Resource Viewing

Discussion and suggestions regarding the site and/or forum.

Moderator: Forum Moderator

User avatar
Zimoon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4817
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:55 am
Location: Stockholm, SE
Contact:

Post by Zimoon » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:00 pm

You are great Sobuno!!!

May I put the naming issue on the not-that-important backlog of yours?

I guess it would be possible to use some fuzzy algorithm that alarms when two names really alike each other are entered at the same galaxy, both in spawn. I have no algorithm up handy as this is not really my field of computer science. Anybody?

My experience is that only one, very rarely two, characters used to be in error.

An error will present the second submitter the possibly erratic resource entry. Either the first or the second entry is in error and should be rectified, or they are really two different entries and no harm is done.

/Zimoon

Tekro
Apprentice Crafter
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:08 pm

Post by Tekro » Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:52 pm

I just added a new resource to Bloodfin/Rori - enokko Colat Iron.

I got this error message and had to enter the resource stats and class twice:

--------------------------
Click here to return to the 'Current Resources' page

Resource Name Class ER CR CD DR FL HR MA PE OQ SR UT
Enokko Colat Iron 467 286 630 807 303 386 771 773
In the following resources, you have entered stats that exceed the maximum cap we have for the specific resource type. Any stats above the cap is bolded. Please check that you entered the resources correctly and Add Resource(s)
--------------------------

I triple checked the stats and they were right and I don't think they exceed caps...and none were bolded to indicate which stat was exceeding.

It looked like a bug to me so wanted to report it.
Wepo Gage

Tekro
Apprentice Crafter
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:08 pm

Post by Tekro » Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:58 pm

To add to that, I just tried to add 4 resources at once. 3 had already been entered on other planets. When I tried to add them, I received the same error message again and wanted me to manually add all 4 resources stats/class again.

None were over the cap.

Resource names:
omnihaehakregiine - lubricating oil
rogek - polymer
gebia - polymer
feafoupiam - polymer
Wepo Gage

User avatar
Sobuno
Developer
Posts: 2589
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:17 am
Contact:

Post by Sobuno » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:08 am

Bug should be fixed now, but let me know if it is not (Also provide stats in swgcraft_start/end format if you can)

If the resources were mentioned in the bit of text before the input boxes, the input boxes won't matter

Tekro
Apprentice Crafter
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:08 pm

Post by Tekro » Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:58 pm

So the input boxes will come up twice whether they are needed or not?

Sorry if I misunderstood. I'll continue to add resources.

One last thing. There's this user: Felgor who made a bunch of stuff unavailable on bloodfin. Stuff that is still active. I tried to report user but it says coming soon.

He didn't wipe everything, but a pretty big chunk. He hasn't done anything else in 5 hours according to recent changes so he could be a new user that doesn't know what he's supposed to do.

I just wanted to report it in case he comes back and does more.
Wepo Gage

Tekro
Apprentice Crafter
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:08 pm

Post by Tekro » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:02 pm

He's on the website deleting all resources :(
Wepo Gage

Tekro
Apprentice Crafter
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:08 pm

Post by Tekro » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:23 pm

Ok, I'm done until he's dealt with/banned.

I've re-entered a good group of resources 3 times and he keeps making them unavailable right behind me.

I'll check back tomorrow.
Wepo Gage

User avatar
Sobuno
Developer
Posts: 2589
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:17 am
Contact:

Post by Sobuno » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:27 pm

Just made him inactive

User avatar
Sobuno
Developer
Posts: 2589
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:17 am
Contact:

Post by Sobuno » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:30 pm

Tekro wrote:So the input boxes will come up twice whether they are needed or not?
They would prior to me fixing it, yeah

Tekro
Apprentice Crafter
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:08 pm

Post by Tekro » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:50 pm

SWGParser is deleting stuff now....

Recent changes on Bloodfin
Resource Class Planet Action User When
Raijja Desh Copper - Unavailable SWGCraft Parser 2 m ago
Digov Nabooian Fiberplast - Unavailable SWGCraft Parser 2 m ago
Bahegapiam Agrinium Aluminum - Unavailable SWGCraft Parser 2 m ago
Omnihaehakregiine Lubricating Oil - Unavailable SWGCraft Parser 2 m ago
Omnihaehakregiine Lubricating Oil Naboo Available Tekro

These are all still available.
Wepo Gage

User avatar
Sobuno
Developer
Posts: 2589
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:17 am
Contact:

Post by Sobuno » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:17 pm

They should reappear next time we pull resources from .com, they just seem to have been marked available after .com's current_resources file was generated.

