Cooking

[Wally]

I may be alone with this, but the new feature that food can be wasted by experimenting with new recipes (that don't happen to work) has just taken away all the fun from cooking for me. For example, I have found a nice slice of B... (spoiler skillfully avoided), but I dare not try doing anything with it.

I would love a feature that's just the opposite*: that I could see if I had already tried a recipe. For example, after choosing the first ingredient, as the second I could only see those that I have not tried yet.

*edit: well, it's not "just the opposite", to be precise. But it does make cooking easier as opposed to harder.

[AtomicSnarl]

Is is just me, or don't you get "you can't do anything with that" messages?

[Mad Merlin]

Is is just me, or don't you get "you can't do anything with that" messages?

You get those 85% of the time, the other 15% of the time you'll incinerate your items in some cataclysmic event.

[Mad Merlin]

So, it seems the general sentiment is that people don't like wanton item destruction, which is understandable. The reason I added it in the first place is to discourage brute forcing of item/food combinations (which was actually happening... you know who you are).

What I'm thinking of doing is (possibly completely) replacing the item loss with stamina loss. That is, instead of there being a small chance of destroying your items, there'd be an similarly small chance of losing stamina. Also, you may have noticed already that it's possible to accidentally construct Useless Trinkets out of failed combinations, my other thought is to add more items that could result in this case (and do the same for cooking), some of which would be valuable and many of which would probably only be attainable through failed combinations.

Also, for remembering item combinations that you've done in the past, that'd be deceptive when new combinations are added, as the combinations you tried in the past might work afterwards.

Your thoughts?

[Wally]

The reason I added it in the first place is to discourage brute forcing of item/food combinations (which was actually happening... you know who you are).

What do you mean by brute forcing? With a script? Otherwise, I don't think trying to pair everything with everything (i.e. manual brute forcing) is avoidable.

What I'm thinking of doing is (possibly completely) replacing the item loss with stamina loss. That is, instead of there being a small chance of destroying your items, there'd be an similarly small chance of losing stamina.

For me, that is much more acceptable. (I would not call a 15% chance small though, when there are so many combinations to try. Of course, the expected value of lost stamina is more meaningful.)

This would also mean, that at -25% stamina, I would be too tired to cook, right? And what about at -21%, if the stamina loss involved is 5%?

Also, you may have noticed already that it's possible to accidentally construct Useless Trinkets out of failed combinations,

Wow! I bought my only Useless Trinket long ago at a very inflated price at the market (wonder who the seller might have been...), and have been looking for a use for it since.

my other thought is to add more items that could result in this case (and do the same for cooking), some of which would be valuable and many of which would probably only be attainable through failed combinations.

This could be fun. (Unless the probability is too low perhaps.)

Also, for remembering item combinations that you've done in the past, that'd be deceptive when new combinations are added, as the combinations you tried in the past might work afterwards.

I've thought about it. When you add new combinations, the list of tried (and unsuccessful) combinations could simply be deleted (automatically by the system). I think that's a very reasonable price for new food.

[null]

15% chance is waaaay too much.

Since there are so many crazy combinations in the game like the one with the watermelon and the one with the key (dont want to say to much and spoil anyones fun) its really fun trying to combine or cook weird items.
If theres a chance you lose your so-hard-to-get items you dont dare to combine it (until you have 4 or 5 of them) and thats no fun.

If you have to lose something loose stamina or duck tape (that would make brute-force combining costly).

[dissonance]

Hmm, that sounds like me. Maybe I shouldn't say too much now, but part of the reason I did that was to keep track of the recipes I had tried as they would be purple, as opposed to the ones I hadn't which would still be blue... I knew that I wasn't likely to discover anymore recipes being all willy-nilly. So I tried to be more organized. Since the number of possible combinations it would be hard to even keep a checklist of tried combinations. I was almost hoping to share my creation when I was done, but now I suppose I will retire it instead. Although maybe I could still make a checklist spreadsheet that could be shared. If I may still chime in, I like the cooking because it gives you something to do once you are out of stamina, and I think using up gold would be good way to limit it somewhat.

[AtomicSnarl]

Hmmm.... maybe it's time I tried to combine the Black Knight's Head with a watermelon...

[Mad Merlin]

What do you mean by brute forcing? With a script? Otherwise, I don't think trying to pair everything with everything (i.e. manual brute forcing) is avoidable.

Yes, with a script.

For me, that is much more acceptable. (I would not call a 15% chance small though, when there are so many combinations to try. Of course, the expected value of lost stamina is more meaningful.)

This would also mean, that at -25% stamina, I would be too tired to cook, right? And what about at -21%, if the stamina loss involved is 5%?

Yes as far as stamina goes. Though, it might give you a good way of spending your last little bits of stamina, as you'll probably be too weak to adventure in the highest level area that's available to you at that point.

I'd probably still have it cost a single point of stamina, but would increase the chances of that happening from 15% (and significantly lower the chances of item destruction).

Also, you may have noticed already that it's possible to accidentally construct Useless Trinkets out of failed combinations,

Wow! I bought my only Useless Trinket long ago at a very inflated price at the market (wonder who the seller might have been...), and have been looking for a use for it since.

I originally gave them out for Festivus once (or twice), before item destruction they weren't available otherwise.

my other thought is to add more items that could result in this case (and do the same for cooking), some of which would be valuable and many of which would probably only be attainable through failed combinations.

This could be fun. (Unless the probability is too low perhaps.)

It's interesting that you point out that you'd have to keep the chances reasonably high here, as it's definitely walking a very fine line (some might argue it's a line with non-trivial negative width). Perhaps there could be a way of adjusting how many critical failures you get (possibly by wearing a Chef's Hat or something similar).

Also, for remembering item combinations that you've done in the past, that'd be deceptive when new combinations are added, as the combinations you tried in the past might work afterwards.

I've thought about it. When you add new combinations, the list of tried (and unsuccessful) combinations could simply be deleted (automatically by the system). I think that's a very reasonable price for new food.

That would mean I'd probably want to add more food in large batches (which admittedly, is what usually happens). I can see how this would tie in nicely with the [ experiment ] page described over yonder: http://wittyrpg.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=321

[Rux]

Perhaps there could be a way of adjusting how many critical failures you get (possibly by wearing a Chef's Hat or something similar).

How about cooking experience and skill level?[/quote]

[Mad Merlin]

Perhaps there could be a way of adjusting how many critical failures you get (possibly by wearing a Chef's Hat or something similar).

How about cooking experience and skill level?

That doesn't really address the problem I had in mind. That is, you'd want 2 different modes, one where you have high failure rates so you can get more shots at the random items available, and one where you have low failure rates, so you could experiment with finding new recipes with less risk.

Having said that, the cooking experience and/or skill level is interesting. I could add another top 10, which shows how often you correctly guess new recipes as a percentage (which could determine your skill level).

[Wally]

You were right, it didn't work.

* You wasted some Raw Dough.
* You wasted some Raw Dough.

From now on, you are cooking your own food.