I had two infections. One at 87% with 89% immunity, and one at 82% with 89% immunity.
A pawn called a party, Mami came out, then collapsed. I had the doctor rescue her. Hours later, she "died to infection", but was nowhere near that point. Is it possible to die prior to 100% now? Did something else kill her, and it just got attributed to infection?
The worst part was that I had over 20 medicines left, and would have used those if I knew this was a thing.
(https://image.prntscr.com/image/7d1c1c4d23c54eb78d4c8cff2b3a02eb.png)
(https://image.prntscr.com/image/5357b3f96a9443f28a95cfc04c0ecb92.png)
This is a common misunderstanding. If you look at the torso, you've got an extreme infection and a gunshot; Between those two, it probably reduced the torso's functionality to 0% which is enough to kill.
Your pawn died of a combination of the infection and other wounds. It's the sort of thing that actually happens, too; Infection and bloodloss can be mostly under control, but a patient can still die due to shock or organ failure.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on June 01, 2017, 04:13:28 PM
This is a common misunderstanding. If you look at the torso, you've got an extreme infection and a gunshot; Between those two, it probably reduced the torso's functionality to 0% which is enough to kill.
Your pawn died of a combination of the infection and other wounds. It's the sort of thing that actually happens, too; Infection and bloodloss can be mostly under control, but a patient can still die due to shock or organ failure.
If you look at the second screenshot, it actually says "Efficiency: 0%" for the Torso.
Derp, so it does. For whatever reason, I only saw the first screenshot.
So, yeah, there you go then.
Actually, after thinking about it for a while, there should be the equivalent of 0.02 health left for the torso, unless the 70% are rounded (down).
Question for Tynan: Is this working as intended, or is there some rounding error?
Math:
(I'll keep everything in the same health units the torso uses, so 36 is max)
The infection causes -70% efficiency, that should be equivalent to: 0.7 * 36 = 25.2
The gunshot did 10.78 damage.
Health left: 36 - 25.2 - 10.78 = 0.02
(Converted to efficiency, that would be 0.0555...%, which would round down to 0%. Maybe that is the case here?)
PS: Yes, that would imply the colonist died to a rounding error...
Yep, damage dealt to a body part reduces efficiency, and efficiency is a representation of body part hp. An adult torso has 40hp, but since it was a 15 yo child the torso only has 36hp. 25/36hp means the torso had only 69,44% efficiency, then the infection went extreme and applied -70% efficiency, killing your colonist :P
Should ve used some of that medicine instead of treating without ;)
EDIT: Yeah without harsh rounding the torso would have 25,22hp left, which means 70,06% efficiency. Math killed the colonist ;D
I would assume that displayed percentage values are rounded, yeah; I'd guess the 70% is rounded down from something, rather than the .02 efficiency being rounded down to 0, but I could easily be wrong; It could be that all effective percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage.
I wouldn't mind looking into the math on how infection percentage translates into the effective values listed under it. How does 87% infection mean 70% infection, or 85% pain?
But either way, 0% efficiency on a vital part like the torso or head is pretty much going to mean death.
EDIT:
QuoteShould ve used some of that medicine instead of treating without
Nice catch on the forbidden medicine. I was going to suggest it was just a bad treatment roll.
Infection is split into 4 stages, minor, major at 33%, extreme at 78% and extreme past 87%. Each stage has a set list of debuffs that get applied to the infected body part.
From what I can gather medical tends only slow the infection progress down, immunity speed progress is the same regardless of tend quality or a tend happening, it is only modified by the bed type you re using, colonist age, liver and kidney state and whether you re fed or not.
Quote from: Panzer on June 01, 2017, 05:04:04 PM
Infection is split into 4 stages, minor, major at 33%, extreme at 78% and extreme past 87%. Each stage has a set list of debuffs that get applied to the infected body part.
Ah, so the 70% is almost certainly a flat 70%, then; so the rounding would most likely have been in the efficiency or perhaps the HP.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on June 01, 2017, 04:45:34 PM
I would assume that displayed percentage values are rounded, yeah; I'd guess the 70% is rounded down from something, rather than the .02 efficiency being rounded down to 0, but I could easily be wrong; It could be that all effective percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage.
My guess for the rounding error would be the efficiency calculation at the end (0.0555...% down to 0%).
