[Suggestion] Interface Adjustments

[VasVadum]

1. Add input box for chances. The slider adjusts by one full point, while the input lets you specify an exact percentage as it shows the true decimal value of what the slider slides to. Input box takes precedence over the slider. I have an issue right now, where "coins" I tried to set to 0.001 manually, but the file reset it to 0.01. Also I needed to set a certain item to 2.5% (0.025), but couldn't. Had to save the .beacon file, then edit the values inside it. (See Also # 5) ((Didn't mean to somehow attach this to ticket number 5 -.-))

2. Slider Adjustments, allow the over arrows to move the slider by one, instead of five. Its much harder to hit the exact number when done by mouse. You mightalso consider changing it from going by 25, when you click somewhere inside the slider bar, to 5, or 10. Also, if at 1, and you click somewhere in the slider bar, it should jump to 5/10, not 6/11. If you did that adjustment that is.

3. New Column, before "select %", show "Actual %" to show the actual percentage number put in. For verification purposes.

4. Instead of <1%, show decimal percentages. 0.05%, 0.01%, <0.01%. Maybe even up to a max of 3 decimals. "0.001%".

5. Min/Max Quality, show a greyed out input box to show the decimal value these create, could help someone understand the quality system a little better in case they ever want to make an adjustment. I was unsure if selecting "Primitive" to "Primitive" would allow it to go from 0, to 0.9999999 or wherever the very end of Primitive is, or if it would just default everything to 0, absolute primitive.

6. Display total sets/items at the end of a beacon/set.

[thommcgrath]

I'm not convinced of the need for such precision in the select chance. Why do you need such a low chance of selection?

As for the quality, that definitely will not happen. The issue is that Beacon works on intentions. It does a lot of math to compute a quality value close to what you intend. Journeyman quality in a white beacon requires a different numeric value than journeyman quality in a red beacon.

Besides that, Ark has an unavoidable randomness to quality. So Beacon uses community-source values to compute a quality that is the most statistically likely to be what you intended. Plus, I think I'm finding that the server's DifficultyOffet plays a role.

So specifying a numeric value completely defeats all the work Beacon does to match your intentions. Plus, the file format doesn't use the numbers anyway. This way, if Wildcard changes loot source multipliers, Beacon can compute new values to match previous intentions.

[VasVadum]

Reason I wanted such a low chance is that there are some server donation related items, that I wanted users to have a 'chance' at getting. I suppose 0.01 is ok for now, I'll see how often it comes up. However, I'm not sure an input box is difficult to put in. I mean, you have the slider adjust the value inside the input box, but the input box can be fine tuned to a specific value, and the program uses the input box for the value, not the slider. So Slider to Input, Input to Beacon Tool. I mean, I only have really basic levels of skills with code, so I'm just guesting mostly. Semi-educated guess. :P

The quality values were greyed out so that you can visually see what its best guessing at for that beacon, kinda gives me an idea as to how it works. Helps me understand it better should it sometime in the future no longer work for whatever reason and I'd need to input values manually. Not saying you'd abandon it or anything, but you know things happen. :P

You didn't quite answer the other numbers however, you basically replied to 1 and 5. Are the others possible to happen then?

[thommcgrath]

Sure, I'll respond to each.

2: This is not something I have much control over. The tool I use (Xojo) affords me lots of advantages, but sometimes other things suffer. This is one such example, as the slider is a lowest-common-denominator implementation between Mac, Windows, and Linux. So I don't really get to add tick marks, or choose where the thumb jumps when clicking the track. However, I will look into the settings to make sure they make sense.

3: I'll debate it, I'm trying not to noisy up the UI. However, I may just drop the computed select chance, since it loses accuracy thanks to the min and max set by the item set. I tried long and hard to take those into account, but it can't be determined without simulating. So I might as well ditch the concept entirely.

4: If I start supporting <1% chances, then yes, this will have to change. I'm still not convinced more than 1/100 is really necessary, but I'm not ruling it out entirely.

6: I actually have no idea what you're suggesting. I can't see anything changed with the screenshot. If I had to guess, you want some sort of caption to show the number of children, right?

Going back to your latest responses.

Adding a field and supporting <1% chances are two separate things. The field is something I intend to add. In fact there was already a request a while ago that I just haven't go around to.

Numeric quality values are something that really should be hidden from view. Perhaps holding option/alt should cause the list to display the computed values? That way if you want to see it, you can, but most users will never know they are there.

Also, regarding your "high primitive" vs "low primitive" comment, no Beacon does not see a difference. There are a number of reasons for this, but it's mostly down to statistics. The base values Beacon starts from are statistically the most likely to give you the quality asked for. If you push the number even a little in some cases, the odds swing greatly to a different quality. Mastercraft (if I recall correctly) has a very narrow range.

So the issue is that there really isn't a reliable range to use. Selecting Primitive to Primitive is essentially just using a constant for the value. Though Ark's RNG will still affect the quality.

[VasVadum]

6; Strange, I changed it, and somehow the pasted version didn't make it on. xD But yea.

The reason I want to support values as low as 3-4 decimals is because I want exceedingly low chances. Like 3 months later someone goes "OMG, I found a pearlscendant xbow that does over 9000 damage per shot!" or some such. Something that should be very very ultra super rare. With a box giving you 7 items of 12, I worry that 0.01 isn't enough.

[VasVadum]

3. I like the UI that shows the probabilities in actual amounts, I just also wish to see the programmed amounts. Perhaps do it in the same column? [IN%] AC% (Where IN = Input percentage, AC = Actual percentage). I know it doesn't calculate based on the amount of items the user could get, but the actual kinda puts things into perspective somewhat.

4. The reason less than 1/100 is good is because if I have a set of 6 items, where the set must choose 5 of 6 items minimum, with a max of 5 items. That gives coins a much higher chance of being chosen, right? Even if the other 5 items in the set are set to 99% or more?

[thommcgrath]

Ok, I think you're misunderstanding something. You're not inputting a chance at selection, you're inputting a weight. There is actually difference.

The chance an item is selected is determined by weight / sum of weights. So in your case, let's say you have 5 of the items with 100 weight and the 6th at 1 weight. The sum would be 501. The chance of selection on the first 5 are each 100/501 or 19.9600798% and the chance of selection for the 6th would be 0.1996008%.

This is not a Beacon thing, this is an Ark thing. Essentially, given two possible items, an item with a weight of 50 is twice as likely to be chosen as an item with a weight of 25. You could use 20 and 10 in this scenario, and the selection chances don't change.

Does that make sense?

[VasVadum]

Ah, then 1% isn't very good if you have very few items because it has a higher chance of being chosen over a thing with many items?

I mean, I kinda guessed that weight still divided up the percentage of chances, I didn't really misunderstand. I just thought that it would make the smaller percentages much weaker, if I had set the cloth items to 99 each and the coin at 1%, rather than just putting cloth at 50%. Which still sounds about right though because based on this math, the sum with 50 each +1 for coins would be 251, 39.84% for those 5? 0.3984 for the 1?

I'm sure my math is off somewhere but whatever, pretty sure I understand it. I just wanted to make sure my item would be exceedingly low in chances. I've been using weight like percent chance however, and relying on the realistic weight thing you have in the column to show me what the actual chances are. I'd still like to see the weight next to the actual chance. So instead of % next to i in [ ], just show the number? And the column name [Weight] Chance?