Development Cycle Archive
Thread: Crafting Critical Failure Rates
LadyGrey wrote:
The way to mathematically describe this is to say that there is a .96 chance of NOT critically failing, or a ( 1 - .96 ) = .04 chance of critically failing
Now, if we stop right there, and don't do any experimentation, then that is our total chance of critically failing.
We will have item decay in the game, and this will affect lightsabers as well. However, a Jedi has the knowledge necessary to maintain a lightsaber, preventing such decay.
Arrya wrote:
Uggg, whatever you do - for god sakes, don't turn this game into World of Warcraft! SWG has the basis for one of the best crafting systems in MMOGs out there, it just needs a few tweaks.
Critical failures are fine. But we definitelyneed more information on what exactly causes them, how we can reduce that risk, and how we can get better successes!
This doesnot really seem like adifficult concept. And I should mention that TH seems to be understanding the concept pretty well, it just doesn't mesh with what is actaully in the game
Thunderheart wrote:
Vashner wrote:
Will removing fizzles unbalance SWG and it's economy? NO.. will it threaten people learing crafting professions NO. ...
Then why do we have it?
For the same reason there are critical fails in all games. There is a chance for critical fail and also critical successes. Its a great risk vs reward mechanic. Its game play. Without risk versus reward, there is no "game".
There isn't an RPG out there that doesnt include a chance for failure and "crit fails".
"We have critical fails because everybody else has critical fails". I don't feel that this is an acceptable answer. I am the manager of a big book store, and I would never be able to get away with this kind of reasoning with a customer. I think that the argument here isn't that we want crafting to be risk-free, we just don't want it to be frustrating. Losing five different factory-run components and a large quantity of rare minerals isn't fun, and I don't get a thrill of satisfaction when I DON'T fail the recipe. Critical failures are not a great risk vs. reward mechanic. If a combat character stood a 1 in 25 chance of being killed or losing valuable gear in every single combat he entered, regardless of the level of the opponent, you would quickly have a game with no combat characters.
Just because every other MMORPG makes crafting a frustrating grind, it doesn't mean that SWG has to sink to that level. Perhaps I am approaching this game from the wrong perspective; the most fun I have in SWG is the fun that I create for myself. I enjoy selling things, and I enjoy socializing. Things like the critical fail system are merely a source of frustration for me.
I suppose the joke is on me for spending $20+ a month (Canadian) for a game that feels like work.I will let my subscription lapse at the end of this billing cycle, because I don't enjoy this game anymore. Thanks, SOE, I did have a lot of fun playing this game over the last few months, and you deserve credit for making such an innovative MMORPG.
Yes, critical failures are fine and should be in a crafting system but, with Architects, you loose TONS of resources. 100 times more at one shot than every other crafter out there.
We Architects never asked to do away with them totally, just do away with loosing subcomponents on a final combine. We could deal with loosing the raw resources on a final combine but, to loose all those subcomponents that ALREADY PASSED is wrong.
Woulda car manufactuere throw away the whole car because the axle failedwhile makingit? You don't throw the entire car away, you replace the broken part.
On a crit failure, pick ONE of the pieces to fail and ONLY that piece fails. The crafter then replaces that ONE part (or resource) and continues on.
As it happens, I recently tried out a competitor to SWG, which I won't name. I plan to make a post later letting the SWG devs know why I'm staying with SWG, btw.
However, the crafting system in Unnamed Competing Game (UCG) does NOT have "crit fails." And, as far as I can tell, it hasn't had a crippling effect on the game.I remember a game of PnP D&D I was involved in many years back. A level 23 thief attempted to kick a door down to see what was on the other side. He rolled a 1, then on his saving roll, threw another 1. The GM declared that he'd broken his ankle. It was pretty funny, at the time - but it was funny because we were all there for it, and it didn't stop or slow the game, just changed it.
Contrast to a critical failure while crafting in SWG. First up, crafting isn't a very social activity. Only you see your crafting window, and you can't interact with the rest of the world while it's up with any degree of ease. So, a critical failure is only shared after the fact. Further, it STOPS the game, instead of changing it. You've lost the resources, you've lost the time, and the story doesn't change to include that fact.
In the PnP game, we had to take this thief's broken ankle into account, which affected the following events. Without the critical fail, the game would have just that little bit less depth. In SWG, a critical fail is just another time waster - and there's already far too many of those in the game.
So please, don't include it just because you feel you have to, look at it objectively, and ask yourself if it adds to the game or not. Or, failing that, ask US if it adds to the game or not, and we'll answer with a resounding "NO!"
Thunderheart wrote:
Chrysalide and I are working closely together. There is no budging on most items, but for all of these high end crafting items, we are working on a good compromise.
Thanks for listening TH. I know you are, its just thatcritfails areof course a major pet peeve of all crafters and a "touchy" subject. I think sometimes the gap between what we tell you and what youtell us makesus feellikewe are not being understood. I think it makes a lot of us feel better that this thread came from you guys first though. I'm sure if we all sat down in a room together there would be farfewer gaps and misunderstandings, but thats internet forums for you.
Gnomepunter wrote:
Yes, critical failures are fine and should be in a crafting system but, with Architects, you loose TONS of resources. 100 times more at one shot than every other crafter out there.
We Architects never asked to do away with them totally, just do away with loosing subcomponents on a final combine. We could deal with loosing the raw resources on a final combine but, to loose all those subcomponents that ALREADY PASSED is wrong.
Woulda car manufactuere throw away the whole car because the axle failedwhile makingit? You don't throw the entire car away, you replace the broken part.
On a crit failure, pick ONE of the pieces to fail and ONLY that piece fails. The crafter then replaces that ONE part (or resource) and continues on.
Stick with me guys, thats what Im saying.
First of all, its a good mechanic, but in this setting the risk and penalty have to be measured and thats whats being discussed...
How about Insurance for crafting, think of it like playing Blackjack, you put forward some insurance on a crafted items, if it fails you get back maybe half and a lower quality components.
I do think however lightsabers should not decay like they do, but thats another topic
KStarfire
Go gather some high level DNA (Mutant rancors) then crit fail. You'll see that an Architect's subcomponents isn't anything special.
Thunderheart wrote:
Gnomepunter wrote:
Yes, critical failures are fine and should be in a crafting system but, with Architects, you loose TONS of resources. 100 times more at one shot than every other crafter out there.
We Architects never asked to do away with them totally, just do away with loosing subcomponents on a final combine. We could deal with loosing the raw resources on a final combine but, to loose all those subcomponents that ALREADY PASSED is wrong.
Woulda car manufactuere throw away the whole car because the axle failedwhile makingit? You don't throw the entire car away, you replace the broken part.
On a crit failure, pick ONE of the pieces to fail and ONLY that piece fails. The crafter then replaces that ONE part (or resource) and continues on.
Stick with me guys, thats what Im saying.
First of all, its a good mechanic, but in this setting the risk and penalty have to be measured and thats whats being discussed...
Thunderheart wrote:
Stick with me guys, thats what Im saying.
First of all, its a good mechanic, but in this setting the risk and penalty have to be measured and thats whats being discussed...
And I think what we are generally saying is that the risk and the penalty must also be weighed agains the reward. Right now the risk and the penalty are high, to compensate would require a pretty high reward which we don't feel we are seeing.
Finding the proper balance is where we need to get to, I think.