Quote from: DariusWolfe on June 01, 2017, 04:45:34 PM
I wouldn't mind looking into the math on how infection percentage translates into the effective values listed under it. How does 87% infection mean 70% infection, or 85% pain?
Well, IIRC infections and diseases work in stages, so you get different health impairments depending on the stage you're in. As posted by Panzer, the infection just advanced to it most advanced stage (before killing the colonist by itself), which meant that the part efficiency just took another hit (which then killed the colonist).
EDIT: Made a bug report (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=33177.0) about this rounding issue, maybe this gets fixed :)
Let's see, 36 - 10.78 = 25.22 points available in addition to the Gunshot (charge lance).
25.22/36 = .7005555556, which rounds to 70%.
So while it was displaying 70%, the internal infection value was actually something between 70.0555556 and 70.5.
The lesson from this is that you should look at the body part's efficiency, not the infection level. If the efficiency starts getting low, break out the best meds you have.
Yeah. Obviously my bad, then. Normally the actual wound is fully healed by the time the infection gets that far, but the poison ship fight was particularly messy. Since this has never happened to me, I didn't think to check the efficiency. She would have survived if I simply unforbid'd the medicine before treating.
Live and learn.
Or in this case, die and learn. :-/
It's part of the new learning curve; Since infections were broken in A16, we all got complacent; In addition, there were literally a half a dozen to a dozen tweaks to how infection works during the unstable period of A17, so even if you still remember infections from A15, it's going to be a bit different. I think it's a bit harder than A15 was, but not nearly as hard as it was on the first A17-unstable release.
There ought to be an option to amputate infected body parts if the patient isn't going to survive otherwise.
There is, you can amputate extremities and more or less redundant organs (lungs, kidneys). Kidney infection e.g. is something a colonist usually doesnt survive and therefore should be amputated.
Some body parts cant be amputated though, head and torso being some of them, for obvious reasons ;D
Quote from: Nainara on June 02, 2017, 03:23:34 AM
There ought to be an option to amputate infected body parts if the patient isn't going to survive otherwise.
That option does exist. Unfortunately, you'll notice the infection that killed Mami was in her torso. Can't amputate that.
This is why I won't run the game in permadeath while it's still in alpha or beta, too many hidden/fake difficulty elements like this, plenty of which aren't even intentional.
This kind of thing is re-loadable IMO and I'd snub the assertion that such is cheating. Tautologically, 0 =/= numbers above 0. Unless the game denotes that death happens at values above 0% efficiency (which to my knowledge it does not) this is either a bug or fake difficulty.
While it's your right to play as you choose (I've reloaded an infection death myself) it's not fake, or even unintentional, and mirrors real life about as well as anything else in the game does; Sometimes, it's not the infection that kills, but a combination of infection with other conditions. That .02% (that is to say .0002) efficiency isn't a big thing; The pawn would have died anyway, which is likely why the rounding is there.
The display is accurate; 0% efficiency, even if it doesn't match the math. That's why the game doesn't show you decimals of percentages, because they don't matter, and aren't counted.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on June 02, 2017, 02:01:02 PM
While it's your right to play as you choose (I've reloaded an infection death myself) it's not fake, or even unintentional, and mirrors real life about as well as anything else in the game does; Sometimes, it's not the infection that kills, but a combination of infection with other conditions. That .02% (that is to say .0002) efficiency isn't a big thing; The pawn would have died anyway, which is likely why the rounding is there.
The display is accurate; 0% efficiency, even if it doesn't match the math. That's why the game doesn't show you decimals of percentages, because they don't matter, and aren't counted.
The display is accurate to the outcome, but the outcome and display are not accurate to the anticipated consequences of the math, unless the rules are stated in a way that allows anticipation of the outcome without knowing it in advance.
This outcome is especially bad if other rounding is treated differently; of that I'm uncertain. IMO this is comparatively minor compared to animals hunting w/o notification or wrong-values when they crop up, but still the kind of thing that results in trial and error gameplay (which is pretty evident).
Quote from: DariusWolfe on June 02, 2017, 02:01:02 PM
While it's your right to play as you choose (I've reloaded an infection death myself) it's not fake, or even unintentional, and mirrors real life about as well as anything else in the game does; Sometimes, it's not the infection that kills, but a combination of infection with other conditions. That .02% (that is to say .0002) efficiency isn't a big thing; The pawn would have died anyway, which is likely why the rounding is there.
