NOTICE: NEW FORUMS

We are excited to share with you our brand-new and improved Disruptor Beam forums!

We've chosen new forum software that brings added functionality to improve your experience, including increased spam management. Your username details have been carried over, so you should be able to login with your old forum details without issue. For our veteran community members, you'll see that we have many of the thread categories you’re used to, so we hope you'll feel right at home there.

Our new forums are located here: https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/

 
   
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 > 
Shuttle missions AND slots update
Posted: 19 May 2017 02:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  854
Joined  2016-09-15

I am not convinced things are working as they are suppose to.
For me it is not knowing the math to get displayed success rate.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2017 03:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]  
Avatar
Commander
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2540
Joined  2016-07-14
NasHam - 19 May 2017 02:20 PM

Well I was testing it out and it doesn’t look like any changes to the AND slots. See attached pics for proof.

your pics are an or slot vs a one stat slot.

and as pointed out by others, those two slots should be identical….

 Signature 

This week Frank and Roonis talk about extra long shuttles,  the concept of F2P pain to convert to spending customers, discuss how Odo is not a Dax, and discuss the worst Starfleet Department to work in, HR.


Brand New Twitter Page!!!! https://twitter.com/FrankAndRoonis

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2017 03:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  854
Joined  2016-09-15

I think today DB has changed to displaying actual success rate the formula on the wiki for success calculation.
I had a number for success yesterday of 27% that today is 15%. This would indicate to me that the actual success rate could now be being displayed. 

Would also explained why Arik Song had a 63% success rate displayed and boosted 94% yesterday and today same mission has a 40% and 69% boosted. I still have an hour before it is gone.

Event specific crew are getting *3 boost the factor is 0.75 (No 0.25)this was after I divided by 3.
Today we are getting the actual success rate, Thank you DB. MATH MAKING SENSE NOW.
It is as Lethifold said.
The skill for a AND slot is
(max skill + factor*( min skill) + ( boost))*event crew bonus
Factor is 0.75 (might be as every one said 0.25) it is 0.25
Event specific do get * 3 and just event crew is * 2.

@ Roonis use only data today. I think everything will make sense.   

To all,  your success rate today should be correct.
Just bad luck if you get a lot of failures.

Edit: put formula on its own line. Count to 60.
Edit2: same to make add a comma. Count ...

Edit 3: just doing a double check with T’Pol. Seems to be a factor of 0.25 what everyone had come up with.
May mean you cannot trust data on a mission when there might be a change to a higher difficulty. And that they always displayed the actual success rate. But it is not working when your difficulty just went up. When my missions got back data made sense. My old mission was set to a proper difficulty setting.

USE A CREW WITH INDICATED SKILL BELOW 200. IF success rate for just the one crew is not 15% but above 20%. Difficulty has changed. To figure your actual success rate you may have to make the actual calculation by hand.

For event specific crew factor is 0.75 needs to be double checked.
I have no event crew at moment
FOR Nonspecific event crew and non event crew FACTOR IS 0.25

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2017 03:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  534
Joined  2016-02-20

I’m still close from projected success to actual success but on one failure I just noticed it is only showing the crews highest skill versus the “and” part. I’m sure it’s a display thing but something to keep an eye on.

Image Attachments
Screenshot_20170519-122113.png
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2017 04:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]  
Avatar
Ensign
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  102
Joined  2017-01-28

thanx for pointing that out to me. didn’t realize

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2017 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  854
Joined  2016-09-15

If you are seeing a 94% success rate. It probably means the difficulty just changed. The actual success rate could be nearer to 70%. The success rates are not displayed properly when your difficulty just changed. Most of us knew that in the past, I guess I was thinking this was fixed.


Really plays havoc when trying to figure out the math DB was using.

My latest batch sent out. Low value of success was 15%. However, the max boost gives a 93 % success rate. Without boost math does not check.
There had to be a difficulty change. All successes returned. So my current mission sitting waiting to be sent will not make sense until the others return. At that point whether they succeed or fail. The difficulty they went out with will be reflected in my unsent mission.

DB your problem is with showing the success rate based at the actual difficulty. If we fail all four missions we open. The next missions will have a lower success rate than they actually have. (I am not sure could be just the last two or three)

If we succeed in all four missions. The success rate displayed for new missions will show a higher success rate than the actual success rate.


The problem may have been with this all the time. Though they did change the AND slot if your crew has both the indicated skills to be better than other slots for that crew. And there is no draw back in using a boost. It will boost all slots with the skill accordingly. However I think we still have to make sure of OR slot effects with boost.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2017 05:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]  
Avatar
Ensign
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  195
Joined  2016-06-02
WaldoMag - 19 May 2017 05:20 PM

If you are seeing a 94% success rate. It probably means the difficulty just changed. The actual success rate could be nearer to 70%. The success rates are not displayed properly when your difficulty just changed. Most of us knew that in the past, I guess I was thinking this was fixed.


Really plays havoc when trying to figure out the math DB was using.

