Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Crafting - The Sneaky InfluenceFollow

#1 Oct 26 2010 at 11:25 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
I've been doing some messing around with crafting lately, trying to determine why it seems that all of the conditions can seem "ideal" and you can still fail synths horribly. Very little of what I have to bring up for discussion is stated as fact, merely observation that you can pick apart, mess around with, test, or ignore as you see fit.

For starters, what we know (because SE told us) is that orb color offers some indication of your chances to succeed with your next action. Note I'm not saying that color suggests which particular action you choose, just that a solid white orb suggests a higher chance to succeed with any action than a flashing orb. What has been bothering me were those synths where you can force a white orb with an ability like Preserve and still fail numerous actions one after another.

After much dorking around last night trying to pay attention to as much of the process as I could, I came to notice a few things.

First, while a solid white orb may offer the greatest odds of success with your next action, it also tends to offer the lowest gains to Quality of any action. FLashing orbs are the opposite...lower chance to succeed, but success tends to yield higher gains to Quality than other actions. Keep in mind that the random influence is always present; I'm just speaking in general terms. That was just one minor observation that I brought up for sh*ts and giggles, but there were two more significant details (imo) that represent the meat of this post.

The bulk of my testing with the concepts I'm about to put forward were conducted with the following:

Class: Armorer (rank 26, physical level 42)
Attributes: STR 71, VIT 100, DEX 82, INT 45, MND 63, PIE 40
Resistances: Water 37, Fire 64, Lightning 73, Ice 38, Earth 92, Wind 92
Tool: Iron Pliers
Recipe(s): Iron Rings (~rank 25) and Iron Chain (~rank 25)

Test consisted of 87 Iron Ring synths with the resulting rings converted to Iron Chain (I'm afraid I don't have specific numbers for successes/failures; the idea is to just report as much as I can based on what I know.)

Here's what I noticed:

Trending

First is what I call "trending". A trend is something that you might observe over the course of 2-3 actions that appears to suggest to some extent (excluding random influence) what you can expect from your next action. SE mentioned that a successful action can make the next action more likely to succeed and a failed action can make the next action more likely to fail. It's entirely possible to go from a perfect success with one action (ie. zero durability lost) to perfect failure with the very next action (ie. zero progress gained). It tends to happen more frequently with recipes above your class rank, but recipes at or below your rank seem to be considerably less erratic. I'm going to hypothesize that trends indicate your current level of control over the synth (possibly revealing a bit about the benefit of the Control crafting stat.) A downward trend suggests that you're on your way to a failure on your next action. An upwards trend suggests that a success on your next action will yield less durability loss than the action before it.

Here's an example of a downward trend, with a line break between action results for clarity:

Quote:

You use Standard Synthesis. Your attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 20.
Quality increases by 7.

You use Standard Synthesis. Your attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 20.
Durability decreases by 4.
Quality increases by 5.

You use Stanard Synthesis. (<- Note: No "...succeeds!" or "...fails!" message indicates a "neutral" outcome.)
Progress increases by 18.
Durability decreases by 11.
Quality increases by 3.


Note: Durability loss is increasing from one action to the next (0 -> 4 -> 11). Quality gains are also decreasing from one action to the next (7 -> 5 -> 3).

And this is an example of what an upward trend might look like:

Quote:

You use Standard Synthesis. Your attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 4.
Durability decreases by 22.

You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 10.
Durability decreases by 10.
Quality increases by 2.

You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 14.
Durability decreases by 8.
Quality increases by 4.


Note: Durability loss is decreasing from one action to the next (22 -> 10 -> 8) and quality gains are increasing from one action to the next (0 -> 2 -> 4)

When trying to determine a trend, I was looking primarily at two different outcomes: durability and quality. I found that as far as trending goes, progress gains/losses don't really seem to factor in all that much. If durability loss from one action to the next is increasing, it suggests a downward trend. If durability loss is remaining the same or decreasing from one action to the next and quality is increasing, it suggests an upwards trend.

A downward trend seems to suggest that you are losing control. Note that I'm not making any reference to orb states here, because the trending appears to function independently of orb state as a second layer that influences your chance to succeed or fail with your next action. This helps explain why, in addition to the random factor, you can fail repeatedly on a solid white orb and succeed repeatedly on a flashing orb. To help illustrate the concept I've pulled some hypothetical numbers out of my **** and put them in the section below titled "Control Mathy Bits".

Audio Clues

A while back someone made a thread asking if anyone had noticed a humming coming from the orb and how it seemed to change pitch. I'm not sure if they were referring to what I'm about to discuss, but I noticed a while ago that the noise that plays when you use the Wait command often changes from one use of the command to the next. Sometimes, towards the end of the sound effect, it raises in pitch. Other times towards the end it lowers in pitch. And still other times there is no change. Keep in mind that if you use the Wait command several times in succession, the overall pitch of the sound effect will lower with each use. That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the pitch of the sound effect at the end relative to what it was when it first started playing.

What I found last night (again, accounting for random influence) is that if I had just failed an action and then I used the Wait command and the pitch lowered at the end, my next action would frequently fail again. If the pitch raised towards the end of the effect, my next action was frequently indicative of an upward trend. My hypothesis is that the change in pitch of the Wait command sound effect indicates an increase or a decrease in control (or, in the case of a sound effect with no increase or decrease in pitch at the end, no change in control). Pitch increase = control increase, pitch decrease = control decrease. Also worth noting is that occasionally I would get an abnormally high pitched sound effect that would increase further in pitch at the end, and other times I would get an abnormally low pitched sound effect that would decrease further in pitch at the end. And my experience was that more often than not, a failure on my next action would result in a destabilized element. Definitely worth more testing, but if you're going to try it out be aware that you may need to hear the various different tones several times before you're able to identify them.

Control Mathy Bits

To illustrate the concept, let me pull some numbers out of my **** for you. We know that the crafting system is not based on a binary success/fail system. In other words, you can have a wide variation in progress gained to durability lost and based on a comparison of those two values the system will tell you "...succeeds!" (progress gained more than double durability lost), "...fails!" (durability lost more than double progress gained) or neutral (everything in between). So let's put the concept on a sliding scale to illustrate based on values for Standard synthesis:

 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 


For simplicity's sake, I've trimmed maximum durability loss to 20 for results not under the effect of a destabilized element even though I've seen durability loss as high as 28. I'm also excluding Quality for the time being. Let's just pretend that Quality gains are a reflection on the state of your control.

