Success/Critical Success qualifiers are retrograde...

harewode

Why is it that if there is a DOFF assignment, it is sometimes advantageous to go with a specialization that is _not_ part of the success criteria and instead focus on the critical success criteria?

For example - the espionage commendation report.

Crit: cunning, emotional, resolve, tactful

Success: Security Officer

If I put in a purple security officer with the emotional trait, I get:

Crit: 19%
Success: 81%

...but if I put in a blue armory officer with cunning and emotional traits:

Crit: 23%
Success: 77%

...alright, blue armory officer assigned...

Then, I look at the development report:

Crit: cunning, emotional, resolve, tactful

Success: Entertainer

So, purple entertainer with cunning: 19%/81%

Purple projectile weapons officer with cunning: 23%/77%

Purple advisor with cunning, resolve, tactful: 29%/71%


I've seen the same behavior with other assignments - and I get that if there is the possibility of failure, then the failure/disaster numbers go up if the success numbers go down... but seriously. Shouldn't the formula be additive?

markhawkman

Yeah, that's the way Heretic programmed it to work. Bort has talked about maybe, possibly changing it but that's the way it is for now.

blazenar

Well if you put more and more critical onto an assignment, something else has to go down since you can't have more than 100% total. Since all you have is success to take away from (on the assignments you mention), that means your critical will go up as your success goes down. And vice versa, the more success you add, the critical is going to suffer.

dareau

It's "supposed" to represent "risk/reward", in that on missions with a persistent chance to fail (say, the new dilithium mining ones), you can either shoot for a high critical chance - and have a corresponding chance to fail, or stock up on success and "play it safe" - complete with lowered chance to critical because you're (almost) assured to succeed...

However, the system balks when it encounters a 0% fail mission - on these, putting in success traits still lowers crit chance (remember, "less chance to fail"), so you're best bet is to shoot for as many crit traits as possible without loading any success...

timelord79

I'd still say, any success chance you add once fail and disaster are at zero should spill over into crit.
With a hard cap of 50% crit chance no matter what... Highest I got was 32% or something like that with the way it is now.

eradicator84

This has always annoyed me.

Seems timelord has already suggested my thought:
imo if success + crit > 100% then any spill over success should be added as crit (at maybe half the rate or something)

jetwtf

dareau wrote: »

It's "supposed" to represent "risk/reward", in that on missions with a persistent chance to fail (say, the new dilithium mining ones), you can either shoot for a high critical chance - and have a corresponding chance to fail, or stock up on success and "play it safe" - complete with lowered chance to critical because you're (almost) assured to succeed...

However, the system balks when it encounters a 0% fail mission - on these, putting in success traits still lowers crit chance (remember, "less chance to fail"), so you're best bet is to shoot for as many crit traits as possible without loading any success...

Yeah but if you have my luck with assignments like the new dilithium ones that give over 50 dilithium it wont matter what doff you put into it because it fails so much it may as well be everytime. Did that assignment everyday for 2 weeks and 1 success only using blue/purple doffs with success and crit and no fail attributes. Unstable asteroid mining nets the same results and I dont even bother starting it anymore because it's a waste of doffs and an assignment slot.

Really i am beginning to think those % are just some numbers for show and have no bearing on the assignmenst chances. assignments with 1% chance to fail and great rewards like 250 dilithium or 1k+ cxp done many times and fails 90% of the time does not sound like 1% fail chance to me.

dareau

On the luck thing, I have had a bad run myself. RNG can be capricious and evil, to say the least...

Though I agree, if success already 100%, then "bonus" success should feed somewhat into critical - say at 1/2 the rate that critical traits actually adds to critical...

iceeaglex

This makes the new miner doffs at the mine a lot less appealing. If you DO buy them, you are pretty much guaranteed NO crit on the mission. Which is weird, considering they cost an absolute FORTUNE.
I can buy a superior operative boff for less than a miner doff.....

valethar

I've seen occasions where using green DOFFS with two success traits actually gives you a better chance than a purple with a critical and success trait.

For some odd reason, it's not doing the math right, or whomever did the tables was taking some particularly nasty drugs that day. A higher quality DOFF with critical traits should always have a higher success rating than a lower quality DOFF with lesser traits.

