Development Cycle Archive
Thread: Crafting Critical Failure Rates
Manipulative wrote:
Also, if 5% of my experimentation is supposed to fail, and I experiment 10 times to create an item, that means 50% of the items I create should have a crit fail at some point during experimation. Obviously, I know I don't crit fail on 50% of the items I experiment on,
Then what's your position with architects? Is it no longer a game for them? They can get out of critical failures, whereas the rest of the crafting professions cannot. To craft a fully loaded Adv R3 from hand takes over an hour of time, yet you can lose it easily in the end with a critical failure.
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".
Thunderheart wrote:I agree that its hard to find that information. This very important and I believe that it is something that players should be able to discover in-game.
Im working on something with the correspondents so that we might add something to the game to help this process. JustG and Blair said they would consider the idea, but we have to flesh it out a little more.
TH can you answer why SOE believes that hiding information from us on how things work makes things fun?? all it does is make us frustrated. we should not have to reverse engineer the game to figure out that yes crafting tool quality affects initial combines but not experimentation... etc. this applies to all skills not just crafting.
bioengineered pets under the new system is a good example of things we should not have to reverse engineer. yeah less than 1% of 1% of the player base loves not knowing what they are doing by making combines but the rest dont enjoy it. how do the stats of weapon components affect the final combines?? how do materials quality interact when combining to produce a part??
hiding this stuff doesnt make sense.
They don't understand that Anabelle
It seems that the SWG motto, is to give out as little info as possible, so that they can skew the results to what they want to believe, and not what is truley happening.
Its the same as the poster above said... why do WE have to go and figure out IF/WHEN something affects our crafting. Shouldn't us as MASTER crafters know what affects our chances when crafting?
Basically we are MASTER crafters, that have no clue how we put together things, we just do and PRAY it comes out o.k.
Its a beautiful system that they have come up with for crafting, however the information needed for us to utilize it properly is non-existance.
lorildeh wrote:
Manipulative wrote:Also, if 5% of my experimentation is supposed to fail, and I experiment 10 times to create an item, that means 50% of the items I create should have a crit fail at some point during experimation. Obviously, I know I don't crit fail on 50% of the items I experiment on,
Your math is flawed here... if you experiment 100 times, that doesn't give you a 500% chance to crit fail. No matter how many times you experiment, you have a 5% chance to crit.
It's a 5% chance each and every time though. The probabilities DO stack. For the sake of argument, if you run a 5% risk per experiment, then it goes like this:
Let's assume we wish to make 100 items.
assembly: 5% chance to fail, 95% chance of success. We have 95 created items.
experiment 1: 5% chance to fail, so of the 95 items five will have critical failures on the FIRST assembly step, almost guaranteeing a useless item.
experiment 2: 5% chance to fail, so of the 90 remaining useful items, 4.5 (we can safely round this to five) will fail, leaving us with 85 useful items.
And so on. Straight addition won't work, not exactly, but we've already ruined 15 items just trying to build and experiment twice.
Thunderheart wrote:
I agree that its hard to find that information. This very important and I believe that it is something that players should be able to discover in-game.
Im working on something with the correspondents so that we might add something to the game to help this process. JustG and Blair said they would consider the idea, but we have to flesh it out a little more.
In the spirit of our new communicative relationship 
can we have just one bone?
simple ---> Do +15 tools and +43 stations make any difference in anything to the crafting equation?
That would go a LONG way to answer many questions, please.
Fivo Asia
Why do they have to "consider" it? Could you please tell us what the reason is behind keeping all this information from players? At least then, mabye we can understand why they have to "consider" it. I mean, this isn't even something we are asking to change game mechanics of.... all we want to know is what are these behind the scenes attributes that affect us when crafting. I mean, jeez... is it that hard or harmful to the game?
Thunderheart wrote:
I agree that its hard to find that information. This very important and I believe that it is something that players should be able to discover in-game.
Im working on something with the correspondents so that we might add something to the game to help this process. JustG and Blair said they would consider the idea, but we have to flesh it out a little more.
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".
So crafting a lightsaber that uses 4 pearls at the going rate of 5 million credits each should never fail in your theory because of risk vs reward? Lets break it down:
20 million VS not having a weapon to level with and playing your main character for a week or two while you gain more components. So you say use crystals instead, well every npc spawn spot is camped by macrohunters. So you try and buy the crystals. Well those run between 300 and 800k on average just to get random stats. So using an all crystal saber its still valued at around 1 to 3.5 million. Not to mention we can wear one of these out in 2 or 3 days.
