HQ system still really sucks

[Malix]

RNG is RNG

[Elexia]

Nah. HQ system works perfectly fine. What you should be saying is "the chance for double down to succeed is very low" because that's the only problem with it. You get 90+% chance to HQ then it suddenly drops to 10-30% chance for double down.

Otherwise, HQing is actually a helluva lot better than what it used to be.

Even more of a shame that HQ gear in this game is not game breaking...at all. heh.

Also I know there is a quote of Yoshi saying if you have all HQ materials then you are guaranteed HQ...however that is not true...so I don't really understand what SE is talking about...

You are if you're smart about it...the problem is, when they introduced 'double down' that kinda screwed everything up lol.

[Kafeen]

Sorry, noob question time.

What is RNG?

I've always know it to mean Ranger in the past but people seem to use it differently here.

[Elexia]

'Random Number Generator', what people fall on to try to explain why someone's lucky may or may not suck.

[AmyNeudaiz]

Even more of a shame that HQ gear in this game is not game breaking...at all. heh.

Also I know there is a quote of Yoshi saying if you have all HQ materials then you are guaranteed HQ...however that is not true...so I don't really understand what SE is talking about...

This is what upsets me the most. The bar for 100% chance is so high you'd have to have several high level crafts for the right abilities most of which might not be for your main craft(s). And even then if you get unlucky and get too many fails you still won't get 100% and if you get unlucky with elemental instabilities it's game over.
I should be rewarded for my hard work not spit in the face by RNG.

Nah. HQ system works perfectly fine.

the problem is, when they introduced 'double down' that kinda screwed everything up lol.

Derp.

[Asiaine]

Hello everyone. Some interesting posts and thoughts back and forth. One of the things I notice is the suggestion of x% not really being x%. I.e., I keep failing with 80% but succeed on 20%. Also some suggestions of when/how-often double down will occur.

The ASSUMPTION is that the % being shown is honest: If it says 80% chance of HQ, then it really means 80% chance of HQ. And if one fails 100 times in a row, then they are just very very unlucky (and keep falling into that 20% category). However, if someone wants to challenge this assumption, they are in fact saying: The code is buggy (80% is not equal to 80%) OR the code is lying (80% means something else entirely). If they wish to challenge this, please make sure you have some 'proof' (not screenshots or anything, just a good clean record). Recommend:

100 attempts of same item, same ingredients.
Identical stats (food included if applicable).
The exact same steps are taking during synthesis. (This can be achieved by always finishing with 30%/60% advance progress)
Record the Quality and HQ % plus result
Record the HQ % if double down
Record the final result

With a sample size less than 100, there is not enough data to know what is going on. I would honestly recommend 1000, but 100 might be enough to get a 'clue'.

[AmyNeudaiz]

Hello everyone. Some interesting posts and thoughts back and forth. One of the things I notice is the suggestion of x% not really being x%. I.e., I keep failing with 80% but succeed on 20%. Also some suggestions of when/how-often double down will occur.

The ASSUMPTION is that the % being shown is honest: If it says 80% chance of HQ, then it really means 80% chance of HQ. And if one fails 100 times in a row, then they are just very very unlucky (and keep falling into that 20% category). However, if someone wants to challenge this assumption, they are in fact saying: The code is buggy (80% is not equal to 80%) OR the code is lying (80% means something else entirely). If they wish to challenge this, please make sure you have some 'proof' (not screenshots or anything, just a good clean record). Recommend:

100 attempts of same item, same ingredients.
Identical stats (food included if applicable).
The exact same steps are taking during synthesis. (This can be achieved by always finishing with 30%/60% advance progress)
Record the Quality and HQ % plus result
Record the HQ % if double down
Record the final result

With a sample size less than 100, there is not enough data to know what is going on. I would honestly recommend 1000, but 100 might be enough to get a 'clue'.

This. /10char

[Asiaine]

Why we have the HQ system as it is?

There needs to be a way to keep HQ items 'rarer' than NQ items. A mechanism to ensure that the market is not flooded with HQ items to the point that it is as affordable as NQ items (therefore negating the value of NQ items).

This can NOT be done with skills: People will simply be able to level up and get the right skills to always guarantee 100%.
This can NOT be done with 'skill': People will watch videos or read instructions on right steps to always guarantee 100%.

What other restricting factors are there? Luck and Time. (There are others, but upon investigation they will most likely have a root of 'skill/skills' or 'luck/time').

