Sputnik reliability 0% - success?!

[krgu48]

Hello. I saw something strange. My Sputnik program was 0% reliability, but still has a success finish. Maybe I do not understand the mechanics of the game(I'm not sure if this is a bug), but after all it is a bit surprising (maybe it is USSR UltraHigh Tech ). I put a screen and my savefile.

screen.jpg (202.66 KiB) Viewed 3931 times

[N_Molson]

I think that the odds are way too favorable in general, there must be something wrong in the calculations somewhere, like a "+" instead of a "*". I played nearly all the mission and have an overall success rate of 98-99 %. May have something to see with ground personnel / Astronauts, which seem to have an huge influence on how things are going, regardless of the hardware readyness. I feel that currently it's like "IF the hardware is ready OR IF the personel is competent THEN you have success", while it should be "IF the hardware is ready AND IF the personnel is competent, then you should have success".

[christophzeller]

Well, it's most definitely not 98-99%. If you max out R&D it's definitely better than a coin toss, but it's not an automatic success. I always felt BARIS could be on the "frustrating" end of the scale, whereas BASPM seems to be more on the "forgiving" end of that scale, judging from several hours of gameplay now.
But I also had failures with equipment that was reasonably well-researched or even maxed out, with competent ground staff & crew - you'd need to run a high number of tests in order to see whether the game is truly biased one way or the other, and why. It probably does need a nudge in the "frustrating" direction, but there should be more than a gut feeling to justify that.

[axeman109]

This sounds like the same thing I posted about in topic "Redstone % changing"

[stile86]

I'll add that just to test this sort of thing I ran an extended sputnik mission with 0 R&D. Every step was a success! I am guessing that it must be the ground crew percentages that are being factored in. I tried again to reproduce it but this time I did get failures, not always the first step but never completed the mission.

So as has been mentioned in other posts I would suggest that the formula may need further refining. I don't mind if BASPM is a little more forgiving than BARIS but I would expect 0% hardware to fail every time, and 10 % hardware to have a very low success rate.

[Nacho84]

Hello all,

First of all, many thanks to krgu48 for spotting this and uploading the save file. The save files make my life a lot easy when troubleshooting this stuff, so please keep on including them in your reports if possible.

Regarding the weird behaviour, yes, there was a bug in the computation. I changed it, re-ran the save file and the mission now fails in the Sputnik step, as expected.

The fix will make it into the next patch (v 0.7.4).

Cheers,

[Deadmeat1471]

I agree with one of the posters above.

The game currently is WAY too forgiving. I think its due to how the success is calculated, it should all be relative to the quality of the equipment, but It seems 'capcom heavy'.

[GemCat]

Eh, I tried out the X-15 program. Full R and D reliability, and one flight test went off without a hitch. Did another, the X-15 failed. Did it again, FAIL! Then I kicked my researchers into gear and finally got a second successful flight test. Then, with the micrometeorite satellite, the full R and D reliability Saturn I launch vehicle didn't make it past the first step. The reliability checker definitely needs some tweaks.

[jgf1123]

Anecdotal evidence: my first game, I maxed out R&D before making the X-15 flight. It failed on the landing. I didn't realize reliability had dropped by ~45% and ordered the same mission next season. Everything worked.

Second game, I maxed out R&D. First X-15 flight failed on the exact same step. The RNG is being seeded correctly, right?