Droid Engineer Archive

Hi,

I guess I don't really expect an "answer" to this, it really just boils down to a rant. I'm a Master DE, right? I use 15.00 rated crafting tools. I use a 43.15-rated crafting station. So why do I get constant failures and moderate/good successes which, in the case of rated items requiring high quality, are just as good as failures? I got all excited about buying a 43.13 station (upgraded from a 31.00 rated one), to go with the tools, and yes, the very first thing I made (a high-rated combat module cluster) was a CRITICAL FAILURE. I just tried to make a schematic of one of my rare 58.xx rated creature harvest clusters. Result? CRITICAL FAILURE. GRRRRRRRRRRR.

I have asked this question before: I'm a master at my craft, why am I ****ing up half of what I make? Why, in statistical terms, do I apparently have no clue what I'm doing? Why does pressing the assemble button feel like playing Russian Roulette? How can the devs consider this frustrating waste of time and resources to be "fun"?

No, I don't use food or drink, and don't live in any city. But do I have to do that stuff just to be successful over half the time?

Okay I'm done wasting my breath....


Rippen

---

Drashk wrote:

How is the Mallability of the resources you are using? This is one over looked item for a lot of crafters. If a resources has a low Mall, it tends to cause a higher rate of bad successes. There is also the fact that higher complexity rating also tip the scales for low success rates. There are a few items that have a very odd behaviour in crafting, namely the repair modules and some of the lower leveled modules....

---

This is the first I've heard anyone suggest that malleability has much to do with the process. I have no idea what the malleability of the resources are, but I use such a wide variety of them that it seems a bit pointless to even worry about it. Obviously I can't dismiss the use of a resource because the malleability is low (like I do for say, conductivity), but I'll certainly take note of it.

Note also that I'm not just talking about critical failures, I also mean "moderate successes," and "good successes," especially when experimenting the ham. It seems like that very first experiment is the dice roll. I get most of my lousy successes then. But again, I'm a master at my profession, it just seems ridiculous that I should fail/underachieve so often. What's the point of being a master when you flub up half of what you make? Any novice can do that.

Sorry, ranting again.

Rippen

---

NitewolfX wrote:

According to the Dev's the critical fail rate is at 4.x%.

So that means 1 out of 20 times, it was designed to fail. So..... If you are making an R3 droid with all the extras from scratch. It WILL critical fail at one point during the process. I just hate it when it fails at the last step.

---

Yeah, I understand that I shouldn't expect to get constant great successes, and a 4% failure rate seems reasonable. But again, I also am talking about the "good" and "moderate" successes which, combined with the assembly/experimentation critical failures, have to be a lot higher than 4%. It seems like every 4th or 5th object I craft is ruined by one of these results (at least by my standards). Does that seem consistent with the fact that I'm a master at my craft? I say no, and I guess that's what I'm complaining about. It isn't "fun" (in a gaming sense) to screw up every 4th or 5th crafting session, especially when you're crafting some pretty valuable things (117-rated creature harvest droids, for example).


Rippen

---

Straker_Atrella wrote:

Drashk, where are you getting that information about mallability?

Make sure you don't have BF or wounds. I "seem" to fail more if I have those. Don't wear armor.

I ALWAYS experiment on my subcomponants. While this does raise the complexity of them, it also raises the quality. Ever since I started doing that, I "seem" to crit fail a lot less.

---

There may be something to that about bf and wounds, since I have a bit of both (180 bf). I do seem to be having a higher rate of these failures/low successes than normal recently, so maybe that's why.

Rippen