test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
has some normalization been added for doff fails?
olliereport
Member Posts: 721
First -->> This has nothing to do with the fact that doff fails were auto completing and now they are not.
Since the new xinidi lockbox, or perhaps it was the map change, there's been a change in doff completion. It's the most noticeable on my main character who has the "full rack" of diverse doffs.
Fails used to be 0, 1, or 2 for a day. 0 being common, 1 being sometimes, and 2 being rare. Now it's frequently more than 3 but almost always not less than 3. There are other indicators, like some classes of mission (contraband) behaving differently, but overall fail rates are the most glaring change.
At first I figured that it was implemented to make the new ultra-rare doffs more valuable and useful. But now it's getting a little annoying. I'd like to make some kind of blanket statement cursing normalization saying it has no place anywhere, but I don't know maybe it does. I have to tell you, it's feels a little creepy, like I'm no longer playing a game but the game is playing me. Especially with lockbox ship drop, I've heard people remark on that one too lately.
I've chatted with some longtime players about this, each having mains with full doff complements, some having that on multiple chars. We have had similar experiences. I like the game, we all like the game, but please be judicious in where (how) you add normalization.
Since the new xinidi lockbox, or perhaps it was the map change, there's been a change in doff completion. It's the most noticeable on my main character who has the "full rack" of diverse doffs.
Fails used to be 0, 1, or 2 for a day. 0 being common, 1 being sometimes, and 2 being rare. Now it's frequently more than 3 but almost always not less than 3. There are other indicators, like some classes of mission (contraband) behaving differently, but overall fail rates are the most glaring change.
At first I figured that it was implemented to make the new ultra-rare doffs more valuable and useful. But now it's getting a little annoying. I'd like to make some kind of blanket statement cursing normalization saying it has no place anywhere, but I don't know maybe it does. I have to tell you, it's feels a little creepy, like I'm no longer playing a game but the game is playing me. Especially with lockbox ship drop, I've heard people remark on that one too lately.
I've chatted with some longtime players about this, each having mains with full doff complements, some having that on multiple chars. We have had similar experiences. I like the game, we all like the game, but please be judicious in where (how) you add normalization.
Post edited by olliereport on
0
Comments
Eclipse Class Intel Cruiser U.S.S. Dioscuria NX-91121-A - Interactive Crew Roster
Some of us kept a very close eye on our assignment log before the update, thanks.
Eclipse Class Intel Cruiser U.S.S. Dioscuria NX-91121-A - Interactive Crew Roster
He doesn't really address it. He just says we should ignore the obvious reason, and pretend it was insufficiecnt to explain the observed - what could explain it then?
"The sky is blue today. I know there are no clouds in the sky, and the sun is shining. But it seems to bluer than it should be, so, ignoring clouds and the sun, what could be the reason for that? Is Q meddling with us for nefarious reasons?"
You also managed to miss this: Please note that the OP is talking about noticing this BEFORE the change to failure confirmations.
Now think.
We know that STO is designed in a way that the numbers shown on-screen are not necessarily the numbers actually in use by the engine--so the tooltips showing that the success percentages remain unchanged are not necessarily authoritative.
We know that there have been a number of both past and current bugs revolving around this exact kind of discrepancy--so the existence of a bug of this sort is not exactly implausible.
We know that the sector space change introduced a very large number of doffing-related bugs, and that there have been multiple fixes since then--so we're dealing with many recent changes to the system in question beyond just the confirmation change, and every change could very easily have introduced bugs we don't know about.
Does all of this conclusively prove that there is a recently-increased failure rate? Of course not. Correlation is not causation, and without any kind of statement from dev one way or the other, we have no actual data or visibility to do more than speculate. That's the whole point of raising this kind of report.
But that cuts both ways; the response the OP got is just as speculative. Even moreso, really, since there is no more substance to it than, in so many words: "I think you and everyone else are just fooling yourselves."
Eclipse Class Intel Cruiser U.S.S. Dioscuria NX-91121-A - Interactive Crew Roster
not that objections are 100% without grounds, but none of us here have "data", we just have experience and observation, and when it comes to doffing, I have good amount of that. and the people I've spoken with about this also have it.
anyway, I didn't care if fails were auto-completing, so what really, as I said, that's not what I'm referring to
I'm sure there are spots in these games where normalization of something makes sense, but I can also believe it's a bad crutch at times. It could be that they want to reshuffle things so that the new ultra rare doffs are worth it. I guess that's ok. But normalization probably isn't the best route for that. The problem is that it makes a hill that's unclimbable. No matter how hard you try at it, the hill just grows higher. That's not ok. If in fact, that's what is happening.
If you have 20 assignments with an average of 10% fail chance, you should expect at least two of them to fail per day. But random chance being random, it's entirely possible (though unlikely) for all of them to fail. Four failures in a 20-hour period is not that unusual.
Obviously, no one expects assignments with a less than 5% fail chance to actually fail (although it could happen because luck). But on the flip side, anything higher than 15% I almost expect to fail. 1-in-5-ish odds is pretty lousy and I try to avoid any long-duration assignments with odds worse than 20% unless I have absolutely nothing better to assign before logging off.
My main with my best DOFFs never queues assignments with more than 10% fail chance, and fails two, sometimes three assignments in a 20 hour period. I don't think I've ever seen four fails on her. My alts have considerably worse DOFFs and frequently queue assignments with up to 25% fail chance. And they typically have 4 to 6 failures in a 20 hour period. It's been this way since Season 9 for me, and I don't see anything unusual.
Which seems natural, since all we get is a few anecdotes, when the method of observing the observed has actually altered, too!
And if we can't even trust the failure chances listed in the DOFF assignment description as you suggest, then we have basically nothing to go on and for all we know, it doesn't matter what DOFFs we select for a task, since we have no real feedback mechanism.
With 2,000+ missions recorded, normal daily variation in the RNG results would start to become less of a problem. It would then be possible to estimate whether the displayed failure rates were plausible
(by figuring the odds of the actual results happening based on the probabilities).
The 0% failure missions failing is something to track and start a thread on in Bug Reports with actual data (mission names, displayed chances at mission start). This could be either a bug, or something like all missions having an undocumented 1% chance of failure.