Luck: This is what we have now. Not very popular. Who wants to play the lottery all the time?
Time: This is what we have now. Yes... it is. Because probability tells us that even if you are only lucky 20% each time, over time, you will succeed.

So upon closer inspection. It's not so much a battle of luck or fighting the evil RNG monster. It's a battle against time! And unless you are from Gallifrey, you can not win this battle.

For whatever reason, SE has decided to handle the mechanic of 'time' via the RNG. This is not exclusive to crafting, but is very apparent in.. well, everything else in the land of Eorzea. Do enough primals (spend time) and the RNG will spin often enough that you will get the drop. Do enough Dungeons (spend time) and the chest RNG will spin often enough that you will get the drop. Etc... etc.

Being as this is an MMORPG and 'Time Sink' is the way to keep people, it is a 'needed' mechanic. So the real question is:

Is there a better way to feed the Time Sink other than a RNG?

I'm sure there is. And I would love to hear suggestions on time-sink mechanics other than RNG. Especially those that can be applicable to Crafting.


Thank you.

[AmyNeudaiz]

Why we have the HQ system as it is?

There needs to be a way to keep HQ items 'rarer' than NQ items. A mechanism to ensure that the market is not flooded with HQ items to the point that it is as affordable as NQ items (therefore negating the value of NQ items).

This can NOT be done with skills: People will simply be able to level up and get the right skills to always guarantee 100%.
This can NOT be done with 'skill': People will watch videos or read instructions on right steps to always guarantee 100%.

What other restricting factors are there? Luck and Time. (There are others, but upon investigation they will most likely have a root of 'skill/skills' or 'luck/time').

Luck: This is what we have now. Not very popular. Who wants to play the lottery all the time?
Time: This is what we have now. Yes... it is. Because probability tells us that even if you are only lucky 20% each time, over time, you will succeed.

So upon closer inspection. It's not so much a battle of luck or fighting the evil RNG monster. It's a battle against time! And unless you are from Gallifrey, you can not win this battle.

For whatever reason, SE has decided to handle the mechanic of 'time' via the RNG. This is not exclusive to crafting, but is very apparent in.. well, everything else in the land of Eorzea. Do enough primals (spend time) and the RNG will spin often enough that you will get the drop. Do enough Dungeons (spend time) and the chest RNG will spin often enough that you will get the drop. Etc... etc.

Being as this is an MMORPG and 'Time Sink' is the way to keep people, it is a 'needed' mechanic. So the real question is:

Is there a better way to feed the Time Sink other than a RNG?

I'm sure there is. And I would love to hear suggestions on time-sink mechanics other than RNG. Especially those that can be applicable to Crafting.


Thank you.

And this is where I break off from agreeing with you. The fact of the matter is that HQ is not that much better than NQ so it doesn't really justify being so frustrating. Also, your "flooded with HQ" to the point to that HQ is the same price as NQ isn't true and if even took a basic economy class in high school you'd understand why.

[Asiaine]

And this is where I break off from agreeing with you. The fact of the matter is that HQ is not that much better than NQ so it doesn't really justify being so frustrating. Also, your "flooded with HQ" to the point to that HQ is the same price as NQ isn't true and if even took a basic economy class in high school you'd understand why.

Hello,

I notice that not all items HQ version is better than NQ. But some items it does make a different. Some of the benefits include:
1) Slight increase in stat (great for those who want to maximize). For example, with Rings. Getting 18 INT instead of 15 INT with 2 rings is an extra 6 int. And, that's a lot ^.^;
2) HQ items have a slight increase to chance of melding. I believe it's 5% extra, and that is significant. I certainly would not turn it down if I had the option.
3) HQing materials would result in 3x of the material instead of 1 (when done with off-hand). So if I had a chance to HQ some cloth and get 3 of them instead of 1, I would choose that quite often.
4) If I can consistently/easily HQ, then I would have a high chance of HQing off of NQ materials. So I could, for example, consistently make HQ ingots from NQ ores. If it is easy enough then enough people would do it, to the point of: Why pay 2k for an NQ Ingot, when I could pay 3k and get an HQ ingot ? (This would in turn drive the NQ price down and the HQ price down to the old NQ price point).

Btw, on a side note, from a BLM perspective:
HQ Jewels vs NQ would gain me:
6 INT (Ring)
1 INT (Bracelet)
5 Attack Magic Potency (Choker)

7 Int, 5 Attack Magic Potency extra from 4 slots, is a lot. However you are correct in that HQ gains from non-jewel armour is not significant. Which makes me glad I'm a Goldsmith... and not so much that I'm a weaver ^.^;