Automatic Success Combines - Is it a Bug?

[Telorea]

From what we have been told by Ngreth and other devs a number of times before: for every 40 points your skill exceeds the trivial of a combine the residual 5% fail rate is reduced by 1% until you reach the point where if your skill is 200 higher than the trivial then the combine should be no-fail for you.

This weekend I was making Philters of Major Translocation, with my alchemy trophey my skill was 336, the trivial of the potions is 131 - so these combines should have been no-fail, but I DID fail one. Seems like there is a bug here..

[filobeto]

Raw skill must be >200 points above trivial.

[Telorea]

Raw skill must be >200 points above trivial.

Why should that be?

Skill is skill, increased skill MUST (by definition) mean increased chance of success when making an item - if skill mod items don't have any effect on your skill or chance of making an item then what is the point of having them?

There isn't any reason I can think of why this should be limited by raw skill instead of actual skill.

[Itek]

Your QUESTION was "is this a bug" .. the answer is no.

Not liking the answer doesn't change the answer usually.

Will the increased skill for the "modified" skill does not eliminate failures from items which at trivial between 101 and 136 for you they GREATLY increase the success rate of items with trivials of, say, 355. Which is the real reason you wanted the highest possible skill, not reducing the failure rate of trivial 132 combines by one percent.

Ask yourself a question....

"Would I trade No-Fail on items up to 136 trivial, a 1% reduction in failures, for the 18% reduction in failures (or whatever, i'm avoiding math today) on trivial 355 items?"

Lemme guess that you would not. Accept the 1 percent failure rate on 101 to 136 items and enjoy the other benefits of max skill.

[Telorea]

Your QUESTION was "is this a bug" .. the answer is no.

It has only been suggested that it might not be a bug, until we hear for certain from the Dev that implemented we do not know if it was intentional (and not a bug) or unintentional (and hence is a bug). The most likely scenario is that whoever coded it just put in the raw skill variable without considering the issue or difference between raw skill and effective skill.

If it was intentionaly coded that way by the Dev that implemented it, then I have every right to raise my concerns and ask that the issue be reviewed. Especially since we now have a new tradeskill Dev who may wish to look into teh issue.

[Xenephex]

It has only been suggested that it might not be a bug, until we hear for certain from the Dev that implemented we do not know if it was intentional (and not a bug) or unintentional (and hence is a bug). The most likely scenario is that whoever coded it just put in the raw skill variable without considering the issue or difference between raw skill and effective skill.

If it was intentionaly coded that way by the Dev that implemented it, then I have every right to raise my concerns and ask that the issue be reviewed. Especially since we now have a new tradeskill Dev who may wish to look into teh issue.

The new tradeskill Dev has already commented on this issue and said that it is raw skill that is considered in this particular case and (I'm pretty sure) said that was working as intended. I could do a search and find the post, but then so could you.

Ngreth has also said that there is always some very small possibility of failing even a no-fail combine (like silk threads and celestial essence).

[KyrosKrane]

It has been confirmed multiple times by multiple devs (at least three that I know of -- Frizznik, Maddoc, and Ngreth) that raw skill is the number being used. This is not in dispute. Since Frizznik was the dev in charge of tradeskills when it was implemented, and since he was the one who specifically chose to use raw skill, I'd guess it was intentional.

Now, if you believe this should be changed, that's another story, and you're welcome to discuss that idea. However, it most definitely is not a bug in the sense that the effect is unintended.

[mewkus]

Tanker also confirmed it and gave some details.
http://mboards.eqtraders.com/eq/show...15&postcount=8

[Itek]

If it was intentionaly coded that way by the Dev that implemented it, then I have every right to raise my concerns and ask that the issue be reviewed. Especially since we now have a new tradeskill Dev who may wish to look into teh issue.

You didn't raise concerns. You stated ...

Why should that be?

Skill is skill, increased skill MUST (by definition) mean increased chance of success when making an item - if skill mod items don't have any effect on your skill or chance of making an item then what is the point of having them?

There isn't any reason I can think of why this should be limited by raw skill instead of actual skill.

You disagreed. And then tried a "logical" arguement for why your position is the right one.

Logical arguements don't work. Never have never will. Unless and until you RAISE SOMEONE FROM THE DEAD you cannot use real world logic / definitions to make your cases for EQ realities.

It may not make sense. It may not be "strictly fair" ... but as I tried to point out the benefits of skill raising gear FAR outweigh the occasional "downside."

Quote:

Wise-Guy: So what you are saying is ... worst case I pay my taxes much much later?

Tom Cruise: What do you care? It's the best interest free loan you are ever gonna get!!

[Ngreth Thergn]

As folks above said.

Yes it is intentional and not a bug.

I do not know the original reason. The reason *I* will not be asking for it to be changes is, I do not want items with trivial over 100 to be no fail. There is an additional reason I will mention later, but I don;t want to confuse the current *base* why.

Is there "logic" or "fairness" to this, maybe not. It is more a point of "where to draw the line"

The various skill gain items are to help you succeed at combines, thy are *not* there to help you pass some of the other "rules" of tradeskills.

The additional reason is the bonuses also do not affect your ability to gain skill vs the "trivial" level of the item. If it did, it would actually make it HARDER for you to skill up.

If the increases counted for everything, it would also have to count for what is "trivial". Imagine having a 299 base skill and having an adjusted skill of 335... If this counted for what is trivial to you, imagine how much harder it would be to find something you could gain skill on.

We draw the line in that the increase in your skill by this "ability" (I say that because though it is not on a spell, and is only on items, who knows what can happen in the future) only directly helps on the actual chance of succeeding on the combine, and affects nothing else that looks at your skill.

[Rinikku]

I was under the assumption that unless it was stated as being "no-fail" then it isn't no fail. I was told that even after surpassing the trival level by a lot that you still only have about a 95% chance of success. However, it seems to me that it might be a little greater than that, but I highly doubt that it is ever actually no-fail unless stated as being that way. I could be wrong about this; however, when using the EQtrader calculator, I get a much higher percentage that what I actually get in the game (it is pretty accurate until you pass 250). I always seem to only make 19 of 20 philter of the wolf potions (even before the recipe and trival was changed). It doesn't seem to make a big difference so I don't mind.

Also commenting on the adjusted skill level, I love making potions that are essentially green to me, but can still skill up at it (i.e. POK potions 9 and 10). I agree with Ngreth that if it was coded in the way to look at adjusted skill level (instead of base skill) that it would be a lot harder to skill up and modifiers would not be as benefical as they are right now.

[Tanker]

ahhh, Itek... you rock.

There were so many times I wanted to post like that... and only a few times I did. (rare bird sighting, anyone?)

I think one of the biggest frustrations with posting here and elsewhere as a dev is our relative inability to be smartass (whether deserved or not) without a lot of company-image complications.

Anyway, I don't need to comment on the issue at hand (as I already have, see the link above). Just thought I'd pat Itek on the back for saving me some typing followed by hitting the "cancel" button.

[Elyssanda]

I think one of the biggest frustrations with posting here and elsewhere as a dev is our relative inability to be smartass (whether deserved or not) without a lot of company-image complications.

Sony has Company Image problems??????
Could it be due to things like:
http://www.gucomics.com/archives/vie...cdate=20060522

[Nolrog]

I think one of the biggest frustrations with posting here and elsewhere as a dev is our relative inability to be smartass (whether deserved or not) without a lot of company-image complications.

Hmm. That hasn't stopped Maddoc.