Sign in to follow this  
Mordraug

Remove the "bulk ql averaging" silliness

Recommended Posts

The "math" ... and I use the term VERY loosely here, was posted a few months back about how bulk QL is averaged.

Long story short:

I stashed 7 logs between QL 92.08 and 92.14, ended up with 89.95.

" if it's an increase in QL then it's instead reduced by 10%. "  According to Wossoo.  

 

Now as you can see by some replies below, it doesn't matter to noobs (not you Osten, you also noticed it) who spend more time trolling forums than honing their skills and thus don't notice, but to folks with heavy crafting it gets nasty (if it hurts on WU, I can imagine how bad it can get on WO)

 

Pointless, and really messed up at higher levels imho.

 

"RNG to determine what RNG will calculate the RNG for the RNG to the RNG of the RNG's random RNG values".

Skillgains, QL, success rates.... way too much RNG.... still wondering how the hell one fails to dip a piece of hot metal in water eh.   <-- comment sticks for a lot of other stuff, just not this thread.  Dug up the averaging math.  Forced 10% reduction. 

 

 

Edited by Mordraug
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure those logs weren't damaged?

 

That being said, I've noticed discrepancies between the average QL of a stack, and the QL of the resulting stack inside of a BSB, which is just... bizarre.

 

However, I very highly doubt the RNG is involved at all here, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As said above. it's usually because of damage that lowers overall bulk QL apart from that I've never run in to this issue on Wurm Online.
Could of just been a bug in a WU server you was on.
As for "removin bulk QL Avg Silliness"
This would be almost impossible to implement, as it would put a heavy load on databases and overall slow down the servers...
-1   
 

Edited by AlexLong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spent quite a bit of time looking at the bulk code, can't see why this would happen except for damage. Didn't see any RNG in it just simple and correct maths. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah Ostentatio.  Found the "math" here 

 

Logs had been cut in the past 10 minutes meaning no damage, so Q92 logs with no other logs of the same type in the crate became Q89.95's

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you disparage those who are trying to help you, remember this.  When you have only 1 log in a bsb, it is in a separate grouping than logs plural.  You may have had 1 log of that type and it was lower ql, but you may not have noticed it, as you checked logs.  That is more likely your problem than RNG.issues

Edited by Vroomfondel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, looks like the game indeed drops QL when averaging QL in bulk containers. Mordraug just linked to a post verifying this.

 

This is a bit silly and I don't understand its purpose. It ought to just be a straight average of what goes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ostentatio said:

Okay, looks like the game indeed drops QL when averaging QL in bulk containers. Mordraug just linked to a post verifying this.

 

This is a bit silly and I don't understand its purpose. It ought to just be a straight average of what goes in.

This i have seen for myself.

 

+1 to ridding ourselves of this nonsense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2015 at 11:04 AM, Vroomfondel said:

Before you disparage those who are trying to help you, remember this.  When you have only 1 log in a bsb, it is in a separate grouping than logs plural.  You may have had 1 log of that type and it was lower ql, but you may not have noticed it, as you checked logs.  That is more likely your problem than RNG.issues

 

I emptied the crate's old q80some logs to the "random bulk" one next to it before chucking in the q92's, m8.  In fact I use a rare crate for my imping logs to make sure I'm on the right one.  Had 92 carp from WO before switching to WU so not like I didn't have experience sorting my mats... also.. I linked the dev confirmation of a 10% QL kick from just the act of having stored the stuff in a bulk container. 

Edited by Mordraug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Petty bickering aside, I don't understand why the devs would want to discourage storing things in bulk containers. If anything, they've been heading in the opposite direction, now that we don't have decay on well-funded deeds of bulk stuff anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

Now if Rolf would like to shrink people's bulk storages some, some focus may be good on bigger items.  New towers for all kingdoms.  Marble walls, etc.