The display is accurate; 0% efficiency, even if it doesn't match the math. That's why the game doesn't show you decimals of percentages, because they don't matter, and aren't counted.
Ignoring the fact I've learned what happened and moved on to my next game, there's all sorts of wrong here.
-Nobody said anything about "fake", "unintentional", or even "mirroring real life". Those are your words, not mine.
-If the pawn had 0.02% efficiency and didn't die to rounding, she would have survived. The injury was healing, and the infection had already reached its highest threshold. Thus, efficiency was
only going to go up due to the fact that the injury was healing. It
could not have fallen any further.
-The game
does show decimals of percentages. Every time you try to recruit a prisoner at <10% chance of success, you'll see a decimal of a percent. Similar to training animals. Also, in the health tab, you'll see decimals of percents when suffering from <10% of a disease, such as hypothermia, heatstroke, or toxic buildup. I'd wager that, if those values weren't intentionally hidden under 5%, you'd see hundredths of a percent as well as the stat falls below 1%.
Read up, Sola. The words I used are in fact used in this very thread, just not by you. So no, they're not my words.
TheMeInTeam: your objection is predicated on the idea that Tynan expects or cares that players are checking his math. I doubt that's the case; the displayed value is 0%, and that's the effective value. If you start checking the math, you're almost certain to find other bits of logic that don't match your expectations, but so long as the data that's actually presented to the player matches, then it's all fair game.
It's displayed when and if Tynan feels it's important. If you disagree with that you're welcome to criticize his rounding policy, but I dnt expect you're going to have much success. A display:expectation mismatch is a valid criticism, since the purpose of the display is to convey information, and if it fails to do so clearly then it needs to be fixed.
Quote from: DariusWolfe on June 03, 2017, 12:50:02 AM
Read up, Sola. The words I used are in fact used in this very thread, just not by you. So no, they're not my words.
TheMeInTeam: your objection is predicated on the idea that Tynan expects or cares that players are checking his math. I doubt that's the case; the displayed value is 0%, and that's the effective value. If you start checking the math, you're almost certain to find other bits of logic that don't match your expectations, but so long as the data that's actually presented to the player matches, then it's all fair game.
It's displayed when and if Tynan feels it's important. If you disagree with that you're welcome to criticize his rounding policy, but I dnt expect you're going to have much success. A display:expectation mismatch is a valid criticism, since the purpose of the display is to convey information, and if it fails to do so clearly then it needs to be fixed.
My primary objection is inconsistent implementation/information presentation. There are only a small handful of things in this game that screw player without agency or could be construed as fake difficulty, and if you look at update from 16 --> 17 it should be evident the goal isn't to abuse those.
The problem with this case (and a greater extent in other mechanics) is that before you tick up to extreme in this scenario, you can't reasonably anticipate what will happen for certain. As Sola points out, you do get fractional percentage displayed in other game contexts and presumably they matter. So if you take the time to do math in this case, compute a value > 0%, then die since > 0% = 0%, it's a minor (but cheap) kill and fits the definition of fake difficulty.
I had the exact same thing happen to one of my pawns -- she had a gunshot wound and an infection in her torso, and she died at about 89% infection level. Thanks for clearing this up!
While I'll grant that it's probably jarring if you do the math, and then they die when you expect they won't, I still don't know that I think it's a "bad" outcome, when the expectation is that players aren't regularly going to be doing the math. If you're the sort to do the math, then you've just learned a little bit more about how the game works; Percentages like this are rounded.
For those who aren't doing the math, but are aware of how the percentages tick up per tier of infection (which I certainly wasn't, prior to this thread) will likely eyeball it, and will be suitably worried. For those who don't even know how infection works precisely, it'll likely be a much more tense situation of watching the numbers climb, hoping that the character doesn't die before they gain immunity; Which is likely how it's intended to play. If you're doing mathematical calculations on whether or not a pawn will survive, I think you're deliberately pulling yourself out of the game, and I don't feel that the dev has any responsibility to support gameplay choices that do that.
I don't know that I see much point in further discussion. I think we've both stated our positions fairly clearly, and we'll either agree or disagree; and as Sola pointed out above, the original misconception has been cleared up.