So what determines where you fall on that scale in terms of outcome for your next action? A random number between one and 20? Maybe. I'm going to suggest as a preliminary hypothesis that it's actually your control variable that determines the outcome, represented on the graph below by a carot symbol ('^'):

 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 
                                   ^ 


In the above example, the outcome for that action would be a gain of 6 progress and a loss of 14 durability. An increase in control would cause the arrow to shift to the right. A decrease in control would cause it to shift to the left. Tying in the audio cues, a Wait command where the pitch raises at the end of the sound effect would indicate a shift of the arrow to the right. A lowering in pitch at the end would suggest a shift to the left. No change in pitch would suggest the arrow doesn't move.

So assuming this is all fairly close to how it actually works, my theory would be that the "random" aspect influences your control. Each time you select an action, a random number is generated. A "positive" result based on that number would indicate an increase in control. A negative result would indicate a decrease in control. And then based on that increase or decrease a result for that action would be obtained.

Example of a positive result from the randomly generated number resulting in increased control and a upward trend:

 
Before action: 
 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 
                                   ^ 
 
 
After action: 
 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 
                                                  ^ 


Example of a negative result from the randomly generated umber resulting in decreased control and a downward trend:

 
Before action: 
 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 
                                   ^ 
 
 
After action: 
 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 
                         ^                         


So what determines whether or not the random number results in a positive or negative change in control? Orb state, amongst other things. Solid white orb would offer higher chances (but no guarantee) of an increase in control, but if your control is low even a slight increase can produce a "...fail!" result. Example:

 
Before action: 
 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 
                    ^                
 
 
After action: 
 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 
                         ^                         


That's enough for now. Questions, comments, yadda yadda post away. I'll probably add more in the near future to clarify and refine or scrap altogether.


Edited, Oct 26th 2010 10:30pm by Aurelius
#2 Oct 26 2010 at 11:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
327 posts
If this hypothesis turns out to be correct I want to slap SE for making the crafting system to complicated...
____________________________
FFXI: [Asura] "Midou" (PLD) || FFXIV: [Bodhum] "Midou Lii" (???) || EVEOnline: "Thion Li"


#3 Oct 26 2010 at 11:43 PM Rating: Good
*
228 posts
In regards to your perceived theories on "Trending", did you notice any significant pattern towards when a downward or upward "Trend" might occur? Assuming for the sake of argument that "Trending" proves to be an underlying mechanic, perhaps it's indicative of a fatigue system that may be at work influencing the success/failure of your crafting.

While hardly conclusive, your ideas certainly bear the merit of further research. I'm certainly interested in anything else you're able to suss out of the system.


Quote:
If this hypothesis turns out to be correct I want to slap SE for making the crafting system to complicated...


Just wait until we get to testing the effect that Elemental Day/Hour, associated compass direction, and Nameday/God has.

Edited, Oct 27th 2010 1:45am by mistrik
____________________________
Quote:
Pikko wrote:
Quote:
sideways wrote: (really Pikko?)

Oh go stuff that thread up your ***. Did you even READ that post?
[...]
I mean, excuuuuse me for trying to make people PLAY NICE.


^ Second best forum mod smack down *ever*.
#4 Oct 26 2010 at 11:47 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
mistrik wrote:
In regards to your perceived theories on "Trending", did you notice any significant pattern towards when a downward or upward "Trend" might occur? Assuming for the sake of argument that "Trending" proves to be an underlying mechanic, perhaps it's indicative of a fatigue system that may be at work influencing the success/failure of your crafting.

While hardly conclusive, your ideas certainly bear the merit of further research. I'm certainly interested in anything else you're able to suss out of the system.


I didn't really notice anything carrying forward from one synth to the next. Assuming my theories are on the mark, random influences are still always at play. They appear to determine not only whether your control increases or decreases from action to action (including Wait) but also the magnitude of the change (thus the reason you can go from a perfect success to a rock bottom failure.)

theweenie appears to have made a post around the time I was in the midst of typing up this one that shows a lot of logged results that I'm about to borrow from and use to illustrate the trending concept and hopefully, some practical applications that could turn this from random speculative theorycrafting to some sort of meaningful information.
#5 Oct 26 2010 at 11:51 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
257 posts
Nice work, and keep at it. I've been waiting for a while now for someone to actually test out and post some sort of conclusions about the crafting system.
____________________________

#6 Oct 27 2010 at 12:03 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
Borrowing data from theweenie's thread here. Full credit to theweenie for compiling the data. Here's his first synth log:

Quote:
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 14%.
Durability decreases by 10.
Quality increases by 2.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 3%.
Durability decreases by 21.
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 11%.
Durability decreases by 10.
Quality increases by 2.
You use Maker's Muse.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 14%.
Durability decreases by 6.
Quality increases by 6.
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 13%.
Durability decreases by 11.
Quality increases by 2.
You use Fulfillment.
Your Maker's Muse effect fades.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 7%.
Durability decreases by 16.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 3%.
Durability decreases by 20.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 4%.
Durability decreases by 22.
You botch the synthesis!


Now I pick it apart to illustrate some concepts:

Quote:
Quote:
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 14%.
Durability decreases by 10.
Quality increases by 2.


^ First action produces neutral outcome. Control shifts downward before reversing to an upward trend:

Quote:
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 3%.
Durability decreases by 21.
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 11%.
Durability decreases by 10.
Quality increases by 2.
You use Maker's Muse.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 14%.
Durability decreases by 6.
Quality increases by 6.


^ example of an upward trend. Notice durability loss decreasing from one action to the next and quality increasing. "Control" shifts downward with the next action and proceeds to a downward trend resulting in a near perfect failure on the final action and a botched synth:

Quote:
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 13%.
Durability decreases by 11.
Quality increases by 2.
You use Fulfillment.
Your Maker's Muse effect fades.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 7%.
Durability decreases by 16.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 3%.
Durability decreases by 20.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 4%.
Durability decreases by 22.
You botch the synthesis!


^ Notice how progress on the final action is actually higher than it was on the previous action, yet durability loss was also higher. This is why I excluded Progress from my consideration when trying to identify upward/downward trends. Durability loss is increasing from one action to the next and if there had been any Quality gained at all, my theory is that it would have been decreasing as durability loss was increasing.



