Force Sensitive Archive
Thread: [TEST RESULTS] Lightsaber Crafting trinket
twi'leks cant wear warm hats
Nerdcore wrote:
dumbest thing ever. They might as well have made the reward a 1 socket 'warm hat' thats neon pink, that would have been worth more.
Chewie101 wrote:
To further confuse people...in the .tre files an "Amazing Success" is coded as critical_success...
Exactly why I think they're talking about an amazing success on assembly being called a "critical assembly" by this tool.
I looked in the Dev Cycle Archive, and the only post on "critical success" by Thunderheart is a simple comment that they do exist (which, if they're listed in the .tre files that way for an amazing success is very well known) with no clarification afterwards. That comment (as well as most of that thread) was also made in reference to experimentation.
It's still my contention that assemblies that allow experimentation beyond the cap on resources are a bug, and are in no way related to a "critical success" (aka an amazing success). If someone can show me a post by a developer that directly says otherwise, please post the link.
Chewie101 wrote:
To further confuse people...in the .tre files an "Amazing Success" is coded as critical_success...
Even with it performing 5-20 amazing successes - Was this quest/reward worth the effort in relation to the other branches? Please weigh in everyone!
...dumbest thing ever. They might as well have made the reward a 1 socket 'warm hat' thats neon pink, that would have been worth more.
jason67 wrote:
Most of my info on criticle success comes from my research into weaponsmithing. There are several threads on experimentation and assembly and dealing with Criticle Success...
I have assembled probably tens of thousands of layers, segments, and pieces of armor. I always pay attention to what type of success I get on assembly, as it can affect the condition (not the resists or encumbrance) of the piece. I have never gotten the message that "the assembly was a critical success!". That means that those random assemblies that allow better experimentation were either "great" or "amazing" successes.
No one is arguing that there are not random assemblies that get bugged and allow slightly better results from full experimentation. What we're saying is that those random assemblies are a bug, and anyone who takes the time to understand Thunderheart's comments (that a critical success happens at the same rate as a critical failure) and can read the .tre files (which list an "amazing success" as a critical_success)can see that the term "critical success" is simply dev-speak for "amazing success".
Nerdcore wrote:Yes, well it comes down to either:A) the devs are completely retarded orB) the tool is bugged
Why do you think it's an "either"?