[FallenAngel]

The more data we can shove in their face the better.

why do they need data, they made a unannounced change, if it was positive for the community it would of been a change that is announced, they dont need to investigate, they just need to undo the change ASAP.
i take it things must be going really well at MA if they thought a change like this was a good idea and that they could handle the fallout and drop in activity such a change will bring.
its similar to the mining change, to say they are investigating and monitoring the forum is a insult to our intelligence.

 

[JohnCapital]

I think the best would be to give 100% (or more) average TT returns on the 3% slider...

Think through your idea for about 10 seconds. Factor in player reactions to changes and MA's basic business model, and you should find the flaw fairly quick.

On-topic: Maybe this poor crafting return issue explains why so many of my auctions this past month+ went unsold.

 

[Neil Stockton]

Think through your idea for about 10 seconds. Factor in player reactions to changes and MA's basic business model, and you should find the flaw fairly quick.

Actually I spent a bit more than 10 seconds thinking it through. Don't see the big flaw you're referring to. If the change is announced ahead of time, I can't see how the community would be opposed to it. It would give crafters the flexibility they need.

 

[jaywalker]

Actually I spent a bit more than 10 seconds thinking it through. Don't see the big flaw you're referring to. If the change is announced ahead of time, I can't see how the community would be opposed to it. It would give crafters the flexibility they need.

Maybe when you said...

the best would be to give 100% (or more) average TT returns

you meant something other than what you actually said?

Ofc , we'd all fall over ourselves in the rush to grab 100% TT return or better. But as a business model...weeeelllll... end of EU

jay

 

[jetsina]

Maybe when you said...

you meant something other than what you actually said?

Ofc , we'd all fall over ourselves in the rush to grab 100% TT return or better. But as a business model...weeeelllll... end of EU

jay

Well, I'm with Neil on this one - and spent about 10s thinking about why.
Go on: give it a few seconds thought.

_____
ok, time's up. If the original mats have to come from activities which pay out at 90% or so, then getting those hunting/mining loots by the bucketload will make MA profits. The successes at the 3% condition end will also be low compared to residues or gems presumably thrown out along with the successes, so not too many items will be made that way despite a whole load of input mats.
At higher bp levels some crafting returns are reused, but uncrafted mats still mostly flow in too. There is room for 100% (or more) ((slightly)) tt return if MA wants, and right out on the far condition end.

It would probably increase the mus from mining/hunting, which crafters would accept in return for losing less to MA (or even slightly tt plus), so it's a kind of shift.

- and I haven't forgotten about skill gains, but this is also about mu value on the player side. It is not a tt element as such for MA.

Edit plus: Also, while acting as the 'bank', MA may have to keep paying out high hofs, it is true, but they are getting the incomes for it from the many people increasing their losses for a veeeerrry long time until each one at some point gets that maximum multiplier to rebalance them to some degree (lowered loss, balanced or profit). I think MA turnover would be up, although I have no idea which mats would settle at which mus (except residues, which would be like animal res now!)

 

[Neil Stockton]

Maybe when you said...



you meant something other than what you actually said?

Ofc , we'd all fall over ourselves in the rush to grab 100% TT return or better. But as a business model...weeeelllll... end of EU

jay

It may appear that way, but it wouldn't result in people making "peds out of nothing". It would of course take careful balancing to get the success rate vs TT return set up properly. If it bothers you to think about greater than 100% TT return under some conditions, then take 95% instead of 100% as the average. (Though I suspect overall crafting returns are probably 100% when you include the ubers).

Put the slider on 90% (actual SUCCESS rate, not partial success) and you much lower than 95% returns, put it on 3% and you get a little bit higher than 95%. Overall crafting would still give out the same as it does now but the distribution would be more intelligent: it would stimulate high volume consumption of low MU resources, keeping their MU at a higher level than now (think melchi, crude oil, most animal oils) while at the same time preventing waste of rare resources. It would provide the needed incentive for people not to use 90% all the time, but only when it's absolutely necessary (ie. for rare ingredients) therefore the need for lower TT returns on that setting. Those TT losses would be rolled into the high condition runs.