Edited, Oct 26th 2010 11:14pm by Aurelius
#7 Oct 27 2010 at 12:12 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
Here's another one:

Quote:
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 11%.
Durability decreases by 9.
Quality increases by 3.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 3%.
Durability decreases by 19.
You use Fulfillment.
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 13%.
Durability decreases by 11.
Quality increases by 2.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 14%.
Durability decreases by 5.
Quality increases by 4.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 6%.
Durability decreases by 15.
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 13%.
Durability decreases by 9.
Quality increases by 2.
Your Fulfillment effect fades.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 14%.
Durability decreases by 5.
Quality increases by 4.
You use Maker's Muse.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 14%.
Durability decreases by 6.
Quality increases by 7.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 11%.
Quality increases by 10.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 13%.
Durability decreases by 5.
Quality increases by 5.
You create 4 circles of dodo leather.


Picked apart:

Quote:
Quote:
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 11%.
Durability decreases by 9.
Quality increases by 3.


^ First action. Another neutral result. Control shifts downward by a fair bit with the next action and then reverses to an upward trend:

Quote:
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 3%.
Durability decreases by 19.
You use Fulfillment.
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 13%.
Durability decreases by 11.
Quality increases by 2.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 14%.
Durability decreases by 5.
Quality increases by 4.


And then oops...random number ambush before beginning another upward trend:

Quote:
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt fails!
Progress increases by 6%.
Durability decreases by 15.
You use Standard Synthesis.
Progress increases by 13%.
Durability decreases by 9.
Quality increases by 2.
Your Fulfillment effect fades.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 14%.
Durability decreases by 5.
Quality increases by 4.


This upward trend continues through to successful completion of the synthesis but look at the action immediately before my commentary interruption and the one immediately after:

Quote:
You use Maker's Muse.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 14%.
Durability decreases by 6.
Quality increases by 7.


Fairly static. Slight increase to both durability loss and quality gain before proceeding with the upward trend:

Quote:
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 11%.
Quality increases by 10.
You use Standard Synthesis. The attempt succeeds!
Progress increases by 13%.
Durability decreases by 5.
Quality increases by 5.
You create 4 circles of dodo leather.

#8 Oct 27 2010 at 12:34 AM Rating: Default
*****
11,576 posts
But what does it all mean?!?!

Well, based on my experience last night, if I'm observing a downward trend in the making I can use the Wait command and both listen to the sound effect for an upward change in pitch and try to land on a favorable orb color at the same time and if it works out, I can head off a lot of the massive durability loss that comes from riding the downward trend to the bottom. There appears to be a vectoring system at play or, to put it differently, the upwards or downwards motion of control has momentum. Let's cut and paste one of my line graphs and add in an arrow to the carot to illustrate the vector concept (vector values also pulled from me ****):

 
 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 
                                   ^ (7)---> 


In the above example, the control variable is favoring failure but is on an upwards trend with a vector value of 7. Now let's pretend that for each action (including the Wait command), the system generates a number between -10 and 10. For the sake of example, let's say it comes up with -2. Apply that to the vector and we get:

 
 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 
                                                ^ (5)--->  


In this case, even though the random number wasn't favorable, the momentum allowed the control variable to remain on an upward trend. Now let's say the next action is bad mojo and the random generator produces -10:

 
 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 
               <---(5) ^                     


In this case, not only did we get a whallop to our durability but we're also headed downwards with the quickness and we need a substantial favorable number from the random generator to recover.

Based on all of this, it ascribes a theoretical explanation for what the Wait command does. It's basically the same as selecting any other action only it only applies a fixed durability penalty instead of the full outcome of what that action might have been. So instead of eating the brunt of the bottom end of a downward trend, you ride it out behind the safety of the Wait command.
#9 Oct 27 2010 at 12:53 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
327 posts
mistrik wrote:
In regards to your perceived theories on "Trending", did you notice any significant pattern towards when a downward or upward "Trend" might occur? Assuming for the sake of argument that "Trending" proves to be an underlying mechanic, perhaps it's indicative of a fatigue system that may be at work influencing the success/failure of your crafting.

While hardly conclusive, your ideas certainly bear the merit of further research. I'm certainly interested in anything else you're able to suss out of the system.


Quote:
If this hypothesis turns out to be correct I want to slap SE for making the crafting system to complicated...


Just wait until we get to testing the effect that Elemental Day/Hour, associated compass direction, and Nameday/God has.

Edited, Oct 27th 2010 1:45am by mistrik


I already did some very preliminary research on Directional stuff which can be found at: http://ffxiv.zam.com/forum.html?game=268&mid=128769069871036357

TBH direction wasnt that bad in FFXI. Nor was the nameday

Edited, Oct 27th 2010 2:55am by MidouSan
____________________________
FFXI: [Asura] "Midou" (PLD) || FFXIV: [Bodhum] "Midou Lii" (???) || EVEOnline: "Thion Li"


#10 Oct 27 2010 at 3:25 AM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
I don't buy it. It's not a bad bit of theorizing, mind! But it's the sort of observation that's terribly prone to confirmation bias and statistical clustering.

Think about how powerful this would make Preserve, though. A large bonus to success plus an artificially-induced positive trend? [Yes, please!]

It doesn't really jive with experience, either. If a random number plus a "foo" element is generated by each attempt, and "foo" is negative on failures, and the orb setting is based on the resulting number with a continuum from white to flashing, then one result that should be VERY rare is flashing > fail > white. The random number would have to be really strongly positive to overcome the low initial setting and the negative foo. But this happens all the time, right? Way more often than your theory would seem to account for.

I'm not saying for certain that you're incorrect, just that it's entirely possible that your observations are due to other mechanisms. You're positing a positive feedback loop, where successes beget successes and failures beget failures; a negative feedback loop (where success would increase the chance of failure and failure would increase the chance of success) seems just as likely.

I'd need to see some pretty detailed statistical analysis to buy in to this particular theory. A data set with orb colors recorded would be a minimum for a starting point. (If you're going to propose a theory of success chances that's independent of orb color, and you KNOW orb color has an effect on success chances, you've got to be able to isolate its influence...)
#11 Oct 27 2010 at 3:26 AM Rating: Decent
*
216 posts
This is an interesting theory. When crafting it certainly does seem like outcomes are swaying in one direction or the other, rather than them being completely random. Successes frequently follow successes, and failures after failures. It would certainly be useful if we could predict when failures are imminent.

