No, thats not what I expect. I am simply wondering if its possible to keep assembling and diassembly the same modules until they've gone from quality level 1 to quality level 5.


Possibly, but the way the QOTW is worded, all modules get a quality bump upon a critical dissaembly and the item gets a quality bump on a crit assemly.  In the best case scenario, a crafter could take a level 1 item, crit on the disassembly and get quality 2 modules, crit on reassembling them and get a quality 3 item, crit on disassemling the item and get quality 4 modules, then crit on the assembly and get a quality 5 item.

Sure 5 crits in a row is a statical anamoly, but with high skill and high level facilities providing bonus some characters may reach a level where criticals successes can occur as or more frequently than critical failures (Usually in critical chance systems, skills/levels/ranks/etc. increase crit success chance goes up while crit fail chance is reduced or stays the same).

So I'm just wondering if there is anything to stop a high level crafter in a high ranking facility from continually disassembling and reassembling the same modules until the crafter has locked down 4 critical successes.

A credit cost to use the facility may make it financially unfeasible.
A lose of item/module on a critical failure may make it unfeasible.

However, both of these limitations are also barriers to anyone else crafting. Ideally we want something that reduces the occurance of "quality grinding" without putting a damper on every day crafting.

In which case I like the idea of a critical success in disassembly only improves the quality of some of the modules produced. Reassembly with the exact same modules would probably give back an item of the same quality and subsequent dissasembly would undo the crit bonus. It still wouldn't stop someone from quality grinding by cycling a series of assemblies and disassemblies to eventually get 4 assembly crits but it does double the number of assembly and disassembly required to get 4 crits (for a statistical standard deviation) while allowing each assembly and disassembly can critically fail.


Did I miss anywhere were it said that a critical failure destroyed an module/item? The only failure I thought they provide an example for is the designs and the succes or failure of those seems to be a rare duck in the crafting system as in each case you can get some portion of your starting material back.

it seems to me that you have a better chance of succsess if you have higher skill lvls and better quality items. So im guessing you can get to the point where you wouldnt be able to fail.

The "in real life" debate is one that should not be used in games imo. This is not ment to be real life, otherwise it would take more that a couple of minutes to build a gun, mech, base, ect. from scratch. This system sound fine to me. I like the chance to fail as I wanted there to be a risk. The more time you invest in skills the lower the risk. I say good job MS, maybe not perfect but good enough for me.

so if u can disassemble stuff can u keep remaking the same thing until u get lucky and get a high quality one?

I fully expect that "quality grinding" will be a normal part of the game. 
I also expect that the various costs of doing it will compensate whatever advantage it gives.

In other words, if a skilled player has a 10% improvement chance and a 10% chance to degrade and if they start with middling quality stuff they will end up with about half their stuff upgraded to maximum quality at the expense of the other half of their material (plus the expense of the factory and carpal tunnel syndrom for clicking so much).

The critical success in disassembly is kind of weird. I can understand it in assembly, sometimes you get really lucky making something and it's better then you expected. I'd be fine if the component returned to it's original quality level in disassembly. That would make the Small Pulse Generator level 5 anyways, as it was originally quality level 5.

The chance for critical success may be such that quality grinding may be futile. As you may lose quality more often than gaining quality. That would make quality grinding a waste of money and resources.

Lazy programming can't be the excuse. Changing something like that could be only a few lines of code. There has to be a design reason they chose to go that way.

Here's a good design reason for you. They decided to implement critical successes because it's chances of happening are 10% where a chance of losing quality is 50%. Build something and take it apart a million times and you essentially destroy the item.