Seems like the more you try, the worse it gets.
I don't know if this is actually true, but I recall feeling this way even way back when I played this like 10 years ago.

Is there any historical wins/losses score board anywhere just to see if there is any hope at all for Serco to win in Deneb ?

Just curious.

I once recalled a /score command or something so see in game weekly score board but was a long time ago and I don't know if that exists anymore.

Anyhow, just wondered.
Thanks

I'm not sure what you're asking, exactly? But, I'm guessing this is about the NPC-vs-NPC battles..

Assuming no players participate in Deneb, the odds are 50/50 that either side wins any given battle.

People have criticized this in the past, and made all kinds of fascinating claims about "analysis" of the stats, and those people were all proven wrong. The random number generator is sound and effectively matches a coin-toss over a reasonable number of events (we actually went back and did a randomness analysis of the previous history to validate it, years back, because of user complaints).

If players choose to participate, that changes things, as the outcome of the given (single) battle becomes influenced by the player participating.

Some players historically found ways of participating more effectively than others, which is always possible with different levels of player skill and such, but prior advantages like player capships were curtailed by making them KoS in the Deneb battle sectors.

Some players have also historically been good at pulling together motivated strategies to win as many battles as possible. But, again, this has nothing to do with the NPC-battle statistics.

Seems like the more you try, the worse it gets.

I would suggest not putting too much stock in how things "seem". We've had an excess of costly drama over the last few years, based on people's suppositions of how things "seem", which were all wrong.

As always, I have no problem with tweaking or improving Deneb in various ways, and it is on my TODO list, but.. things like the NPC-vs-NPC automated battle outcomes are not "broken".

Thanks, I don't think anything is broken or deliberately unbalanced or anything.
My question was simple and your answer seems clear that there is NO weight given to either side. I'm satisfied with that.

Hmmmm, Well, what "seems actually is.

ATM of this post The Score is player assisted wins "Serco 10, Itani 7" wins. vs Total wins Serco 26 vs 45 Itani..
Last week was a little better but also "seemed" like the more you played and rack up Serco wins the further the divide.
So it "seems" is what it is.

Like I said I'm satisfied with the answer that RNG doesn't do that and that it's not expected to be like this every week. So I don't want to take away from the answer.

Keeping in mind that conclusion that RNG is performing as expected and also appearing weighted during a particular scope of time can both be true at the same time and it is.
What "seems" actually is what it is.
Seems like a waste of time and effort and overload with analytics and information to tell someone they don't see what they see.

Like a coin toss 10 times a day each week. It's entirely possible to get head/tales 75/25 and at some point 25/75 for example which makes RNG work out to a statistical / historical conclusion that is expected.
However, for week one of the coin toss the observer clearly and truely sees what "seems" a weighted flip of heads. This cannot be rebutted with historical analysis because it's already been observed even if not by you.

If we didn't monitor any flipping coins on week 2 then we wouldn't have a reference to compare flipping performance for both weeks.
If we saw what we saw at week 1 which was an RNG/coin toss that performed against tales for that particular week, the observation can't be undone regardless of the overal RNG performance over the year etc.
The observer saw what they saw for that particular time period and scope.

The short scope observation is not wrong nor is the long term RNG performance historically.

I just didn't know if what is observed this week is expected all the time.
So now I know.

Still an important distiction when suggesting that anyone is wrong about what they observe because the scope of the observation can indeed still be true alongside of the longer term RNG performance record and I suspect this is true with many observations and comparisons vs lengthy analysis to suggest otherwise.
Sometimes the information overload looking for answers in data rather then to believe someone actually saw something they claimed doesn't actually make that persons unsee what they saw if that makes any sense.

I'm observing the numbers on the site this week.
It looks horrible ATM and didn't know what is expected so I asked.
I'm glad it's not expected to be like this all the time that's all I was really after.

Thanks and hope this helps.

I wish the itani/serco wh sector was a conq station so the serco could gain a legitimate foothold/respawn short cut

Yeah sounds like a bunch of work though.

I always thought that if players racked up wins that it should be slightly weighted based on participation.
If player assisted loses occured then equally weighted against.

At least this way if RNG is pegged against your for a particular week you might pull off an upset and perhaps gathering some help to the cause would not leave things unmanaged or on auto pilot.

Meaning whatever happens is going to happen regardless of participation and that should be.
Player assisted vs Player assisted should have some weight IMO.

If Itani show up for the battle and no Serco ever show up Itani should get some weighted value for being in the fight and vise versa.

That way at least if RNG randomly but certaintly has picked it's side in the short term it might possibly be overcome with participation and battles.

Current week is now getting worse for Serco 42-65 now a 23 win spread.
It's a tall order LOL for sure.

Wait, what?

Player capships were curtailed in Deneb?

Then why do I regularly see players cheesing fighter skirmishes using capships?

Or just using capships generally in deneb battles?

Player caps used to be barred from deneb, that changed a few years ago.

I wouldn't mind seeing npc's that spawn specifically to neuter capships, a cent with a single pcb that spawns in every 5~15m and exclusively targets opposing player capships would make a lot of sense.

A conq station or two in deneb would be cool as hell while i'm at it.