I wonder if SE will ever discuss crafting indepth. They glossed over it several weeks back, but for the most part it wasn't anything that we didn't already know. They're so secretive with everything, going so far as to not even list the rank of synths in their Lodestone crafting tables. Just once I wish something would leak out! We need SE WikiLeaks.
#12 Oct 27 2010 at 3:38 AM Rating: Excellent
**
263 posts
If you're saying a trend exists you want to plot the data, draw a regression and see if there's a correlation.

Just looking at it and saying it seems to be doing that isn't objective, you're going to see a trend if you are actively looking for one.
#13 Oct 27 2010 at 3:58 AM Rating: Default
38 posts
This is a great thread, and fits in with my gut feel on how crafting was working

I think SE may have been very clever here, by giving us visual and audible clues we may be subconsciously learning how to craft better with practice.
After all i have thought to myself, this next action will pass, or it will fail and normally am right on the mark

I suspect theres a similar scheme in play with harvesting, i havent quite got my finger on it but can usometimes work out where to chop confidently when woodcutting

of course, it could be in my mind ;)
#14 Oct 27 2010 at 4:17 AM Rating: Default
**
763 posts
You have given me a LOT of things to try here. I've been trying to experiment myself with crafting, namely the Weaving craft. I enjoy it.

I'll be taking up blacksmithing and such but these observations are fantastic!

#15 Oct 27 2010 at 4:28 AM Rating: Excellent
*
203 posts
Aurelius wrote:

First is what I call "trending". A trend is something that you might observe over the course of 2-3 actions that appears to suggest to some extent (excluding random influence) what you can expect from your next action. SE mentioned that a successful action can make the next action more likely to succeed and a failed action can make the next action more likely to fail. It's entirely possible to go from a perfect success with one action (ie. zero durability lost) to perfect failure with the very next action (ie. zero progress gained). It tends to happen more frequently with recipes above your class rank, but recipes at or below your rank seem to be considerably less erratic. I'm going to hypothesize that trends indicate your current level of control over the synth (possibly revealing a bit about the benefit of the Control crafting stat.) A downward trend suggests that you're on your way to a failure on your next action. An upwards trend suggests that a success on your next action will yield less durability loss than the action before it.


Can you give a source on SE saying that success leads to more success and fail leads to more failures? The "Ask the Devs" on crafting only states "the successful execution of consecutive actions also serves to increase quality". Here's a link to a copy of the Ask the Devs article, since lodestone doesn't appear to allow you to look back through older "Topics": http://ffxiv.zam.com/story.html?story=23493

Aurelius wrote:

Audio Clues

A while back someone made a thread asking if anyone had noticed a humming coming from the orb and how it seemed to change pitch. I'm not sure if they were referring to what I'm about to discuss, but I noticed a while ago that the noise that plays when you use the Wait command often changes from one use of the command to the next. Sometimes, towards the end of the sound effect, it raises in pitch. Other times towards the end it lowers in pitch. And still other times there is no change. Keep in mind that if you use the Wait command several times in succession, the overall pitch of the sound effect will lower with each use. That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the pitch of the sound effect at the end relative to what it was when it first started playing.

If you turn off all your sounds in the Config menu (it doesn't actually turn off all the sounds), you will very clearly hear the tone discussed in the other thread. It's throughout your entire synth. If you could, please try this and report if its the same sound you're hearing during wait (btw, the tone throughout the synth can change w/o using wait). Warning: Footsteps and crafting noises will still work, and you hear tones from other crafters as well, so do this away from others.

Aurelius wrote:

Control Mathy Bits

To illustrate the concept, let me pull some numbers out of my **** for you. We know that the crafting system is not based on a binary success/fail system. In other words, you can have a wide variation in progress gained to durability lost and based on a comparison of those two values the system will tell you "...succeeds!" (progress gained more than double durability lost), "...fails!" (durability lost more than double progress gained) or neutral (everything in between). So let's put the concept on a sliding scale to illustrate based on values for Standard synthesis:

 
Progress Gained     0         4         8        12        16        20 
                    |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 
Durability Lost     20        16        12        8         4         0 



Whoa whoa whoa. We don't know thats how it works, and that's a dangerous assumption. In fact, I'll have to log my crafts, but I can almost guarantee that's not how it works. I get +10 progress -10 durability "fails!" results, which if the success/fail/neutral was dynamically determined, would have been a neutral result. I've gotten neutrals with more progress than durability, and with less progress than durability.

Furthermore, Progress/Durability should not be on a sliding scale together. You yourself said that you can have a wide variation in progress vs durability; but if they were related this closely, the same durability would yield the same progress.


Overall, your trending concept can probably be attributed to a streaky RNG (most RNGs are at least moderately prone to streaks). However, it is good to see some discussion about how the crafting system works. I'll try to start logging some of my crafts to throw them up for others to look at.

Edited, Oct 27th 2010 6:29am by Ilmoran

Edited, Oct 27th 2010 6:29am by Ilmoran
#16 Oct 27 2010 at 7:13 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
31 posts
Quote:
In fact, I'll have to log my crafts, but I can almost guarantee that's not how it works. I get +10 progress -10 durability "fails!" results, which if the success/fail/neutral was dynamically determined, would have been a neutral result. I've gotten neutrals with more progress than durability, and with less progress than durability.

This is true, but seems related to the difficulty of the recipe. Do you get different neutral results attempting the same recipe on the same level?

Edited, Oct 27th 2010 9:14am by ShayAmora
#17 Oct 27 2010 at 7:54 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
3,005 posts
Quote:
What has been bothering me were those synths where you can force a white orb with an ability like Preserve and still fail numerous actions one after another.


Because even with a white orb, there's still a random chance you can fail; it's just a lower chance. You can still fail several times in a row if you have a streak of bad luck. There's no guarantees--you can only try to keep the odds in your favor and hope.
____________________________
Chris Mattern
#18 Oct 27 2010 at 8:08 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
**
447 posts
Good post, as good a guess as any... would be nice if SE explicitly told us the crafting mechanics, though.

I've seen some evidence in my own crafts that doesn't gel with your explanations, specifically in 'trends' and 'audio cues'...but who knows.

Your argument is also very 'control' centric... what do you think Craftmanship and Magic Craftmanship do? Sorry if it's buried in there, only read the OP and skimmed the subsequent posts.
____________________________
Djigga, please. Highland Hyurs can't jump.

#19 Oct 27 2010 at 8:40 AM Rating: Default
*****
11,576 posts
AvatarexADV wrote:
I don't buy it. It's not a bad bit of theorizing, mind! But it's the sort of observation that's terribly prone to confirmation bias and statistical clustering.

