Jump to content

Issues with chance values in leveled lists


Recommended Posts

Today, I spent some time on verifying some in-game observations concerning the distribution of certain rare items via vendor lists (i.e. those leveld lists that are used by the game to fill the merchant chests). My observations so far: there are no rare clothing items in the inventories of general traders most of the time, but in the rare cases where a trader has them, he has plenty of them at once.

The mystery was quickly solved by having a look at the leveled lists.

The following example is the entry for rare clothes in the vendor list VL_Vendor_Clothing:

Level:		1
Reference:	LLI_VendorClothes_Any_Rare
Count:		7
ChanceNone:	80

This entry is handled as one item, irrespective of whether the list has the 'calculate for all items in count' flag or not.

This means that there is an 80% chance for getting no items at all, and a 20% chance for getting 7 items at once.

The chance for getting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 items however is zero!

I don't think that this was intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this apply to general clothing vendors? like Becky Fallon? I recruited Anne Hargraves and assigned her to a level 4 clothing store, and she always have the colonial duster for sale, AFAIK that's he only way to get this item (not counting trading with Preston Garvey)

and I suppose unique itens are out of equation? not unique like legendaries - wastelander's chest piece or any of this kind, but for example: submariner's uniform only obtainable if you kill Zao at the Yangzte, or lieutenant's hat only obtainable if you visit USS Constitution after completing the quest and siding with Ironsides

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mistake my intents. This is not about whether or not individual items should be distributed via vendor lists.

This is about existing leveled list entries and thus about items that were clearly intended to be distributed via leveled lists. It's just that the distribution mechanism does not always work as intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't look like a bug at all. They probably wanted only 20% or merchants to have rares, and when they actually do, then to have some assortment instead of 1-2 of them.

If they wanted 7 rares with 20% of appearance for each, they could have made 7 same entries in leveled list with count=1 and chance none=80. I'm pretty sure Bethesda know how their leveled lists work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Packages are complex, lists are primitive.

If you start using "they (do not) know how their stuff works" approach, almost everything can be patched (or I'd rather say changed) to subjective liking. Nothing indicates that this LL issue is actually an oversight, and not an intended feature from developer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A large portion of what the patch already does is based on it being obvious that not everyone on their team knows how their stuff actually works.

This leveled list certainly seems to be setup wrong to me when compared to others just like it, but sure it's possible it could be a deliberately engineered case. That just doesn't seem likely though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are actually two points to enter a Chance None, and I think their behavior differs (much like conditions on MGEF and SPEL forms). I think that Chance None on the form itself is rolled for every count in a superior list's entry to it, while Chance None in the superior list's entries rolls for all-or-nothing.  That's how Sclero is seeing the behavior he saw that piqued his suspicion of an oversight bug.

The weapons merchant list in the group was set up with the Chance None >0 value being on the sublists' forms, instead of in the superior list's entry referral to the sublists. That one seemed to be the only one set up that way. Not to be taken as empirical, but it always seemed to me that the weapons merchants seemed a bit better-stocked than most of the others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So seven times out of eight having no rares, and then suddenly one time out of eight having a whole slew of rares is correct? I'm not really believing that's intended. That's unlike any vendor inventory behavior I've seen in previous BGS games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he is talking more about final result of fixing such not-a-bugs. Like what will be done to it. And if it is just changing count from 7 to 1 or adding next level LL with random count from 1 to 7 - it can be called "correct". But if there would be less chances of "none" it would be subjective and wrong and such changes probably better come in separate file. If I was one responsible - I personally not want such small thing to be changed as part of one big project. Especially while there is many things need that fixing like those for talking about I came here. Just my opinion.

PS Sorry for bad English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...