Just once during prime time gaming hours I would love to give the Dev team a tour of the galaxy. We could travel to the theed med center where the doctors in training would rather heal a tumblebot over a patient. We could travel to the caves on Rori where people have /loot macro'd on the chests in there. We could travel around outside any city that has a static spawn of meatlumps or rag tags and see the afk hunt macros in action. We could travel to the Cantina to see 50 macrotainers all flourishing in sync. We could travel in front of Coronet to experience the wonder that is spacial chat flood from all the advert-bots that live there. We could go hunting to experience the area attack bug where we could each be hit for 3k damage 7 times. We could travel far and wide and settle in to attempt some crafting.
lorildeh wrote:
Manipulative wrote:Also, if 5% of my experimentation is supposed to fail, and I experiment 10 times to create an item, that means 50% of the items I create should have a crit fail at some point during experimation. Obviously, I know I don't crit fail on 50% of the items I experiment on,
Your math is flawed here... if you experiment 100 times, that doesn't give you a 500% chance to crit fail. No matter how many times you experiment, you have a 5% chance to crit.
This is not exactly correct either.
If you do experiment 2 times, and each experiment has a 5% chance on a critical failure,
you get the following:
For the first experiment, there is a 95% chance not to have a critical failure. The same is true or the second experiment. For both experiments combined, these probabilities need to be multiplied: =.95*.95=0.9025.
Which means, the chance for a crit fail is 9.75%. Which is almost twice the 5%.
If you repeat it 10 times however, the difference between 10*5% and the correct result gets a lot larger.
In this case, the chance for a crit fail is only 40.01% instead of 50%
Btw, if you do 100 experiments, the chance for a fail will be 99.4%, so that would be a bad idea
.Regards
Niacia
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".
TH... the only problem that i have with this is the fact that I have been a Master doctor for over 6 months now and make all of my meds. I was also a master architect for a while.
In all this time, i have easily gotten over 100 critical fails, but in the SAME AMOUNT of time i have gotten ZERO critical successes.... please explain this to me...
Yes, it's a random thing you say. Well, 100 vs 0 (mind you i'm sure it is over 100, but that number will suffice for this purpose) is not very random to me. I know i'm not the most unlucky person in the world as i can regularly do 3200 buffs now and have gotten close to 3600, but I'm betting i could do better than that had i ever had a critical success.
With the time sink and/or money sink involved in getting decent resources i expend quite a bit of my PLAYING TIME trying to track down good stuff, only to find it wasted when i critical. The only solice i had is that if i did so as an architect at least i didn't lose the materials. But as a doctor i do, and it can hurt MUCH more as not everyone has fighting/scouting skills to collect there own avian and herbivore meat. I saw avian meat going as high as 60cpu before the recent stuff on Lok and dathomir popped up. Quality resouces are at a premium, and having to waste my time and effort because of a critical fail with little to NO chance of getting a critical success isn't worth it. I'd just as soon flatline everythign with no success/fail rates and just make plain stuff then experiment (which coincidently i fail as often) than i would continue to lose such valuable resources and components.
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".
and while i am on my rant:
this has to be the most piss poor answer, that has so many flawed statements of logic in it, that I have ever seen in my life. Definitly not something I would expect from a "Assistant Community Relations Manager" who is trying to prove to the community that his "team" is really trying to listen and answer questions that we have.
/thumbs DOWN
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".
Well, then where is my "crit success" that balances the "crit fail"? For the tailor craft, I don't get one... I either get an item, or I don't, plain and simple.
As an armorsmith, an "amazing success" is not that much greater than a "great success". it would take at least 3 "amazing successes" to start to RECOVER a "crit failure". And I just mean recover, as it "get to where you would of been without the crit fail", not even to where you might of been with all the same points earning a "great sucess"
Right now, it's almost like we get a gold star for doing well, but get a fingernail ripped out for being bad.... the extreme failures and successes do NOT balance out...
If I got a crit fail, and could hope for a "amazing success" that would counter the loss in the quality of my crafted item, it would be different. But right now, 1 (that's one, singular, uno, solo) crit fail during experimentation, and the armor is junk. There is ZERO chance of recovery.
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".
It seems to me that what you're basically saying is that we have critical fails because all other games have them - without really thinking about it.
I sometimes feel you are not listening to what we're saying - because there are a lot people here saying that crit fails add nothing to the game for us as players but frustration and annoyance.
Do you really honestly believe that without critical fails there would be no crafting game?!
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take 15 minutes to try Rubies of Eventide's crafting system - you will understand the true meaning of risk vs reward. Its pure genius and as fun and addictive as gambling