So you could, for instance, set it to 42% and you would get the typical spread with 95% return that we were used to before MA started messing with it, which would be a good balance between TT return and resource consumption for most items you want to sell. Remember that you always lose ped from MU even when gamble crafting with 101% resources so it's not like you're a ped generating machine if you use 3%; the best you could do on 3% would be break even after MU of materials, but even 0% long term loss after MU would create enough demand for these resources to maintain their MUs instead of the 100.5% we see now and their MU would settle at a value that is "almost enough" for the gamble crafters to break even. It would be a self-correcting system.

Even if you take the average to be 100% TT return, a player wouldn't be able to generate TT value long term unless they could get unlimited resources for TT price from soc mates or noobs, and even then those resources would have created decay in their generation (miners, hunters) so MA would still get their cut. What's the difference between one player generating (and withdrawing peds) by creating MU from lesser TT value or another player generating (and withdrawing) TT value by destroying MU paid by other players? I don't think there is any ultimate difference. The TT value flows the opposite direction between players but to MA's ledger sheet, it looks the same at the end of the day.

 

[Mel]

I've been stuck at 39.+% electronics engineer now for about a year, trying to get to skill unlock at level 40. That's brutal enough, but have seen crafting success %'s change 3 times since the new crafting gui introduced. And ofc, real chance of success (cos) having no relation anyone can determine to 89/94% or 90/95% cos the system states, or Ten modified loot, or total crafting return as statistics button shows on gui. I guess I've been lazy, not tracking TT value of run vs success, but when ur a component crafter, avg success rate is everything over large numbers. I've seen a high of approx 42% success in the recent past, assumed had increased for Ten Mod loot, but now is around 22-23%, on full use SIB BP.

 

[Chuck Wholrey]

This seems more like an issue of the balancing team at work....

<Possible MA conclusion> The crafting system was unchecked for a long time, and needed a tweak:

*PROBLEM- Crafted items selling at lower than the cost to manufacture.

* Older players manipulating the prices, selling cheaper than manufacturing costs, forcing the little guy out...

This is fine in a normal economy when the bigger business can make more items cheaper, by gathering the materials in a larger amount, saving money manufacturing in larger amounts. This would be crafting.
However when the item gets sold at under the cost to manufacture, the general philosophy is to regain some of the money back, in order to click the BP again... maybe resulting in a BP drop, a global, or a HOF.... and somehow making up in volume. This would be gambling, and result in heavy depositing to stay afloat. <MA would love you>

-In all fairness... how a player spends their PED's is their choice, and if they want to buy market share with forcing out the competition, that's just business....
-But, it does reduce the amount of competition, and if a new crafter emerges on the scene, the new player may keep the prices aligned with the costs of production, or reduce them for a "fast" sale. <more times than not, a fast sale is chosen>
-we cannot blame the new guy, they may not know how to price a item with the MU of materials, and the cost of success... some things have to be learned the hard way, and most just use the cheapest sale price -1.

*PROBLEM- Lower MU of crafted items, and a negative flow sale price, will mean less players will attempt to click the BP. especially if the BP contains high MU materials, and hard to make components.

The real question is.... Who owns the Blue Prints? does MA own them, or is there a residual given to the BP's home planet for each use?

-With a high chance of success, and a low MU of a finished item, players simply choose to make the item themselves instead of purchasing from the AU. Or, more gamblers run the print, and flood the market till the MU is zero.
-High MU materials deter players from attempting BP's, without good reason... ex. who in their right mind would make a F-104 <5 Dunkel Plastic for a 66 PED TT item, each would have a 500 PED MU... each tier 0 has a MU of +11.57> (Most of the f-104's in game now were old Enmatter finders switched after the mining VU.)
-If the planet partner is not getting the projected / promised revenue from the BP's, they may complain, and cause adjustment to happen <maybe the case now>
-PP's rules, and conduct are secret. There is whats posted, and there is what takes place.
ex. David from Arkadia had to be asked in an interview "with the new Treasure hunting arriving on Arkadia, why does RockTropia have it advertised on their forums as a coming attraction?"
ex. Arkadia released its line of weapons, and they instantly replace all of the tired, old, uneconomical weapons on Calypso. The AU gets flooded, and nobody cares about a Karma Killer, or the like. Someone complained.... Something happened.... The weapons were "rebalanced" huge gaps made, and brand new Calypso <not shared> models were released, making Calypso once again #1... then 1 PED TT event weapons get released, sealing the deal. The new PP content promises new weapons from ARK to fill in the gaps created. But how long will they last?
- We dont know enough about the PP's, and the balancing systems in game