If they haven't been marked as available in half an hour, let me know

Milla
Apprentice Crafter
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:01 pm

Post by Milla » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:56 am

Zimoon wrote: That is what a number of old seasoned crafters have done over the years. When I got my first 30k Vet Resource Crate deed I eagerly set up a script that pulled out everything reported at the .com site that was outside the cap. None of the alarms were correct, the resources that triggered the alarm were all reported in error.

The fault percent was about 0.2%, mainly two digits that were shifted, as in 487 for 478, but also some stats shifted place as when SR went into UT and vice versa. Also the wrong resource class, I guess it was easy to select the adjacent class from the drop down list. All these three options were frequent.

Name spellings is not in the .2% sine they never ever triggered the script. Name errors are found when you later on want to add Leiawascute only to find that name is already in use. Looking up the resource type you find the name Laiawascute but wrongly entered into the database. Name errors are not much we can do about but having observant verifyers.

I have mentioned it elsewhere, the submission logic could handle this. The best way, in my opinion, is to warn the user about the stat being outside the cap. Should the cap be in error (which I 99.99% doubt it is) and the user state s/he still wants to submit the data, that could go into a special log of "enforced submissions" which can be checked up by other players.

On the other hand, seeing something outside the cap range could stir up some verifying from the one first noticing it and either confirm the cap is wrong, or rectify the erratic data.

However, there should be no "silent correction" of the data whatsoever. The main reason is that we do not know whether it is the digits of the stat that is in error, or if it is the stat types that are mixed up, or if the wrong resource class was entered. These three possibilities must all be checked up in manually by the verifier.

/Zimoon
No matter, what people have done over the years, resource caps are not something that are set in stone. Even though they exists, this information was gleaned by the player base through experience, but SOE may change resource caps without saying a word (SOE's game design is rather secretive compared to that of other MMO developers when it comes to releasing precise data about game mechanics - SOE tends not to provide percentage values, they use ambiguous phrases instead such as "adds a large amount of", "gives a medium amount of experience", "improves significantly". Also, they tend to hush up certain important changes).

As to silent corrections: it is fairly evident from my previous posts that I am an ardent supporter of restoring resource entry verification functionality on this site (verification by another contributor through entering the same set of stats). Such verified entries could be used to adjust resource caps - of course, not without sending a warning to the site operator. Both the verifier and the site operator should receive notification about such updates: in this case the site operators could review the programmed resource caps as there is no guarantee that the contributor will visit the forums and post about the apparent change.

Why adjustment/review of programmed resource caps by site operators is necessary?

Here is an example:

On Corellia/FarStar:
Quadofoocie, Conductive Borcarbitic Copper (Milla / --) (Unavailable)
DR =891 / 127.2%

Apparently, Sobuno in the meantime has implemented a notification/warning function (cheers and thanks :) ) when the stats higher than the resource cap are entered, as I received a warning that my entered DR value was higher than the resource cap.

However, in this case the programmed resource cap is incorrect.

I have Lunariel's guide on my comp in a Word file, and it says none of the stats on Conductive Borcarbitic Copper are capped. This means that the programmed cap value of 700 for DR of Conductive Borcarbitic Copper is wrong.

Another example:

On FarStar/Talus:

Code: Select all

Carbagebimalciam, Perovskitic Aluminum (Milla / --) (Unavailable)
ER	CR	CD	DR	FL	HR	MA	PE	OQ	SR	UT
- 	853	741	525	- 	358	920	- 	871	519	557
- 	106.6%	92.6%	65.6%	- 	44.7%	92%	- 	87.1%	57.6%	61.8%
Again, according to Lunariel's guide, none of the stats of Perovskitic Aluminum are capped, but the site seems to use lower than 1000 values as resource caps for certain stats.

