Dying to infection prior to 100%?

[Panzer]

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

[Sola]

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.

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

[DariusWolfe]

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.

[TheMeInTeam]

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).

[Sola]

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%.

[DariusWolfe]

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.

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

[Covered in Weasels]

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!

[DariusWolfe]

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.