Think about how powerful this would make Preserve, though. A large bonus to success plus an artificially-induced positive trend? [Yes, please!]


Note that I suggested orb color and "control" are separate dynamics. You can have a white orb and very low control that will produce resounding failures. SE was asked what the orb colors mean and they said that you're more likely to succeed on a solid white orb, followed by yellow, then red, with flashing being the lowest. They didn't say that orb color is the only determining influence. If you try to match the concept of control with orb color (ie. orb color reflects control), it's not going to work. For my testing I was ignoring orb color for the most part. What I'm proposing is that there are at least two layers used to determine success/failure: control and orb color.

I appreciate your skepticism and I fully expect it in a case such as this because challenging the concept is how we learn, but keep in mind that I'm not presenting my doctoral thesis to the board for review. The idea is that others would take this information and keep it in the back of their mind doing their own crafting and then come back and bring their results to the table. I certainly have no intention of gathering data sets from hundreds/thousands of synths. The amount of information you have to gather per action is more than you can write in an organized fashion before you start losing durability to the clock penalty and I don't run a log parser. I did the next best thing, however, and borrowed theweenie's logs and provided a link to the thread. It's hard to call any of my conclusions statistical clustering when you can point to any of the logs in his thread and observe the trending with every single synth.

Ilmoran wrote:
Can you give a source on SE saying that success leads to more success and fail leads to more failures? The "Ask the Devs" on crafting only states "the successful execution of consecutive actions also serves to increase quality".


That's the quote I was looking for, yes. Not precisely as I recalled it but the general meaning is similar. And you're right, the progress/durability bars are not intended to be descriptive of the actual process, only the concept. It was easier for me to draw a line graph like that to illustrate concept than it was to try and describe it.
#20 Oct 27 2010 at 8:45 AM Rating: Default
*****
11,576 posts
ChrisMattern wrote:
Quote:
What has been bothering me were those synths where you can force a white orb with an ability like Preserve and still fail numerous actions one after another.


Because even with a white orb, there's still a random chance you can fail; it's just a lower chance. You can still fail several times in a row if you have a streak of bad luck. There's no guarantees--you can only try to keep the odds in your favor and hope.


Yes, a random chance that you can fail on a white orb. I agree wholeheartedly. But if it truly was a random influence that can allow me to fail 4-5 actions in a row on a white orb courtesy of Preserve for a synth five ranks below me, then I'm forced to go back to my previous conclusion that SE doesn't know wtf they're doing with game design because that sort of system would be garbage. If all we've really got is orb color and all kinds of other things we have zero influence over beyond deciding to craft or not to craft (ie. weather, moon phase, etc.) mashed together and finalized by a random number generator, then the whole concept of a crafting mini-game is stupid. It's like taking FFXI's crafting system and just adding half a dozen extra steps to each synth for ***** and giggles. That's why I decided to use my wire ring spree to sit down and observe as closely as possible, otherwise I spent $85 to play an MMO for two months and walk away because I won't play FFXI-2.
#21 Oct 27 2010 at 8:48 AM Rating: Good
***
3,178 posts
I hope some of the the higher Rank crafters chime in on this topic. The Audio part is clear to me. There is an all good and a not-so-great tone. The trending is also somewhat apparent.

Still, thanks the /random you can't really control what tone you will get or what trend direction you are headed.

At best, you can do Standard when you notice the worst to try and cut your Durability losses.

Unfortunately, since the last update, I see Standard > Standard > Standard > Standard > (95%) Bold, as the best strategy for nearly every synth.

Great work here and thanks for reporting it all!
#22 Oct 27 2010 at 11:42 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,526 posts
AvatarexADV wrote:

Think about how powerful this would make Preserve, though. A large bonus to success plus an artificially-induced positive trend? [Yes, please!]


Preserve is already powerful. It doesn't always result in success though.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#23 Oct 27 2010 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
On orb colour - and this may play into your control theory... have you used harmonize much? The ability says it "reduces risk for the next action" - and it also usually changes the colour of the orb. However, unlike preserve, which always changes the orb to white - harmonize will often turn a white orb into a flashing orb, or a yellow orb to red... so there is obviously a risk mechanic separate from orb colour at play.

Harmonize stacks with preserve and tender touch as well (whereas tender touch will wipe preserve and vice versa) - and it does significantly reduce risk (at least in my experience). Maybe what harmonize does is boost your control!
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#24 Oct 27 2010 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
135 posts
"... I see Standard > Standard > Standard > Standard > (95%) Bold, as the best strategy for nearly every synth."

I'm sort of inclined to agree with you on this as this pattern has proven the most effective of late. I know that I had to completely scrap the different patterns I was messing around with from the beta and then from the initial release. And am I crazy or does it seem as though after you perform an HQ synth, the very next one is an unmitigated disaster? I tend to find the synth right after is a real bear - no data mind you I'm simply speaking anecdotally. I'm not at a very high level in any particular craft but I am attempting to work many of them up slowly but surely.

Thanks for the thoughts and post Aurelius. Keep up the good work it's definitely appreciated!
____________________________



#25 Oct 27 2010 at 1:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
364 posts
Aurelius wrote:
Note that I suggested orb color and "control" are separate dynamics. You can have a white orb and very low control that will produce resounding failures. SE was asked what the orb colors mean and they said that you're more likely to succeed on a solid white orb, followed by yellow, then red, with flashing being the lowest. They didn't say that orb color is the only determining influence. If you try to match the concept of control with orb color (ie. orb color reflects control), it's not going to work. For my testing I was ignoring orb color for the most part. What I'm proposing is that there are at least two layers used to determine success/failure: control and orb color.


Where abouts is the Q&A with the hierarchy laid out like that? I'm only aware of the intentionally vague one that reads:

Quote:
Q. I haven't been having much success crafting items. What am I doing wrong?

A. The colored, glowing graphics provides players with a large hint toward a successful synthesis. When the glow is white, the synthesis is at its most stable, and the chances of success are high. When the glow takes on a color, however, the chances of success are low. Players seeking simple completion of their synthesis rather than high-quality results should attempt to use the Wait command when the indicator is colored to restore the stability of the synthesis before finishing it.


In my experience, flashing is far from the lowest success chance.


Edited, Oct 27th 2010 3:05pm by Furia
#26 Oct 27 2010 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,330 posts
Furia wrote:
[...]
In my experience, flashing is far from the lowest success chance.