So my proposal is: resource cap updates would be automatic for VERIFIED entries (and only for entries verified by other players through entering the same stats and NOT by simply pressing a button or clicking on a link), but the site operator would receive a warning about such changes (maybe such changes could be listed on a separate page under the title "Reported changes in resource caps"? so the community could review and discuss them?).
Image

User avatar
Zimoon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4817
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:55 am
Location: Stockholm, SE
Contact:

Post by Zimoon » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:52 am

Milla wrote:No matter, what people have done over the years, resource caps are not something that are set in stone. Even though they exists, this information was gleaned by the player base through experience, but SOE may change resource caps without saying a word (SOE's game design is rather secretive compared to that of other MMO developers when it comes to releasing precise data about game mechanics - SOE tends not to provide percentage values, they use ambiguous phrases instead such as "adds a large amount of", "gives a medium amount of experience", "improves significantly". Also, they tend to hush up certain important changes).
Fine, presume SOE really does change resource caps at some point, though it has not been done in +4 years, that would stir up a massive cry from seasoned crafters and we would know it instantly. We won't know the new caps right away but we will know they are changed. This is how bugs such as the "CD bug", and more, were discovered. We could still use the caps as an alarm for erratic submission, just that a Dev must relax the alarm when this happens.
Milla wrote:As to silent corrections: it is fairly evident from my previous posts that I am an ardent supporter of restoring resource entry verification functionality on this site (verification by another contributor through entering the same set of stats). Such verified entries could be used to adjust resource caps - of course, not without sending a warning to the site operator. Both the verifier and the site operator should receive notification about such updates: in this case the site operators could review the programmed resource caps as there is no guarantee that the contributor will visit the forums and post about the apparent change.
We are at the same turf I guess.

Conductive Borcarbitic Copper has no upper cap as it is one of those "JTL Resources". Copper as a class has an upper cap, but is surpassed/neglected by JTL resources.

The same is true for Perovskitic Aluminum, a JTL resource.

I think Sobuno already programmed these, the JTL resources, not to use the class caps but use their own caps. But remember, this group of resources is a special case as normally the class' cap for a stat equals the topmost cap of any of its sub classes, but JTL resources does not change/adjust that class' cap but defines its own while still a sub-class of a more generic class.

In other words, the JTL resources were added to the game late, more than a year after the original game was launched. For one reason or another they introduced special resources with no caps, longer lifespans, higher average stats, higher concentrations, and always in spawn. While those are still sub-classes under the generic Aluminum, Copper, etc., they do not respect their super classes' caps, but at the same time they did not adjust their super classes' set of caps, which makes for some funny results. And some extra tweaking of any application/script/spread sheet out there.

I will present the Devs here with a comprehensive list of resources that are JTL resources and every single class' caps, if applicable.

While Lunariel's Guide to Resource Caps is great it has some minor flaws, however, the JTL resources are not one of them.

Finally, I am not against verifying as such. I am arguing how it should be implemented. At the old .com it was way too easy to "verify" a resource but retain its erratic name and/or stats. Your ideas on this are sound and valid, a verification done by somebody else entering the resource name and its stats, unrelated to the previous entry, makes for a true verification. However, being presented with the differences, neglecting/overlooking what the screen reads and hitting OK is not good either. In the end of the day, users do not like too much stress or hassle while submitting data so I guess we must accept some errors every now and then. Or ... ?

Kindly

/Zimoon

User avatar
Sobuno
Developer
Posts: 2589
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:17 am
Contact:

Post by Sobuno » Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:05 am

Our caps might be calculated in a wrong way, I have no time to check it today though...

Milla
Apprentice Crafter
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:01 pm

Post by Milla » Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:26 am

Zimoon wrote: However, being presented with the differences, neglecting/overlooking what the screen reads and hitting OK is not good either. In the end of the day, users do not like too much stress or hassle while submitting data so I guess we must accept some errors every now and then. Or ... ?

Kindly

/Zimoon
Yes, the issue of human fallibility is always there. The question is how paranoid you are when it comes to using data entered by other people. If you don't trust those data at all, there is no reason why you should use a public data repository like this site, instead of relying on your own data collection (and your own mistakes that will go uncorrected until you figure out yourself that they are wrong, instead of being corrected by others).

Simply hitting a button/link without thinking is bound to produce errors. However, when you are required to enter a series of data, it is unlikely that you'll make the same typo as the original contributor.

The issue of mistyped names is still a fairly complicated problem, and I can't think about a ready solution (maybe there is some algorithm which is able to find possible mistyped entries, using some sort of match scoring procedure).
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests