Decreasing research effectiveness (random chance of failure)

[kc7zzv]

I am very interested in EE3, but I would really like to tweak the balance so that researching takes more "samples".

The idea is that the config would have an option that lets the server owner configure the chances of research working. If the research "fails" then the item is destroyed and you don't get the research.

The reason I'd like this is to allow for more interesting strategic choices. Say that your server has the chance set to 20%. You've managed to collect a ghast tear. Do you spend it in a recipe, or do you risk your single tear in hopes of being able to make more?

Mostly, I want the ability to force players to risk losing an item rather than have EE3 research always be the best choice when you get something rare.

[pahimar]

I like this idea, I want to add in some more variability to researching items. Right now its just "click and wait." Perhaps there are more fun mechanics that can be done, and tuning points where pack devs can tweak it to their needs

[grydian]

I love this idea :)

[Lordmau5]

Some sort-of minigame sure would be cool. The question is, what would it be? As in, any raw ideas that would fit

[HadesDurin]

Remember: when you research an item it gets used up already, which is already an expensive thing. Including the blacklist of items, i think thats enough for someone like me, who didn't use EE3 at an extreme state like others did. I think if you want to get it harder to do this and that inside EE3, maybe implementing modes is a thing. Easy mode for people like me normale mode with some failure (maybe 60% success) hard mode with only 25% success that way its suited all players and server owners as they can use this mod the way they want to play minecraft.

EDIT: another solution is a configureable loss in swoping EMC around. like get 90% of the EMC value counted from an item. for example: put 10 diamonds in and only get 9 diamonds out

[Lordmau5]

It should be a config-option, I am 100% sure we can all agree on that.

But having a default of "You need to finish a certain minigame" would be better and more challenging (think of the Thaumcraft research minigame - not a 1:1 copy, but just an idea of a minigame :))

[MercuriusXeno]

Long post was long, I'm going to summarize:

It would be rad if attempting to transmute materials into an item was what caused you to learn to transmute into an item. Studying the item, by destruction probably, in a research table could give you a base % success rate of actually producing that item in a transmutation circle: a success rate that is flexible and at a server's discretion. At that point, you may improve your knowledge by CONTINUING TO SMASH THINGS, but also you could learn by simply attempting to produce that material at a less-than-optimal rate of success. The rate at which you learn by trial-and-error should also be at the server's discretion.

What do you guys think?

[kolatra]

I like the idea, it makes more sense than "I know the item exists, so I automatically know everything that is involved in creating it through transmuation."

[MercuriusXeno]

For added effect, it would be interesting if you received some other sub-optimal result instead of what you were trying to accomplish (thinking rebound or flawed results), but those are optional flourishes.

[kolatra]

Flawed results like a pickaxe that has some damage on it for example rather than full durability?

[MercuriusXeno]

Flawed result like coal instead of diamonds, even. Possibly improving your understanding of coal by 1% in the process. The important thing here is not to limit your imagination. It's EE3, let's go nuts.

[kolatra]

There could possibly even be a chance of receiving nothing, but losing some material, potentially improving your understanding. The chance of loss would be higher at lower levels of understanding.

[Divineaspect]

Might want to add an experience reward from failure, and a potential cost for success.

Howabout Understanding related materials. You understand cobblestone at 75% so you have 1/3rd (or whatever) of that as a bonus to making items which are made with/from cobblestone automatically. If it's not a PITA that could logically decay through stages, so 1/9th of that at Stone or Furnaces. This would add a sort of natural philosophy about studying basic items early on for their cumulative bonuses, but should probably be available before practical transmutation.

[MercuriusXeno]

I'm not sure I follow that first line. Do you mean minecraft experience, or alchemy experience? In this case when I refer to one or the other I consider them mutually exclusive. I don't like minecraft experience. I think it's bad and should not be used by EE3, or its use should be kept to a minimum.

Your other idea I think is really rad though, if I'm following. I might benefit from seeing it worded a bit differently.

[Divineaspect]

My intent was Minecraft experience. While an awkward and clunky system it's a core part of the vanilla experience. Denying a major section of vanilla is a decision a mod can make, but it removes points of interaction between vanilla and the mod, which in turn makes the experience of using the mod less integrated.

Let me try restating the second idea more succinctly: Your knowledge of a material carries over at a certain rate to related (in the crafting or smelting sense at least) materials, adding to your actual skill with that material.

[Mrkol]

Losing materials in the process completely actually makes no sense. It's EQUIVALENT exchange, right, right? At least approximately equivalent. You have to get at least something (physical, I mean). Some kind of unusable scrap/trash items would be great IMHO. Accidental break down of transmutation components into their raw forms, unexpected mixes of the materials (with net loss obviously), something along those lines.

Consider this situation: you are trying to transmute a piston from the raw ingredients, fail miserably, get sticks, some pebbles, few iron nuggets. Try to make a diamond, unsucceed, get coal lumps instead. Attempt to make a furnace minecart from a furnace and some iron, accidentally make an iron ore block! (stone + iron)

And, of course, getting experience/insights/research points even though you've failed is a must-have thing.

P.S. Implementing such things properly will most likely turn out to be utter hell ;)

[MercuriusXeno]

I responded to DivineAspect in IRC with this, paraphrased: "I really like the second part [concerning base components contributing to your knowledge of derived components]. I'm not keen on using MC experience because I think the knowledge system can have a progression [without experience]. It was part of [an original suggestion to revamp the research system] but... I feel like [mods] could [overuse vanilla experience] and make a mess of things. Being able to stand alone gives the research system some autonomy. [I don't think] the idea of using it is intrinsically bad, but... I dislike [using] MC experience in a broader sense... I hope I didn't come across as dismissive."

Mrkol, I think this is on the right track. I like the idea of being able to fail as the de facto standard for the mod [configurable to a server's desire, optional] and I especially like the idea of failures being "considered" - in such a way that you would receive a logical, flawed return of some kind.

As for being difficult to code, I would be inclined to agree. I also feel like some of the best flourishes are so complex, and still worth doing. I can point out in many instances, it is the little things that make a design grand.

[Divineaspect]

Perhaps an Unstable quality to the flawed output, where you can't just throw it back in the process, but it seems to otherwise be a normal instance of the related but imperfect product.

I'm more interested in the idea of backlash, because it establishes a key question, what's a mob or player avatar's life worth? Which opens the door for transmuting mobs.

[pahimar]

I want to address something that @Mrkol mentioned that I've been seeing for ages regarding the mod.

Yes, the mods name is EQUIVALENT Exchange

HOWEVER

That doesn't mean that everything is equivalent and lossless throughout the entire mod experience

In my point of view, the goal of players of the mod is to get to a point where they can equivalently exchange anything - they have become masters of alchemy. People that are "novices" are not able to do things perfectly every time, which is why we keep bringing up ideas relating to loss and skills and progression with the mod. Without that, this mod is simply a creative mode mod (and there's really no arguing that point).

[kolatra]

I think that's a very good way of putting it. It doesn't make sense for the player to be a "Minecraft God" right when they create a Transmutation Table and the Tome.

[sinkillerj]

I like the idea of a success rate, its alot like crafting in many MMOs, you put the materials in, attempt a craft, and it could fail or succeed, but you gain skills that increase your luck. The same sort of system could be put to work here.

[kolatra]

I think Thaumcraft 2 had something similar to that did it not?

[sinkillerj]

On that note some include a catalyst system, and now that I think about it that could be a idea too. An additional item which is used to increase the chance of success, or the volume of production. Perhaps tied to the Calcinator system?

[Guichaguri]

About the idea of flawed results, I think the mod should look for crafting recipes that can "unpack" the item (but must have a "pack" recipe to get it back), and instead of the getting the item fully destroyed, it should give some of these "unpacked" items back

For example: If you transmutate something into a gold block, there are chances you are only getting a few gold ingots back instead of fully destroying the block

I don't know if it was clear enough, and I might be over complicating it

[kevin8082]

about @x3n0ph0b3 idea of the study thing, lets say for example after it learns the first time it will always destroy/consume the item, but after that for you to learn more if it always destroyed/consumed the item it would literally be a pain in the ass since lets say the % it gives when you study more won't probably get over 20% considering how grindy this sounds, so when you get to know the item more there less of a chance of it actually destroying/consuming the item, roughly putting that into an equation:

Chance for destroying/consuming the item = (Amount that you already know% + (what you still need to fully learn% / 2))%

In teory that is kind of middle way for being balanced for losing or not losing the item depending in how far your study of the item is.

[MercuriusXeno]

I wanted the emphasis to be more on the option of destroying the thing. Also I think the % success of an item should be configurable, but I failed to convey that the % chance should be item specific.

What I'm suggesting is that with just one look, the player can begin to attempt to create a facsimile of that thing, and that attempting to create it from that point forward gains experience.

Edited to be less turdly.

[kevin8082]

@x3n0ph0b3 the 20% was an example

[MercuriusXeno]

Alright, I'm going to rehash the entirety of my idea. It's long. Sorry.

1) Break down item to study it [yep. non-negotiable. Destroy it, at least once]

2) Breaking down that item gives you a % chance to transmute it on all future attempts to create that thing - you may begin trying to create it immediately, whether your success rate is 1% or 99%. The % chance this destruction gives you is based on 3 things: 1) The item. Each item has its own base % granted by destruction. This is important. Dirt should be easier than diamond. 2) How many times have you destroyed this thing? We may want to make it so that repeatedly destroying a thing alone isn't good enough to master a material. To me, that's fair. 3) The server config has final say. The server config should be able to set this to 100% if they want, or 0%, implying it can't be learned, or anything between.

3) Each time you attempt to create that thing, you get better at creating that thing, regardless of whether you succeed or fail. The amount of improvement you see from this can vary, depending on the item, whether you succeeded or not, and of course the server's configuration will have final say on all of this. You never have to destroy another of that item again if you don't want to

4) Failing to create that thing [as a means to motivate the player not to give up] should yield more experience. Possibly more than destroying the thing, because we can do what we want. Again, this is configurable. Both the success learn % and the fail learn % should have some meaningful default, but always at the server's discretion, a configuration can override it.

5) Because the player may use mundane materials to attempt each transmutation, the "loss" could feel negligible. "I've got lots of melons/gold/cobblestone/porkchops/etc. and no diamonds." I know how to make a diamond.. let's say I have a 10% chance because the server set it to give me a 10% chance after destroying one. Do I care about these melons? Not really. Let's throw these melons into the transmutation circle and try to make a diamond. Did I succeed? Yes? Great! My success rate of making diamonds improves by [5%.. whatever. The server has final say]. No? Oops! I got a lump of coal back, or some other reject material, doesn't matter. We're being creative. My success rate of making diamonds, as a result of my failure, improves by [15%.. whatever. Bear with me]. Do I feel like I've been punished for trying to make diamonds? Only if I used something I was worried about losing

To me, that makes a huge difference.

Edit: Now imagine this feels grindy. 10% is not a lot. Failure once and now I still only get a diamond 1/4 of the time. Poop to that, I don't like it. Everyone's gonna want this differently and there's no way to make it feel just right for every person. That's what configs are for. If you set everything [I mean everything] to 75% success on destroy, with a 25% chance improvement, succeed or fail, then all it takes is one destroy and ONE attempt to create the thing to achieve max success rate. Is that too grindy?

[kevin8082]

well sorry if from what I said made you understand it wrong but I only said what I thought/my own opinion out of the entire thing(including the grindy part) on just from the learning aspect, a friend of mine explained your idea releated to learning and I though just the learning side from using an item for just learning porpuses since that sounds more fun than the side of trying to create and losing all the other stuff and learning from that, and again, sorry if I made you angry or something for my poorly written text or that my reverse engineering idea didnt go through the way I wanted it to. If you want I could rewrite my idea again with explaining it more, if you don't want its fine, I don't really want to leave this in a bad mood >3>

[MercuriusXeno]

Nope nope I take back all the mean things I said. i wasn't being civil. Let's start over man.

[kevin8082]

sure, no problem, let me write something that is going to be a bit better to explain on how my idea could work with yours

[MercuriusXeno]

I've edited my post to be less combative. You have my apologies.

[KilloZapit]

I like the idea of "alchemy experience" but I think it should go up based on how much research you do, and researching some things might require you reach a particular level. I am not sure I like the idea of random failure. I always find that annoying.