Surely then, this essentially been a game using real money and with a gambling aspect, that it’s illegal to show odds that are incorrect?? Be it misleading and false odds advertising?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2017 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  854
Joined  2016-09-15
McCaptainface - 19 May 2017 05:52 PM
WaldoMag - 19 May 2017 05:20 PM

If you are seeing a 94% success rate. It probably means the difficulty just changed. The actual success rate could be nearer to 70%. The success rates are not displayed properly when your difficulty just changed. Most of us knew that in the past, I guess I was thinking this was fixed.


Really plays havoc when trying to figure out the math DB was using.

Surely then, this essentially been a game using real money and with a gambling aspect, that it’s illegal to show odds that are incorrect?? Be it misleading and false odds advertising?

I guess you can say that. But, it does seem to be a unitended bug that never got fixed. I updated the post, you quoted.

This is not the first time a bug is taking a long while to get fixed.
I might be biased, but I think bugs that give us the player some benefit get fixed faster.

I just gave this thought it is a bug that really favors no one DB or players.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2017 10:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]  
Avatar
Ensign
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  124
Joined  2016-05-14

I appreciate finally knowing DB’s thought process, even if I thoroughly disagree with it.

I don’t think there was anything inherently wrong with the original AND formulation. A simple average is the most obvious/common sense way to assume those slots would work, and it stayed that way for a LONG time. It’s an utterly unnecessary thing to suddenly decide to “fix,” and of course, the lack of communication about the change exacerbated things.

The entire purpose of the AND slots should be to reward a diverse crew with lots of different skill combos (honestly, the only other place where dual primary or 3-skill crew have any use is in Expeditions, which have all but disappeared).... by “fixing” a problem that didn’t exist, DB now turns AND slots into nothing more than another single-skill slot where you can use a big-hitting single skill crew.

PROPOSAL: whatever final formulation we end up with for AND slots, it should be rare/difficult for a crew with only one of the matching skills to be more valuable than one who has a significant amount of both. Agree? Disagree?

If you disagree, stop reading.

If you agree, I believe we should campaign for a final formulation that starts with the simple average, do adequately punish single-skill crew who have to include a big fat ZERO in that average. Then, you apply a bonus to that average to boost the overall value of the slot back to (or above) single skill slots.

I would be OK if the bonus was a percentage of the higher of the two skills. I would probably prefer if the bonus was a percentage of the average (to further emphasize the importance of both skills). But either way would be a massive improvement over the current method.

As a fer-instance, I’ll call back to the MED AND SEC crew slot I posted about in the Engineering Room thread…

With the new AND formula, the game lists the best choices as (added Success % when added as first and only crew, and skill points are for MY CREW, not all of whom are FF/FE):

1) Gunslinger Troi (959 SEC, 0 MED)—23%
2) Baku Worf (902 SEC, 0 MED)—22%
3) GI Paris (490 SEC, 744 MED)—21%
4) Holodoc (0 SEC, 799 MED)—21%
5) Dr. Geordi(558 SEC, 699 MED)—21%
6) Undercover Ro (756 SEC, 0 MED)—21%
7) Changeling Bashir (569 SEC, 648 MED)—21%
8) RAF Bashir (430 SEC, 628 MED)—20%

With the exception of flipping the rankings of GI Paris/Holodoc and Geordi/Ro, the new AND really is just a glorfied OR; the secondary skill barely matters.

Now, if the purpose of the change is to raise the total skill points for the slot, that’s fine (anything to increase chances of success)... but there is something intellectually distasteful about a situation where Geordi has 1257 total skill points, and is in 5th place behind 3 single skill crew with total points of 959, 902, and 799.

I mean, if it was close (such as Paris ranking ahead of Geordi, with 1234 skill points), that’d be fine… but it’s not. Geordi has roughly 30% more skill points than Troi and Worf, and almost 60% more than Holodoc.

So if the goal is to make it so that crew like Geordi don’t get “punished” with a 626.5 average skill, which is less than his 699 MED, let’s add the bonus to that average, instead of simply to the highest stat.

I plugged all this into excel and toyed with the bonus factor. Here’s what happens if you apply a bonus of 25% of the AVERAGE to the average:

1) Dr. Geordi (786 skill points)
2) GI Paris (772)
3) Changeling Bashir (762)
4) RAF Bashir (662)
5) Gunslinger Troi (599)
6) Baku Worf (564)
7) Holodoc (499)
8) Undercover Ro (473)

This is a MUCH more intellectually pleasing order and total value for each crew.

If you are intent on preserving the value of the single higher skill, I found a 20% bonus of the HIGHER SKILL added to the average to produce acceptable results:

1) Geordi (768)
2) Paris (766)
3) Changling (738)
4) Troi (671)
5) RAF Bashir (655)
6) Worf (631)
7) Holodoc (559)
8) Ro (529)

Not quite as pleasing to my sensibilities, but still WAY better than the way things are now. It still feels wrong to me that Troi can come out ahead of RAF Bashir, but I can cope. This is an adequate penalty for anyone trying to skate by with sheer brute force of a one-skill monster, instead of having to adhere to the meaning of the word “AND.”