Edited, Oct 27th 2010 3:05pm by Furia


Mine too. It's definitely not flashing for "Fail." For all we know it means Elemental. >_>
#27 Oct 27 2010 at 9:16 PM Rating: Decent
29 posts
Using Bold Synthesis on a Red Orb has been verified by SE to give you a higher return on Quality. This is something that I use regularly and every time I Bold Successfully my Quality gain is MUCH higher than on any color. I have in fact gained over 54 points on the last Bold Attempt alone on a successful string of 3.

This was my gain

Bold #1 - Orb Red ~ Success! Quality +17
Bold #2 - Orb White ~ Success! Quality +22
Bold #3 - Orb Red ~ Success! Quality +54

How does this fit in with your theory Aurelius?
#28 Oct 27 2010 at 10:24 PM Rating: Default
*****
11,576 posts
XaviehrGrey wrote:
Using Bold Synthesis on a Red Orb has been verified by SE to give you a higher return on Quality. This is something that I use regularly and every time I Bold Successfully my Quality gain is MUCH higher than on any color. I have in fact gained over 54 points on the last Bold Attempt alone on a successful string of 3.

This was my gain

Bold #1 - Orb Red ~ Success! Quality +17
Bold #2 - Orb White ~ Success! Quality +22
Bold #3 - Orb Red ~ Success! Quality +54

How does this fit in with your theory Aurelius?


I agree that bold synthesis on red orbs can yield higher quality gains than, for example, a white orb. My highest quality gain from Bold synthesis on a red orb was 84. In general I would say it's attributed to the whole "risk vs. reward" thing. If you're willing to risk the reduced success rate from using Bold synthesis on a red orb as compared to white, the potential payout is a high return on quality. I can't say whether or not it's directly related to what I'm driving at here, but it's definitely a good thing to know.
#29 Oct 28 2010 at 12:09 AM Rating: Decent
**
952 posts
I don't know about anyone else but if I'm within the level range of what I'm trying to make and using the right tool I succeed a lot of the time.

Recently I did the Exposed to the Elements leve using my main tool and failed every single attempt. I thought this was odd because the leve is recommended for rank 5. I had gone and checked the wiki and noticed you could HQ two cloths using your secondary tool. This lead me to believe that the second tool was best used for the Undyed Hempen Cloth recipe. Lo and behold when I switched to my secondary tool I had no problems making the item.

I would like to add that this is only speculation on my part and may be coincidence.

Edited, Oct 28th 2010 2:10am by CupDeNoodles
#30 Oct 28 2010 at 12:16 AM Rating: Default
*****
11,576 posts
CupDeNoodles wrote:
I don't know about anyone else but if I'm within the level range of what I'm trying to make and using the right tool I succeed a lot of the time.

Recently I did the Exposed to the Elements leve using my main tool and failed every single attempt. I thought this was odd because the leve is recommended for rank 5. I had gone and checked the wiki and noticed you could HQ two cloths using your secondary tool. This lead me to believe that the second tool was best used for the Undyed Hempen Cloth recipe. Lo and behold when I switched to my secondary tool I had no problems making the item.

I would like to add that this is only speculation on my part and may be coincidence.


Secondary tool tends to yield higher quantity, main hand tool tends to yield +1 etc. Most of the difficulties people are having with success rates start to materialize around rak 15-20.
#31 Oct 28 2010 at 1:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,104 posts
Although far beyond the scope of my experience crafting, this is still fascinating stuff and very eye-opening. Thanks for all the insights and ideas proposed in this thread.

I play the game with headphones and I was able to hear the difference in tone and pitch that Aurelius mentioned with the 'wait' commands pretty easily. Waiting after a failure for an audio indication of an upward trend allowed me to successfully complete several synths above my level that I had failed miserably in the past.

I have a question for Aurelius: Do you believe this is how SE purposefully designed crafting? Do you think the trends you've observed represent the intended functionality of the crafting system, or are you more inclined to believe that you have discovered a consistent pattern within an otherwise broken game mechanic?
____________________________

Melaahna Valiera
#32 Oct 28 2010 at 1:40 AM Rating: Default
*****
11,576 posts
Timorith wrote:
Although far beyond the scope of my experience crafting, this is still fascinating stuff and very eye-opening. Thanks for all the insights and ideas proposed in this thread.

I play the game with headphones and I was able to hear the difference in tone and pitch that Aurelius mentioned with the 'wait' commands pretty easily. Waiting after a failure for an audio indication of an upward trend allowed me to successfully complete several synths above my level that I had failed miserably in the past.

I have a question for Aurelius: Do you believe this is how SE purposefully designed crafting? Do you think the trends you've observed represent the intended functionality of the crafting system, or are you more inclined to believe that you have discovered a consistent pattern within an otherwise broken game mechanic?


I'm choosing to believe right now that this is how SE intended it to work. If I were to believe that it's all just random mumbo-jumbo, I wouldn't even be playing through the rest of the free trial because I'm not willing to waste my time or money on another SE RNG gibfest.

I did my local leves tonight and was paying close attention to the trending aspect. It's there. It's definitely there. There's absolutely no way it's random chance that's producing the progression up and down the way it's appearing. Occasionally you'll get an erratic spurt that breaks from the trend concept, but I think it's a safe bet now that that's the random influence and not an indication that the trending idea is bunk. I still haven't pinned down how to make reliable use of the audio bit but I can also say that I'm failing a lot fewer synths now than I was before I started paying attention to the relationship between durability lost and quality gained.

I still failed a rank 20 weaver leve at rank 22 tonight but the three out of five botched synths were the frustrating kind where you try everything you can think of and still get a mountain of failed actions for 15-24 durability loss each. That's the stuff that I'm hoping SE fixes with the change they mentioned about making recipes at or below your rank easier to complete. I don't mind failure in general from time to time. Stupid, massive, inexplicable failure is different, however.

I also completed my first rank 30 leve last night at rank 27 and it was awfully **** close. Compared to a week ago when rank 20 leves were hit-or-miss, to have completed a rank 30 leve was encouraging. Still no bloody guild marks in two weeks, though.
#33 Oct 28 2010 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
29 posts
Aurelius wrote:
Timorith wrote:
Although far beyond the scope of my experience crafting, this is still fascinating stuff and very eye-opening. Thanks for all the insights and ideas proposed in this thread.