I've even had cases where using a DOFF with disaster and failure traits gave me a higher chance at mission success than DOFFs without those traits.


The calculations could definitely use some looking at.

lucho80

This whole system needs a pretty simple change:

When fail/disaster chances are both zero, a success trait should add to the crit chance. So crit chances don't soar, just give a 1% crit bonus in these cases.

This fixes this whole problem with; officers who know what they are doing and are good at it suck more than some other random officer.

tribblewaffles

Agreed. This weird effect is still in effect. :cool:

warpangel

iceeaglex wrote: »

This makes the new miner doffs at the mine a lot less appealing. If you DO buy them, you are pretty much guaranteed NO crit on the mission.

Wrong. Success traits only lower crit chance if fail/disaster chance is already zero. You can't reduce fail chance of the mine assignments to 0% even with 3 purple miners.

borticuscryptic

markhawkman wrote: »

Yeah, that's the way Heretic programmed it to work. Bort has talked about maybe, possibly changing it but that's the way it is for now.

Just as a small bit of insight, the reason this has not already been done is because it's a case-by-case adjustment. We have to modify each Doff Assignment by hand, rather than being able to apply a global modifier of any sort.

And so, the task would be very time-consuming. We'd still like to clean it up, but it's fairly simple to workaround, so hasn't been considered highly critical.

markhawkman

borticuscryptic wrote: »

Just as a small bit of insight, the reason this has not already been done is because it's a case-by-case adjustment. We have to modify each Doff Assignment by hand, rather than being able to apply a global modifier of any sort.

And so, the task would be very time-consuming. We'd still like to clean it up, but it's fairly simple to workaround, so hasn't been considered highly critical.

Ah, I see. Would it be possible to make new misisons that you add in the near future work that way?

milanvorius

borticuscryptic wrote: »

Just as a small bit of insight, the reason this has not already been done is because it's a case-by-case adjustment. We have to modify each Doff Assignment by hand, rather than being able to apply a global modifier of any sort.

And so, the task would be very time-consuming. We'd still like to clean it up, but it's fairly simple to workaround, so hasn't been considered highly critical.

Sounds like a job for Internman! Flying low under the radar, just hoping to one day land a job, tedious is his middle name, and menial repetitive carpal tunnel inducing tasks is his game!

zerobang

first this is an immersion problem, not a math problem.

the problem is that if success is 100% and the "profession"... lets say a Bartender is slotted for Success, then everything but a Bartender with Crit stats will yield better results.
In reality that would make no sense ever.


2 Simple solutions i can think of:

#1 do not make the "Bartender"-Profession a Success but a Crit stat.

or

#2 do not allow anything but a "Bartender" to be slotted. Make the profession a requirement. In this case it makes sense to be a requirement for the mission, so technically the odd math/immersion thing still happens behind the screen ( = you get the lower stats ) but the Player will never actually SEE it since he can't slot another profession.


of course option #2 would result in worse chances for every player and i would consider that solution a NERF (the last thing the DOff System needs right now is a wave of nerf complaints, so maybe doing nothing about it might be best... it has been around long enough as it is anyway), buffing the crit chances for those assignments to counteract the nerf might be a good idea [if that is technically even possible on a per assignment basis with the current options?].

nicha0

borticuscryptic wrote: »

Just as a small bit of insight, the reason this has not already been done is because it's a case-by-case adjustment. We have to modify each Doff Assignment by hand, rather than being able to apply a global modifier of any sort.

And so, the task would be very time-consuming. We'd still like to clean it up, but it's fairly simple to workaround, so hasn't been considered highly critical.

Sounds like too much work in the near term to fix that, but the first officer recommendations could definitely use a more complex decision process than more success = good! It really need to factor and weight the benefits of a critical. I would think that is a relatively minor client change, and would greatly lower the barrier for people getting into Doffing, most people get too confused by this concept as it is.

radiowjtm

heres a fix the first score raises success then the crit raises it from there example if security officer bob has one crit skill and the mission runs a 40% fail 50 % success and a 10% crit assigning bob will change to a 20 % fail 60 % success and a 20 % crit. with the crit bonus beind applied after the success