*PROBLEM- Less players crafting will cause the materials market to drop significantly

At some point, players will buy cheap materials speculating on a "new" fix. and the prices will level out, the more players complain in forum, the lower they can get. To some players this would be by design. Once again, its a free market dynamic, and speculation is not illegal. Market manipulation is, but incredibly hard to prove, and even harder to deal with fairly.

*PROBLEM- 100% condition gambles... -Quantity is crafting- -Condition is Gambling-

- If the slider is on 100% condition, the the end result has nothing to do with the name of the BP, its all about the residue, globals, and BP drops. ex. 5k clicks of RE-102 for residue
- If the slider is on Quantity, the players wants the finished product, at a reasonable cost for sale. The old formula had an average 30% success rate, so materials x3 +about 60% <avg> of the value of the finished product in residue.

Grinding BP's is a part of the game, and needed for discoveries... However how is grinding a useless BP for residue a part of the game? where does the residue come from? Your gains are from someone's losses... but it shows that there is some connection with all of the BP's, not an individual pool <hard to prove either way>.


**There are too many things going on behind the scenes, and too much speculation to know exactly what is happening, or to warn everyone off of crafting. I still see large condition HOF's rolling, and BP grinders have not stopped.... It seems the only thing that has stopped is the quantity +Res Clicker. MU's of materials will drop, MU's of items will rise, but at some point it will all level out.

The only two things we Know for certain:
There is someone behind the scenes working, and we hope they know what they are doing

Its expensive testing with trial and error.

Goodluck

 

[dr3w]

If someone able to read current one-liner: read post above.

 

[JustinStarry]

Well.

I'm with John & Fallen on this one. If it's a change made by MA to prove that Entorpia = always changing (entropy incarnate (what?)), then they've made their point and this is the outcome .

I can no longer mine with d-class (so now i'm not buying d-class...), because my area mu is too low to break even with d-class. I've got all these unsold resources that are holding up my peds (well, the crafters stopped crafting as soon as I was done with a huge run)... and I was foolish enough not to sell for the "still profit MU" and hold out hoping it would get better...

So the end-result is, I kinda haven't been logging on . Oh well.

I'm hoping the new VU fixes this... if not... then say bye bye to miners baby!

 

[morey]

I hope this was due to a plan on their side and not an exploit.

 

[Valekyrie]

It counts success only still... Mine went from about 42-44% success to about 32-34% so i stopped the crafting.

That also lowers my tt return on crafting by about 13% which is horrible.

I do the same. More time for hunting!

 

[Strash]

i just had a amazing success rate btw
38% just on 55 clicks all i can afford atm
maybe things changed?

 

[Butch C v.2]

i just had a amazing success rate btw
38% just on 55 clicks all i can afford atm
maybe things changed?

I just did 1 click got 100% success rate, i guess that's the cure do very small batches.

 

[Strash]

just saying usually my small runs are 20-25% too
just very high thought i would share haven't seen this for months

 

[Butch C v.2]

just saying usually my small runs are 20-25% too
just very high thought i would share haven't seen this for months

Yeah sorry, i was a bit of a smart Alec there.

The trouble is that now players are starting to think that 38% is some kind of decent success rate when that is also a ridiculously low success rate.

 

[Neil Stockton]

Two test runs today: ball bearings 500 clicks (36% success rate) and nusul 500 clicks (34%). Not the 42% that I'd like to see but a lot better than 22%. Also had a decent run on level 2 amps on condition (5%). Let's hope things are improving.

 

[Spawn]

Two test runs today: ball bearings 500 clicks (36% success rate) and nusul 500 clicks (34%). Not the 42% that I'd like to see but a lot better than 22%. Also had a decent run on level 2 amps on condition (5%). Let's hope things are improving.

You don't want some kind of statement by Mindark?

 

[Neil Stockton]

You don't want some kind of statement by Mindark?

Yes that would be great. (I'm not holding my breath.)