to stack the ores while digging

[Gatahel]

Following the "meet the devs" event and the mentioned ore stacking problem, I thought of a way that may be easy to implement, by changing the /dig command:

/dig [rounding] [item-name]

After calculating the quality, the server would make a further calculation:
quality = int((quality-50)/rounding)*rounding + 50

Thus:
- "/dig" will work like now
- "/dig 50" will make stacks of 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 and 300Q items
- "/dig 1" will make plenty of stacks, but all 50Q items would now be stacked, as well as 51Q... (they would be "real" 50Q, 51Q... no longer 50.3, 50.4,...)

Note: this is NOT a stacking system as proposed in "General Discussion / Re: Update to Mining, Harvesting and Fishing Rules!". The result is not the same as stacking items manually: in exchange for automatic stacking, some quality is lost (rounded down).

Technical note: the above calculation shall be done only if quality>=50 (that should be always true for dug ores) and 1<=rounding<=250. The rounding parameter should be forced to be integer, the only "reasonable" values being 1,2,5,10,25,50 (and the "extreme" 250 that keeps only 300Q ores, all other ones being downgraded to 50Q)

Tricky, but versatile

[Eonwind]

changing the /dig command should require patching the engine but about rounding quality to integer only (example: 50 instead of 50.01, 50.2, ... ) is something doable just changing the formula server side.

[Gatahel]

If (if!) stacking is to be changed, then sooner or later both client and server will need a change. I thought my change was easier (no change in interface and settings) and might be compatible with older version (maybe not so easy), even if not the most effective and convenient...

Anyway, rounding quality to integer (at the time of digging/harvesting/fishing) is pretty good! That should not have any noticeable effect on process nor any other bad side-effect, yet it would decrease the number of stack in inventory (at least right now, as quality is not spread over a wide range).

I vote for a rounding in server sooner, then a clean and effective stacking improvement later

[Eonwind]

I vote for a rounding in server sooner, then a clean and effective stacking improvement later

Done! 

[Karzela~]

The author of this post is Ardrun, who asked me to post it.

START of Main Suggestion

This posting addresses an expressed concern that the variety of new ore qualities would impact inventory slot usage. I read that the solution seemed to be limited to manual ore stacking that discards the value of choosing to support so many (300q) grades of quality.

I have a possibly new approach to how stacking might be used more effectively in at least two places in the game. I will start with the ore quality concern. Please bear with me as I set the premise for my suggestion.  It just a small shift in thinking.

First, the notion of quality in ore is perhaps best regarded in a gaming perspective as just the amount of useable metal in the ore sample. Low quality.. more rock... high quality less rock and other impurities.  I used this to guide my thinking on this suggestion.

Second, I read that currently the PS implementation does not use the ore quality to bias the quality of the end product achieved via the metallurgy skill.  With the addition of that lack of direct impact the refinement process, I feel that my suggestion can make the addition of variable ore quality more meaningful and of more practical use to the game.

What these two factors led me to see was that the actual quality of newly mined success (ore sample) could be converted to a rule-based equivalent quantity as it is stored in the inventory. This would translate the quality value into a uniform unit of measure of mining success for subsequent processing. This then changes the loss from manual stacking to a means to directly reflect the quality in the success of the mining session (Yield). This allows the essential aspect of a quality attribute to be viewed in terms of its actual relevance to game play.

Example 1:  A single 100q ore sample success could be converted to "two" currently default 50q ore samples to capture in a common stack as more usable metal found in that event success. Naturally a formulated curve from Rules would be used to best represent the desired equivalence for the quality to quantity yield.

Example 2:  Three successes might produce ore samples with the qualities 10q, 15q, and 30q, they might convert to just over enough metal to yield a single 50q equivalent inventory sample.

With my suggestion the mined ore qualities would be virtual and need never be literally found in the game. Only that quality defined for the in-inventory stack would be items in game available for transfer to another owner

The Quality to Quantity Conversion would render zero or more full "50q" inventory ore samples, and with some partial/fractional remainder. To support that remainder portion to sum with successive mining successes, a feature already in use in training could be adapted to accumulate toward a full sample and then pass it to the inventory stack. This is needed just as for training to allow interruption and a later return to mining. There are numerous ore types to be considered needing this remainder to be saved/managed. Each accumulating remainder should be visible to provide the miner feedback on his/her effort. The remainders are also virtual and are not game items.

