Weaponsmith Archive
Thread: Experimentation: One point at a time or all points at once?
You seem to get better luck with do it max at a time. You better chance of rolling a nicer dice than doing one point at a time.
Tyronet City InformationThe experimentation systemmisreports your success level if you use more than one point at a time; it only reports the success level of the very last bulb. One at a time will guarantee you will always receive an accurate result, whereas all-at-once may tell you that you received a great success when you really had several moderates followed by a great success.
However, one-at-a-time is very time-consuming, especially for those with twelve points. Thus, most opt for two-at-a-time as the most efficient and convenient means of experimentation.
As for risk--I've never found the red risk meter to make any sense. However, your chance for failure greatly increases as you use more points simultaneously. Additionally, it increases as you move further up the bar; the sixth point you put in has a slightly higher risk for poor success than the first, for example. It evens out: the more points you put in simultaneously, the higher the risk and the fewer points you put in simultaneously, the more attempts you have to make with each set of points and therein lies the alternative risk.
Interesting! So the only reason for not using all points at once is to get an accurate system message? But since you can always simply count the percentage points gained, you don't really need that system message other than as a convenience. Also, since the complexity of the product increases with each experimentation step, it seems to me that using ALL points at once is the optimal solution. Or am I still missing something?
Actually you can do this and get lucky, and end up with experimentation to spare. Better to do this when you have a small experimentation value. You might not get what you wanted but will have more points to spare. It really is hardly worth it. Another thing that needs fixed. Higher risk should equal better results. Not much maybe a point but it should add up. Pay attention to that meter it progresses at set intervals. Click 1 2 3 at a time it still hits those same intervals.
The only real difference is the critical failure. For some reason if you risk three the critical failure actsasifit were number one in the chain and penalizes you the same for the rest. You pretty much blow everything up. In other words you can be fast and careless or slow and sure of success.
I always go one at a time. I can deal with wasteing what twenty seconds. More then I can wasteing materials. High risk low risk you end up at the exact same place. So why take any risk at all. In the end the critical failures are just as much a waste of time.
What i hate is full lower bar purple dot on the end of the upper bar. I can do that experimentation, and get nothing for it so move along to another quality like efficency. Hit experiment crit failure hey the damage on the gun went down. This is the most assanine thing ever. How in the world is efficeny or range futzing the damage. Never noticed working on these ever improve the damage. So why in the world is it able to change that stat always for the worst.
Locking in bars blows. Just another reason why all weapons are damage built and that almost always alone. A critical failure in one bar should not afflict another.
pervel wrote:
Interesting! So the only reason for not using all points at once is to get an accurate system message? But since you can always simply count the percentage points gained, you don't really need that system message other than as a convenience. Also, since the complexity of the product increases with each experimentation step, it seems to me that using ALL points at once is the optimal solution. Or am I still missing something?
Right, if you rely on experimentation percentages instead, then you're good to go.
This method does bring the benefit of producing low complexity items, and thus faster factory manufacturing time. Anecdotal experience might tell you that all-at-once is too hard to produce schematics with and it may not. Currently, we don't have any hard data that says all-at-once is any more difficult than any other method, though, so it's mostly a matter of personal preference.