You know I was half wondering at one point what this mod would be like if it was a Thaumcraft addon and used research points and/or essentia for stuff, but that's besides the point and is a silly idea.

[kevin8082]

what I like from your idea is more from learning basically from just studying the item to later have a better chance of actually creating it, so a way that I think that it would be interesting in just the learning aspect is that if you tried to learn the item at the first time of course it would destroy it since its the first time its being learnt and that already would give a % that have been learnt(EXP would work too but I prefer saying % because I'm being a bit lazy xD), but when you keep using the item for continuing learning it to have better chances later, in my equation:

Chance for destroying/consuming the item = (Amount that you already know% + (what you still need to fully learn% / 2))%

You basically have: the more you learn the less chance of losing the item when its learnt So for generic porpuses for everything for just learning that equation in a way would be balanced and I'm thinking of releated to reverse engineering(of course it is reverse engineering, I want to be an engineering someday! xD) so you stop losing the item since you know more by each time but it wouldn't be exactly easy to config that for each item so my friend @Guichaguri came with another equation:

Chance = Learnt% * modifierOfLossChance

With that one you could config each item in the learning bench(sorry but I don't remember the exact name of it) to have an exact loss for each time you learn it, and that could be also used for something releated to losing the item when trying to create it if I'm not mistaken from his idea. If there is anything you want me to explain let me know :P (I edited it a couple of times before posting)

[KilloZapit]

Introducing random chance into creating items seems to me like a big pain in the neck. I rather have random chance be involved in researching, though I am of the opinion that this kind of randomness is bad game design overall. Doing stuff over and over until it works isn't fun.

[MercuriusXeno]

@KilloZapit Okay, fullstop departure from RNG, your suggestion is valid. What are some ways we could do away with it entirely? Would it make more sense if progression was based on a "web of knowledge" similar to Thaumcraft's? Because it comes with its own hangups.

Ultimately my fear of this level of progression is that it becomes a frustrating "what do I stare at next" game, and ultimately there is a dominant strategy to it. This inherently robs the player of a sense of discovery in a process that was meant to do the exact opposite.

[KilloZapit]

I think trying to write a whole new system like Thaumcraft's just for research would be silly. It might be fun as an option to have the research table require Thaumcraft's research points if it is installed maybe, but making a whole new system would be silly.

I do think you should be forbidden to research anything that has a crafting recipe for it unless you have already researched everything needed to craft it at least though. I mean that would make researching a bit more complicated. Can't research a diamond pick unless you got diamonds and sticks, can't research sticks unless you know wooden planks, can't research wooden planks unless you know logs...

[MercuriusXeno]

Right now Pahimar and I have an unfinished discussion concerning ways in which we'd like to handle transmutation failure. I think transmutation failure should be a thing.. but what if we stopped trying to pigeonhole in-game knowledge as player knowledge? Maybe from the outset the player should be responsible for the learning curve and leave it at that.

What if to obtain a thing, experimentation was at the root?

Bear with me on another stream of consciousness:

Player burns some stuff, makes ash, gets chalk, draws a transmutation circle. The most basic one you can draw.

This one allows you to toss items onto it and, using your tome, attempt to make a facsimile of an item you have studied [destroyed]. Let's say for the sake of argument you can't POSSIBLY fail unless one of the following conditions is true: (in other words, this isn't random)

1) You didn't put enough in the circle. There's not enough EMC. Catastrophic fail, or partial returns ensue.

2) What you put in the circle lacked a crucial element. These could be anything, but for the sake of producing an example, let's say one property is "Green" and another property is "Hard" If you tried, for example, to make an iron ingot out of wool, it would fail because wool isn't hard. If you tried to make a sapling out of stone, it would fail, because stone isn't green. Again, VERY overgeneralized. Just an example. From this point forward, I'm referring to these items as catalysts. Let's say every item has one or more catalysts. Maybe some even work better than others?

3) You don't know enough about alchemy to create something of that complexity. Not quite what you said, @KilloZapit, but that's the next one. What I mean here is that you haven't progressed enough as an alchemist to do that thing. The limits here are nebulous, but we could spend a long time defining them. A real long time.