I know it’s not up to me, but if enough of us voice an opinion, we can get this changed back to something a little more reasonable. As it is, AND is little more than an OR slot with the chance for a very small bonus….

I’m guessing some of the whales who actually compete in the top 100 might prefer it this way (they all have more than enough single skill beasts to crush if they don’t actually have to match the second skill), but the other 99.9% of us would have a lot more fun if we could put some thought into deploying our rag tag crews of 4/4s and 1/5s in a strategic fashion to take advantage of any unusual skill combos.

FIN.

 

 

 Signature 

Fleet: The United Federation of Pragmatists
No crew strength/monetary/social requirements other than being an active casual player who likes getting extra stuff from fleet goals/starbase rewards. ALWAYS hiring.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2017 07:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  854
Joined  2016-09-15

@IrwinFletcher

Dr. Geordi is a event crew. I am not sure why you got the results you did. He should have been number one.
His stat (699 +558/4)*2= 1677 higher than anyone you listed.

Maybe your not talking about this event faction mission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2017 03:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]  
Avatar
Ensign
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  124
Joined  2016-05-14

Correct, Waldo. I was recycling an example I posted in the Engineering Room thread about a week and a half ago, so there are no event bonuses to factor in. While the skill values for my crew may be different from yours, that’s because of fusing and equipping differences, and all my math should be correct.

And even if not, the underlying issue remains, and can be summarized thusly: the glorified OR slot currently masquerading as AND must go!

 Signature 

Fleet: The United Federation of Pragmatists
No crew strength/monetary/social requirements other than being an active casual player who likes getting extra stuff from fleet goals/starbase rewards. ALWAYS hiring.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2017 10:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  854
Joined  2016-09-15
IrwinFletcher - 20 May 2017 03:58 PM

Correct, Waldo. I was recycling an example I posted in the Engineering Room thread about a week and a half ago, so there are no event bonuses to factor in. While the skill values for my crew may be different from yours, that’s because of fusing and equipping differences, and all my math should be correct.

And even if not, the underlying issue remains, and can be summarized thusly: the glorified OR slot currently masquerading as AND must go!

Your suggestion is better. But I do not think the Galaxy event works the new way, but the old way.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 11:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  534
Joined  2016-02-20

Hello, not to be that guy but is there enough data to verify this fix is active? I am having almost a 10 percentage point difference between shown percentage and actual success (it was really bad last week). It’s pretty close to my old success before the fix when it was showing expected success in the mid to high 70s. Now that it shows I am in the mid 80s to low 90s at 4k since the formula change, I am still averaging 70s in actual success.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 11:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  910
Joined  2016-12-08
(FF) This Sisko1 - 21 July 2017 11:46 AM

Hello, not to be that guy but is there enough data to verify this fix is active? I am having almost a 10 percentage point difference between shown percentage and actual success (it was really bad last week). It’s pretty close to my old success before the fix when it was showing expected success in the mid to high 70s. Now that it shows I am in the mid 80s to low 90s at 4k since the formula change, I am still averaging 70s in actual success.

This is purely anecdotal and I haven’t even attempted to do any math or comparisons between different crew, but ...

I find that my actual success with AND slots is much better if the crew has both skills.  I’ll pass over crew that is sorted higher or shows a higher percent if it’s lacking one skill. 

So my suspicion (again, purely anecdotal) is that there might be a bug where the displayed success rate is overstated when the crew has only one of the skills.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]  
Avatar
Lieutenant Commander
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  629
Joined  2016-11-21
Dralix - 21 July 2017 11:56 AM
(FF) This Sisko1 - 21 July 2017 11:46 AM

Hello, not to be that guy but is there enough data to verify this fix is active? I am having almost a 10 percentage point difference between shown percentage and actual success (it was really bad last week). It’s pretty close to my old success before the fix when it was showing expected success in the mid to high 70s. Now that it shows I am in the mid 80s to low 90s at 4k since the formula change, I am still averaging 70s in actual success.

This is purely anecdotal and I haven’t even attempted to do any math or comparisons between different crew, but ...

I find that my actual success with AND slots is much better if the crew has both skills.  I’ll pass over crew that is sorted higher or shows a higher percent if it’s lacking one skill. 

So my suspicion (again, purely anecdotal) is that there might be a bug where the displayed success rate is overstated when the crew has only one of the skills.

I’d agree with that.
I have one mission in this event - cracks in the walls with a sec + eng slot.
Liaison Torres scores one point higher than Maquis Takeover Torres. Both are FF/FE
Liaison Torres has an Eng of 551
Maquis Takeover Torres has a sec +eng of 281+462=743

So even with a percentage boost, Maquis Takeover Torres should score higher that Liaison.
I’m using Maquis Takeover as I’m sure the other is a visual bug and will score me less

Profile
 
 
   
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 > 
4 of 5