Under the old system, you had a storylet of Difficulty Level X. If your quality was X, you had a 50% chance for success; at X+5, you had a 100% chance for success; at X-4 or less, you had a 10% chance for success.
Now, the chance for success is (Your Quality)/(Difficulty Level)*0.70
This means that under the old system, you needed Difficulty Level + 5 for a guaranteed success. Now, you need Difficulty Level / 0.7.
For example, a DL 130 opportunity card required 135 for 100% chance of success before, and now requires 185 to avoid any chance of failure, though the rewards haven’t changed.
I think there are some obvious issues here, as there are a lot of storylets that seem to have the assumption that, unless you’re a gambler, you just flat-out shouldn’t be playing them until you hit the 100% success point: multi-action storylets, carousels that give half-rewards if you fail the final storylet, storylets that have significant negative consequences on failure.
Some stories really aren’t worthwhile to play for material gain any longer, because they were balanced under the idea that you need to gain X of something in N actions (e.g., Newspaper, Pickpocketing, Polythreme). Throwing in random failures now adds an element outside your control.
Basically, this change ramps up the randomness across the board, except for (ironically) luck challenges. I can see the value in this sort of system for a game designed around that paradigm, but it’s a huge shift for a game designed around different assumptions.
Another issue is that, as has been noted, this strongly incentivizes micromanaging equipment each time you switch to making checks with a different stat, despite equipment management being something the game does particularly poorly.
I’m okay with the idea of failing because my character just isn’t good enough at something, but failing because it’s too much of a hassle to switch back and forth while playing a dual-stat storyline doesn’t really strike me as fun.
edited by Tesuji on 2/14/2013