 

Killing QL only serves to make people need to grind gathering higher for their imping mats, which in turn winds up with loooots of mass amount of stored raw materials happening all over warehouses =P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

 

I'm suprised by the amount of people who can not read in this thread. As for the subject, please, fix this. I've never noticed it myself, but once i get to high-ql materials, i certainly wouldn't like this thing to happen, especially since we don't have any more decay in bulk containers on deed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still are giving misleading information, what you are claiming happened should not happen. If you put an item into a bsb with none of that item type in it will go in at its actual quality, then when adding additional items the difference in quality is increased by 10% if it is negative and decreased by 10% if it is positive. This seems like a logical way of preventing people from using bsbs to up the quality too much of items which cannot be combined. If you really did put 7 undamaged logs above 90 ql into a bsb with nothing in maybe you found a bug and should report it, from the testing I did this is not the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Webba said:

You still are giving misleading information, what you are claiming happened should not happen. If you put an item into a bsb with none of that item type in it will go in at its actual quality, then when adding additional items the difference in quality is increased by 10% if it is negative and decreased by 10% if it is positive. This seems like a logical way of preventing people from using bsbs to up the quality too much of items which cannot be combined. If you really did put 7 undamaged logs above 90 ql into a bsb with nothing in maybe you found a bug and should report it, from the testing I did this is not the case.

 

Just tested.  BSB with no logs in it, not a single goddamn log... not one, none. (I hope that's clear.. moving on)

Yes, all logs were 24kg.

 

 If all the logs are of the same QL, no drop happens, average QL in your inventory is same as resulting one in bulk.

 

If the logs are of different QL's, the average QL drops when chucked into the BSB.  (Yes, I removed the logs from the first set before throwing in the second set).

 

Just repeated it 3 times, every time I store them the QL drops.

 

Further test:  If you take out a log from the bsb/crate, then throw it back in later, no QL change happens.

 

Maybe not so misleading after all now is it?

Edited by Mordraug
You owe me a birch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the average should drop but it should not drop below the ql of the lowest (as you stated in your first post) which is what I am debating and tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Webba said:

Yes the average should drop but it should not drop below the ql of the lowest (as you stated in your first post) which is what I am debating and tested.

 

Go back to my first post... mix of 92.08 to 92.14 got dropped to 89.95.

 

If I kept mixing the pile of 76's i tested with earlier, depositing and removing from bsb, could theoretically drop them all the way to q1 (except I can't think of a reason to spend a couple hours doing that, you're welcome to give it a shot that said).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mordraug said:

 

Go back to my first post... mix of 92.08 to 92.14 got dropped to 89.95.

 

If I kept mixing the pile of 76's i tested with earlier, depositing and removing from bsb, could theoretically drop them all the way to q1 (except I can't think of a reason to spend a couple hours doing that, you're welcome to give it a shot that said).

Ok so everything you have said makes perfect sense if you follow the maths except the example in your first post unless the first log put in was less than 24 kg. When using only 24 kg logs there is no way you can drop the ql of bulk logs below the lowest quality but you should get lower than the average, it is an intended feature and not bad maths. Sorry if I came across as aggressive earlier I just didn't see what was wrong with the maths, I think that Rolf added a slight quality loss on averaging as a penalty for storing as bulk and that works fine except in the case where you put a partial (less than full weight) item in first, if this first item is less than half the weight of a full item it will mean that the quality will drop below the lowest quality of any of the logs, this could be fixed by simply capping end quality at the minimum quality of the two logs. The same logic can also apply to moving larger than normal logs (which you shouldn't easily be able to create) but would be fixed in the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did think of that while chopping some, so made sure it was all 24kg's .. come to think of it didn't check if in THAT cases it dropped below lowest's QL... may check later.

 

And yeah, I do know it's intentional... will stick to calling it "bad math" though as the results are bad even though working as intended, hence suggestions' section and not bug report.

 

And apologies for sounding generally hostile too...

 

Edited by Mordraug
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this