I play the game with headphones and I was able to hear the difference in tone and pitch that Aurelius mentioned with the 'wait' commands pretty easily. Waiting after a failure for an audio indication of an upward trend allowed me to successfully complete several synths above my level that I had failed miserably in the past.

I have a question for Aurelius: Do you believe this is how SE purposefully designed crafting? Do you think the trends you've observed represent the intended functionality of the crafting system, or are you more inclined to believe that you have discovered a consistent pattern within an otherwise broken game mechanic?


I'm choosing to believe right now that this is how SE intended it to work. If I were to believe that it's all just random mumbo-jumbo, I wouldn't even be playing through the rest of the free trial because I'm not willing to waste my time or money on another SE RNG gibfest.

I did my local leves tonight and was paying close attention to the trending aspect. It's there. It's definitely there. There's absolutely no way it's random chance that's producing the progression up and down the way it's appearing. Occasionally you'll get an erratic spurt that breaks from the trend concept, but I think it's a safe bet now that that's the random influence and not an indication that the trending idea is bunk. I still haven't pinned down how to make reliable use of the audio bit but I can also say that I'm failing a lot fewer synths now than I was before I started paying attention to the relationship between durability lost and quality gained.

I still failed a rank 20 weaver leve at rank 22 tonight but the three out of five botched synths were the frustrating kind where you try everything you can think of and still get a mountain of failed actions for 15-24 durability loss each. That's the stuff that I'm hoping SE fixes with the change they mentioned about making recipes at or below your rank easier to complete. I don't mind failure in general from time to time. Stupid, massive, inexplicable failure is different, however.

I also completed my first rank 30 leve last night at rank 27 and it was awfully **** close. Compared to a week ago when rank 20 leves were hit-or-miss, to have completed a rank 30 leve was encouraging. Still no bloody guild marks in two weeks, though.


I agree with your findings. Since you've brought them to my attention I have been watching these trends show themselves again and again. I am also running into the RNG-BOMBS you are talking about, where the trending, orb color and synth tone stop mattering for anywhere form 1-4 attempts. It may be more, but generally 4 failures in a row is enough to botch it. I would be interested to see if anyone has run into these RNG-BOMBS during a synth where they utilized HQ materials for increased Durability and if so how many times in a row had they failed? In my experience once one of these inexplicable set of failures start happening it's pretty much over for your synth. I don't think I have ever actually turned one around and completed the synth when this happens.
#34 Oct 28 2010 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
29 posts
Aurelius wrote:
Timorith wrote:
Although far beyond the scope of my experience crafting, this is still fascinating stuff and very eye-opening. Thanks for all the insights and ideas proposed in this thread.

I play the game with headphones and I was able to hear the difference in tone and pitch that Aurelius mentioned with the 'wait' commands pretty easily. Waiting after a failure for an audio indication of an upward trend allowed me to successfully complete several synths above my level that I had failed miserably in the past.

I have a question for Aurelius: Do you believe this is how SE purposefully designed crafting? Do you think the trends you've observed represent the intended functionality of the crafting system, or are you more inclined to believe that you have discovered a consistent pattern within an otherwise broken game mechanic?


I'm choosing to believe right now that this is how SE intended it to work. If I were to believe that it's all just random mumbo-jumbo, I wouldn't even be playing through the rest of the free trial because I'm not willing to waste my time or money on another SE RNG gibfest.

I did my local leves tonight and was paying close attention to the trending aspect. It's there. It's definitely there. There's absolutely no way it's random chance that's producing the progression up and down the way it's appearing. Occasionally you'll get an erratic spurt that breaks from the trend concept, but I think it's a safe bet now that that's the random influence and not an indication that the trending idea is bunk. I still haven't pinned down how to make reliable use of the audio bit but I can also say that I'm failing a lot fewer synths now than I was before I started paying attention to the relationship between durability lost and quality gained.

I still failed a rank 20 weaver leve at rank 22 tonight but the three out of five botched synths were the frustrating kind where you try everything you can think of and still get a mountain of failed actions for 15-24 durability loss each. That's the stuff that I'm hoping SE fixes with the change they mentioned about making recipes at or below your rank easier to complete. I don't mind failure in general from time to time. Stupid, massive, inexplicable failure is different, however.

I also completed my first rank 30 leve last night at rank 27 and it was awfully **** close. Compared to a week ago when rank 20 leves were hit-or-miss, to have completed a rank 30 leve was encouraging. Still no bloody guild marks in two weeks, though.


I agree with your findings. Since you've brought them to my attention I have been watching these trends show themselves again and again. I am also running into the RNG-BOMBS you are talking about, where the trending, orb color and synth tone stop mattering for anywhere from 1-4 attempts. It may be more, but generally 4 failures in a row is enough to botch it. I would be interested to see if anyone has run into these RNG-BOMBS during a synth where they utilized HQ materials for increased Durability and if so how many times in a row had they failed? In my experience once one of these inexplicable set of failures start happening it's pretty much over for your synth. I don't think I have ever actually turned one around and completed the synth when this happens.
#35 Oct 28 2010 at 10:15 PM Rating: Decent
My question is, how to you break free of the downward trend, do you use wait? How many times do you wait? Do you use bold on yellow orb, because anecdotally I have more success changing it back to white when using bold on yellow. I know you are focused on the control aspect, but it would be good to hear theories of how to maintain control.



Edited, Oct 29th 2010 12:17am by RadiatorVoltar
#36 Oct 28 2010 at 10:41 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
RadiatorVoltar wrote:
My question is, how to you break free of the downward trend, do you use wait? How many times do you wait? Do you use bold on yellow orb, because anecdotally I have more success changing it back to white when using bold on yellow. I know you are focused on the control aspect, but it would be good to hear theories of how to maintain control.


If I'm on an unfavorable orb, I'll use the Wait command if durability decrease is on the rise.

I've found that trying to cycle orb states in order to use a particular action is sort of a hit-or-miss kind of thing. You could waste a bunch of durability with the Wait command and never get the orb you're looking for or you could use Wait once and be good to go. The higher the risk for the synth, the less I'm willing to cycle orbs for particular results. Sometimes I'll use the Wait command 2-3 times and not really get anything positive out of it so I just decide to take my chances. It varies from situation to situation.
#37 Oct 29 2010 at 12:15 AM Rating: Decent
*
100 posts
Quote:
First is what I call "trending". A trend is something that you might observe over the course of 2-3 actions that appears to suggest to some extent (excluding random influence) what you can expect from your next action. SE mentioned that a successful action can make the next action more likely to succeed and a failed action can make the next action more likely to fail.