4) Like you said, an item with a recipe [any recipe, doesn't matter which one] should force you to at least know each of its components before being able to produce the sum of its parts. This seems more than reasonable.

Edit: From the outset, one of the problems with the above suggestion/ideas I just outlined is that we're departing from the request of this thread, which is to make research non-trivial. The question is, what's the raddest, best and most fun way to do that? Maybe it's time to stop benchmarking by "difficulty", but this seems to be our biggest sticking point. Nobody can agree on how difficult it should be, and at the end of the day, someone isn't going to like the mechanic. We can't please everyone.

[Guichaguri]

@KilloZapit What if the item can be obtained in another way other than crafting? Like the portal gun, you can find it in dungeon chests but you can also craft it using a nether star. Or if you go to a mesa biome and you can't learn hardened clay blocks because you didn't learnt clay.

[MercuriusXeno]

From my previous suggestion, I keep coming back to that second bullet point. The idea that you can make something as long as a catalyst for that thing is present intrigues me. I'm going to go down that rabbit hole and expand the thought a bit.

This would place the onus on the player to experiment.. the tome won't tell you what the catalyst is, maybe. Or maybe it records successful catalysts once discovered. Maybe some catalysts for some items work better than others.

This gets complicated, fast, but it's a cool idea, I think.

[kevin8082]

That in a way sort of goes over the balancing over dungeon chest itens EMC for example which in a way will be a headache, I think at least

[MercuriusXeno]

@kevin8082 can you elaborate on why you think the catalyst idea would create headaches?

[kevin8082]

what I'm getting from the catalyst thing for an item as is the itens used to craft it, so in some cases the itens don't have a crafting, which can mean that they are only found in dungeon chests, so how would you give an EMC value for something like that?

[MercuriusXeno]

lets assume that an item's catalyst has nothing to do with its EMC value. The EMC value is totally separate from its catalyst. EMC values are assigned by recipe, where possible, or by defaults. If neither is present, the item either has no EMC value [and therefore can't be created] or it needs to be manually assigned.

[KilloZapit]

@x3n0ph0b3: That sounds like it could reeeeeally over complicate stuff. I really really don't want to turn this mod into another one of those over-complicated mods where it becomes a pain to do anything at all. I like the ability to just dump stuff into an interface and pull out an item, and I rather that not change. I think the restriction/complication should solely be in researching what items you can create.

@Guichaguri: Then you got lucky and got a free item before you could craft it. :P

[MercuriusXeno]

@KilloZapit, bear in mind we're only discussing the first phase of transmutation, the novice phase. This is the most basic transmutation circle. Later stages of an alchemist's skill level unlock simpler and more elegant, unrestricted forms of alchemy. Sorry I didn't specify this more clearly.

[MercuriusXeno]

We're spitballing guys, this isn't a race to the finish. There doesn't have to be just one way to accomplish your alchemy in this mod. Think bigger.

[kevin8082]

@x3n0ph0b3 let me slap myself and think again actually xD

[MercuriusXeno]

I'm talking entry level alchemy. You are a scrub. You don't have a philosopher's stone. It should start out difficult. An alchemist with access to a plethora of raw materials should be able to progress through the research faster than one who has limited resources. A player with foreknowledge of the mod would know well in advance what catalysts work during this novice phase and would thus be at a tremendous advantage.

Does this still seem overly complex? I think the catalysts could stay relatively basic.

Stone and dirt could be catalysts for minerals and things. Seeds could be catalysts for plant matter, etc. String or bone or other basic mob drops could be common catalysts for items dropped by enemies. It doesn't have to get too complex.

[KilloZapit]

Ewww why would you sling balls of spit around. :P

Anyway, I am just saying, I rather not the mod pull a Witchery and all but require huge space for a circle or external power sources or throwing items on the ground willy nilly is all I am saying.

[MercuriusXeno]

Again, that's the entry level. The second phase is minium. When the player can produce minium, the rules start to bend. The catalysts go away, or become optional. The GUI interface comes into play.

The third phase is philosopher. The player can begin using the philosopher's stone ALONE to create things, seemingly from nothing.

Does this clarify things?