Yup. This actually happened.

[Gemina]

Just ain't right. I'm not even angry. This isn't a rant post. I'm just sad I had a bad feeling all day too. First Serpent Lieutenant is going to have to wait another day.

[MihaelB]

It's quite annoying how we have 90% or even 98% of the correct stats and they'll still reduce the success rate to whatever abysmal rate it is

[Lewtskie]

Well all your people leveled up from that, I'm sure you got at least one more point in strength there. You can send them right back out.

[Gemina]

Well all your people leveled up from that, I'm sure you got at least one more point in strength there. You can send them right back out.

From a role playing perspective:

Serpent Squadron Sergeant: Commander, I regret to inform you that mission was a failure.

Commander Lunarian: This is unfortunate news. We have just received word from our operatives in Coerthas that the Ixali beast tribe is again attempting to summon Garuda.

Serpent Squadron Sergeant: *gasp* No!

Commander Lunarian: I'm afraid the reports are confirmed. We must use haste to prevent her summoning. Our team could not uphold the nation of Gridania's reputation of excellence with the Maelstrom in a routine mission. Tell me Sergeant, am I sending our team to be slaughtered?

Serpent Squadron Sergeant: Commander. I should remind you that the Maelstroms are still bitter that you left them for the Adders, and the fact you've risen the nation of Gridania to one of excellence as a result of your efforts towards peace and prosperity only rubs it in. Our squad is ready.

Commander Lunarian: That may very well be the case Sergeant. However, I will not make the same mistake twice. Their failure is my own. Continue their training and deploy them. We'll keep an eye on the Ixali in Coerthas and intervene ourselves if it comes to that. Get them ready. Now.

Serpent Squadron Sergeant: Right away commander!

[Shai]

This is normal.

You can succeed with a report of "equal to the task" but I've only personally had 50% success with that pre-deployment evaluation.
That's 2 of 4 attempts. Not a great sample size. I've had "equal to the task" pop when I'm 40 points below (and succeeded)
and I've had "equal to the task" at 2 points below the reqs (and failed).
So I think "equal to the task" is a general success % probably somewhere between 50 and 75.

Conversely if you meet the requirements (or exceed them) then I've had 100% success.

[Gemina]

This is normal.

You can succeed with a report of "equal to the task" but I've only personally had 50% success with that pre-deployment evaluation.
That's 2 of 4 attempts. Not a great sample size. I've had "equal to the task" pop when I'm 40 points below (and succeeded)
and I've had "equal to the task" at 2 points below the reqs (and failed).
So I think "equal to the task" is a general success % probably somewhere between 50 and 75.

Conversely if you meet the requirements (or exceed them) then I've had 100% success.

Yup. I know it is normal. I am more than acquainted with the RNG. However, it should not be normal to miss the required attributes by 1pt, and still have your success rate be reduced to what ever ridiculous value it is set at. But if I was the one responding to this post, I would tell myself, "Hey, you say you know about the RNG and the success rate, so you know full well that you either send them out and take the risk, bench them for the night, or send them on a guaranteed mission if there is one available. Missing the attribute by 1pt is no different than missing by 100."

So I think my hindsight is intact, just a little bummed about it is all.

[Khalithar]

The little quotes need to go. Just give us a visible flat % chance already. There's no reason to hide that information from us.

[Lambdafish]

The little quotes need to go. Just give us a visible flat % chance already. There's no reason to hide that information from us.

you aren't supposed to math it out, as shai said, this is about people so you take risks based on what the adviser says (think strategy games like Civ). The advisers in strategy games don't tend to give numbers, only opinions on what you should do, which is the way it should be. You have the stat numbers (own and required), and you can make your own judgement, with the adviser there for when you aren't sure.

[Kazrah]

you aren't supposed to math it out, as shai said, this is about people so you take risks based on what the adviser says (think strategy games like Civ). The advisers in strategy games don't tend to give numbers, only opinions on what you should do, which is the way it should be. You have the stat numbers (own and required), and you can make your own judgement, with the adviser there for when you aren't sure.

Except it would be nice to at least actually -know- the numbers.

This isn't a strategy game. This is just another means to an end.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

The little quotes need to go. Just give us a visible flat % chance already. There's no reason to hide that information from us.

Especially when I swear, the guy is drunk half the time. He kept saying how it was hopeless for my squad to complete the level 20 mission because they were seven points off yet after I did complete it, he's now saying they're up to a task despite being over 200 points below one of the requirements.