Could you cite the last bit there? I'm only familiar with this quote:
"Q. Is there a trick to synthesizing high-quality items?
A. Though synthesis actions carried out while the colored circle graphic is red suffer a reduced rate of success, they often serve to increase the quality of the synthesis. In addition, the successful execution of consecutive actions also serves to increase quality. Ultimately, the higher the quality of the synthesis process, the more likely it is to yield a high-quality result."


It is essentially a tautology. It doesn't mean that each successful action increases the chance of success for the next. It just says the more successful actions you have, the more success you will have (more likely to HQ).



Quote:
if it truly was a random influence that can allow me to fail 4-5 actions in a row on a white orb courtesy of Preserve for a synth five ranks below me, then I'm forced to go back to my previous conclusion that SE doesn't know wtf they're doing

I'm afraid it was the RNG that got you. In the situation you describe here it's unclear what you could have done differently were you operating under this new theory? Wait for the tone? Not use Preserve on a "downward trend"?

I understand the desire to reverse engineer the mechanics behind video games but SE is notorious for making it extremely difficult and then threatening/banning your *** for doing it should you succeed. I also understand there will be changes to synthesis mechanics in the November update. Hopefully these will prevent pointless failures on low level items.

Your method here would make statisticians weep but if you've struck gold with a theory then great.
____________________________
Homer no function beer well without.
#38 Oct 29 2010 at 1:06 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
CatPredator wrote:
Quote:
First is what I call "trending". A trend is something that you might observe over the course of 2-3 actions that appears to suggest to some extent (excluding random influence) what you can expect from your next action. SE mentioned that a successful action can make the next action more likely to succeed and a failed action can make the next action more likely to fail.


Could you cite the last bit there? I'm only familiar with this quote:
"Q. Is there a trick to synthesizing high-quality items?
A. Though synthesis actions carried out while the colored circle graphic is red suffer a reduced rate of success, they often serve to increase the quality of the synthesis. In addition, the successful execution of consecutive actions also serves to increase quality. Ultimately, the higher the quality of the synthesis process, the more likely it is to yield a high-quality result."


It is essentially a tautology. It doesn't mean that each successful action increases the chance of success for the next. It just says the more successful actions you have, the more success you will have (more likely to HQ).


Yes, I didn't recall what they had said correctly. It turns out that it's partially true, however. Successful actions on an upward trend seem to keep the trend on track. Failed actions on an upward trend can be disruptive to that trend.

Quote:
Quote:
if it truly was a random influence that can allow me to fail 4-5 actions in a row on a white orb courtesy of Preserve for a synth five ranks below me, then I'm forced to go back to my previous conclusion that SE doesn't know wtf they're doing

I'm afraid it was the RNG that got you. In the situation you describe here it's unclear what you could have done differently were you operating under this new theory? Wait for the tone? Not use Preserve on a "downward trend"?


It's not about not using Preserve on a downward trend. It's more about noticing the downward trend regardless of any other conditions and using Wait once or twice to push through it back to an upward trend. It's less reliable if the recipe rank is above your rank, but I was messing around with dodo leather and dodoskin vamps tonight (rank 17/18 leatherworking) and was seeing some very positive results. I still failed a couple of synths at rank 17, but at rank 18 it was actually not bad at all, and YG lists the dodoskin vamps as rank 20.

What I've found (as mentioned above) is that if you use the Wait command when you observe a downward trend, regardless of orb state (color, flashing, whatever) that you can almost ignore orb state altogether unless you're aiming for a particular outcome (ie. higher quality). In addition, you can frequently predict when you're about to reach the peak of an upward trend and sneak in a Bold synthesis for some very nice results. Assuming the YG listing is correct, the idea of being able to pull off a dodoskin vamp synth with over 100 quality at rank 18 is pretty slim but I did it a couple of times tonight. (In fairness I didn't push my luck because these are still synths primarily for the purpose of skilling up and botches = fewer skill points.)

I think the next step in terms of testing now will be to do some more experimenting with bold and rapid synthesis to try and get a feel for what those numbers look like throughout the trending cycle. Right now, switching from standard on an upward trend to bold makes it hard to predict whether you're still on an upward trend or whether you're back onto a downward trend because the numbers produced by each action are very different.

All in all I'd be reluctant to pursue this any further if it wasn't producing any results, but I'm definitely seeing results from it so I'll continue to test and encourage anyone else who wants to give it a go to do so and report back.


Edited, Oct 29th 2010 12:47am by Aurelius
#39 Oct 29 2010 at 1:07 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
*killing multi-post*

Edited, Oct 29th 2010 12:45am by Aurelius
#40 Oct 29 2010 at 1:08 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
*killing other multi-post*


Edited, Oct 29th 2010 12:45am by Aurelius
#41 Oct 29 2010 at 5:54 AM Rating: Decent
*
73 posts
Aurelius wrote:
But what does it all mean?!?!


It's a frickin double-rainbow all the way man.

You should have called this thread : "Crafting system exposed! Confirmed inside!"

I kid, I kid. As for the theory and initial conclusions - I find there are way too many factors contributing to synthing we don't know about.
I have noticed short "trends" in synthing.. but it's too hard to draw conclusions when I randomly see explosions mid-synth on an "upward trend", then go right back to finishing the synth.
I think it'll be a long, upward battle with huge blocks of text and time to resolve anything as conslusive when it comes to crafting. And not to discourage, but right now trying to pin-point and classify something as random as crafting is.. I see as a waste of time. Lots of people are trying to figure out the randomness of crafting. But it's the ends people want - 'how can I determine this synth for a favorable outcome?' - it's just too random.

I tried to figure out if moon phase /day /time by calculating good/bad synths based on it - but in the end, nothing was near stable. I'm still trying to determine why we have "random bad synthing days" where there are explosions and fireworks everywhere. My conclusion is those days it's best to go level a DoW rather than rage synth.
____________________________
FFXI: Rison of Alexander (retired)
FFXIV: Rison Srithuram of Palamecia
LS: Omnipresence [ http://omnipresencels.com ]
#42 Oct 29 2010 at 9:32 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
So I guess relative to the Ask the Devs from 10/29 I should stop referring to certain things using the word "control" in order to avoid confusion. More testing this weekend!
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 15 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (15)