END of Main suggestion


BENEFICIAL SIDE Effects

Premise if the new quality is used to allow the low skill miners to get more successes, then ...
The side benefits of my main suggestion would be that newer miners, especially, can get more successes with lower skill without returning with an excess of good ore. Ore sample qualities below 50q would be made possible for a higher frequency of hits that stack slower due to the conversion of quality to quantity.

The slower accumulation of lower quality samples early in mining skill development providing a lot more visibility into the current training session and a better sense of skill progress with more stepwise satisfaction. I believe new players will welcome more finely graduated results as well as better appreciate ore quality in the game play. The qualities of the successes would be reported in the mining status, using a comment of both a newly completed sample and/or the partial sample progress.


ADDITION UTILITY of Main Suggestion

This suggestion could be applied to gem enchantments. It could be used to decouple the direct performance successes of the enchanters from those of the miner, lowering the compounding of failures from the two efforts to the general perception of grinding in game.

From the miner's perspective, low or high skill should allow results that can be scaled over their respective mining yields to map to a contribution to the demand for  appropriate gem qualities. The quality to quantity conversion would allow the default quality of the gem stacks to be set to be closer to a sensible value to map the enchantment skill failure-success curve with more (DEV-side) predictability, such that the end results would not overload the intended rarity.

All get to experience some level of success to encourage renewed efforts.  The curve of the gem quality vs enchantment results should define not be dominated by failures, but the strength and rarity of the greatest successes. Being gems, they have a fragile aspect which can be used to  determine their peak results and duration of use. The best gems may reach very near perfection, but usage should strain such perfections.

My suggestion can be scaled/tuned is through the value of the "defined" default chosen for each inventory sample/stack type. As with ore the curve of the mining results is played against the needed quality of the next phase crafters (metallurgist for metal, enchanters for gems.)

The appropriate default quality stored by the miner would be gems that can support the enchanters need for high quality. High enough to provide both a gem that can pass the stressing of enchantments and have a stability/duration to last long enough to be worth the effort.

The level of enchanter skill should likely be focused on the duration of the enchantment made more difficult by the intensity/level of the spell used as the focus in the enchantment. Much of that detail is subject to change as the new magic system is defined.

 The high requirements from enchanters balanced with the miner's event success results can yield numerous hits for the miner. The use of a higher gem stack quality conversion target can represents all the work needed to provide enough (converted) mining gem samples such that the enchanters might be "imagined" to have reduced a larger pile of widely varied quality gems into a pile of suitable selections.
 
 To sum up:     

•   no inventory slot impacts from excess types
•   fuller use of the quality attribute
•   improved leveling feedback and sense of progress
•   better success curves for miners and enchanters
•   earlier game contributions - yield scaled by skill
•   decoupled curves for ease of mapping inputs to needs

   
     
     
     

[tman]

So long story short, someone who's mining 150q ore is actually just mining 3 ore at a time?  And someone mining 300q ore is mining 6 at a time?

It's definitely interesting.  I'm not sure if I like it more or less than the current system but I'd be all for trying it out.

The only slight problem is that I'm pretty sure I read that ore quality does actually effect the final product quality.  It's just that, because of the large random factor thrown into the calculation, you might not observe this directly.  But a stack of 300q ores will, on average, make better final products than a stack of 50q ores.  At least, that's how I understood it.  I could be wrong.

[Cairn]

I've never viewed it in that way, to be honest. If starting product q does not affect finished product q, it could change some of the economy of mining.

[Aramara Meibi]

The only slight problem is that I'm pretty sure I read that ore quality does actually effect the final product quality.  It's just that, because of the large random factor thrown into the calculation, you might not observe this directly.  But a stack of 300q ores will, on average, make better final products than a stack of 50q ores.  At least, that's how I understood it.  I could be wrong.

even if this is the case, take your stack of ingots cast from 50q ore, resmelt and recast and boom, you have higher grade ingots.... which! may or may not affect the quality of the final smithed product anyways.

and that's the thing really, from ore to blade there are soooooo many procedural steps, each one changing the quality of the product. When you reach the final final product, the effect of the quality of the beginning resource is negligible.

[Eonwind]

I've never viewed it in that way, to be honest. If starting product q does not affect finished product q, it could change some of the economy of mining.

starting quality affects the finished products quality