Forums » General
Is Deneb Hopeless for Serco ?
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 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".
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
So, I have to post a response here, because some of the points that have been shared are not correct, and will mis-inform future readers. This thread, being public on the General forum, is effectively a big sign, raising the question Is Deneb Hopeless for Serco ?, to which the answer is objectively: NO.
I will go into some further detail about "how" and "why" below, but please appreciate that I'm not out to offend anyone by calling their statements false. That isn't my intent.
But, it is my role to be clear about the nature of measurable objective reality, especially when it is something that the playerbase cannot measure themselves. The community relies on me for this.
Additionally, it should be remembered that I'm always open to feedback on making changes to the game on the Suggestions Forum, or fixing bugs on the Bugs Forum; and explaining the difference is relevant to this discussion:
- Suggestions is mostly about making alterations to the game to serve a subjective goal, like it being "more fun" or "easier to understand". This is a place for opinions and reasonable debates.
- Bugs is mostly about fixing objective issues, like some system fundamentally not working. Only two results are possible: "Broken" or "Working as Intended". Opinions have no place on Bugs.
This is also gets into the difference between a "Bug" (Objective) and a "Design Flaw" (Subjective). God knows, I make lots of flawed game-design decisions, but some of them are intentional (due to limits in development resources), so they may still be "Working as Intended".
This topic, however, was raised largely with the Objective question:
Is the Pseudo Random Number Generator (PRNG) used for Deneb's NPC-vs-NPC "simulated" battles "fair"?
The answer is "Yes, it is fair". For instance, in November, 50% of the NPC-vs-NPC simulated-battle engagements were won by Serco, and 50% by the Itani.
11/25 - Serco
11/18 - Itani
11/11 - Serco
11/04 - Itani
Now, if someone looks at the "final" record for Deneb during that same period, they will see that the Serco did not win those overall weekly battles, because more players participated more actively on the Itani side.
For example, on 11/25, both Harpo and Spidey showed up and did considerable damage on behalf of the Itani side.
This is inherent to the design of the Deneb Warfare system, it basically rewards greater player participation. If people want to suggest alternate designs, then Suggestions is the appropriate place for that. But the system is not "unfair" due to PRNG problems.
But does that fairness "matter" if players "believe" it is weighted in some unfair manner, based on misunderstanding of available data?
(Again, not trying to offend anyone here, but): This was raised as an Objective issue, and what matters in responding to that kind of issue is determining if it is real or not. Opinions and "perceptions" don't enter into it. What matters is the objective reality, not subjective and flawed assumptions based on limited data.
What is important, from an engineering standpoint, is that the binomial distribution of random values is sufficient to converge to a "coin-toss" in a reasonable period of time.
No PRNG will converge extremely quickly, so expectation otherwise (say, based on viewing a limited period of battles) is not that informative. Flipping a coin in real-life also has "weird" variances, you need enough tosses to average out to 50/50.
There is a different argument to be made around design, essentially that communicating the information to the player in a way that is helpful for them to understand the results are fundamentally fair is a useful thing.
That is beneficial, so again, I'm all for improving the game (and interfaces, and website) so that people are better equipped to "realize" it is fundamentally fair. But that is a perceptual "User Experience Design" subject, inherently subjective, and not related to the objective fairness of the game.
But aren't people "cheating" by using player capships in Deneb?
No, not to my knowledge.
There was a point in time (2018) when it was possible to utilize a player capship by someone who was not engaged with the Deneb mission.
This meant they could effectively "spectate", and not really put their own ship at any kind of risk (as it was ignored by Deneb forces), and provide assistance to whomever they wanted. For instance, they could repair the (NPC) capships they wanted to see win, without any direct risk to themselves (the level of "risk" now is debatable but beside the point: the issue was worse previously).
This was a problem, and went through a series of "fixes" in late 2018 through the middle of 2019. Basically, we mandated that capships be part of the "Deneb Mission".
Unfortunately, the original implementation of the "fix" was flawed, and had problems when the owning-player was in one sector, and the capship was in another, and so on. This resulted in ships being targeted and destroyed more actively than they would have been by the intended design.
Over time, this was addressed through improvements and fixes.
I'm not going to go back through every other adjustment and tweak we've made over decades, but no, as far as I'm aware: player capships in the current system are "Working as Intended".
Again, if people want to suggest some alternative gameplay change, then the Suggestions Forum is the place to do that.
Now, I know I contributed to the misconception on here when I oversimplified the reality in my response above, saying "prior advantages like player capships were curtailed by making them KoS in the Deneb battle sectors.". I was in a hurry and making a larger point about player participation.
It would be more accurate to say "unaffiliated player capships were curtailed".
The idea was, once player caps were more actively folded into the battle (as they are now), then more direct forces could be added to endanger those ships, much like Spidey suggests above (again, a good topic for Suggestions).
And, of course, whether it is possible to use player-capships in Deneb or not gives no specific advantage to either side, as either may deploy player capships.
Why do threads like this result in lengthy Developer Responses?
Going back to my initial point, this thread is going to sit here, forever, in General, implying to the casual reader that there is a serious flaw in the mathematical fairness of the Deneb warfare system.
This is not true, but a lot of people who even start to read the thread will "TL;DR" and still leave uncertain about the situation.
Non-English speaking players (of which we have many), reading the site through Google Translate, will be that much more likely to mis-understand.
So, I have to try and do what I can to push back against situations that result in player confusion and misinformation, because we've seen this spiral out of control in some cases, taking on a "life of their own" and becoming difficult conspiracy theories.
As a result, I'm locking this thread.. it has been going on for weeks, people have contributed and I think whatever value it had has been exhausted.
If you think something is bad about Deneb, then post a Suggestion for an improvement on the Suggestions Forum.
That results in a better, more fun game.
While I'm not against open discussion, threads like this tend to result in distribution of misinformation, finger-pointing, name-calling and misplaced mistrust.
I will go into some further detail about "how" and "why" below, but please appreciate that I'm not out to offend anyone by calling their statements false. That isn't my intent.
But, it is my role to be clear about the nature of measurable objective reality, especially when it is something that the playerbase cannot measure themselves. The community relies on me for this.
Additionally, it should be remembered that I'm always open to feedback on making changes to the game on the Suggestions Forum, or fixing bugs on the Bugs Forum; and explaining the difference is relevant to this discussion:
- Suggestions is mostly about making alterations to the game to serve a subjective goal, like it being "more fun" or "easier to understand". This is a place for opinions and reasonable debates.
- Bugs is mostly about fixing objective issues, like some system fundamentally not working. Only two results are possible: "Broken" or "Working as Intended". Opinions have no place on Bugs.
This is also gets into the difference between a "Bug" (Objective) and a "Design Flaw" (Subjective). God knows, I make lots of flawed game-design decisions, but some of them are intentional (due to limits in development resources), so they may still be "Working as Intended".
This topic, however, was raised largely with the Objective question:
Is the Pseudo Random Number Generator (PRNG) used for Deneb's NPC-vs-NPC "simulated" battles "fair"?
The answer is "Yes, it is fair". For instance, in November, 50% of the NPC-vs-NPC simulated-battle engagements were won by Serco, and 50% by the Itani.
11/25 - Serco
11/18 - Itani
11/11 - Serco
11/04 - Itani
Now, if someone looks at the "final" record for Deneb during that same period, they will see that the Serco did not win those overall weekly battles, because more players participated more actively on the Itani side.
For example, on 11/25, both Harpo and Spidey showed up and did considerable damage on behalf of the Itani side.
This is inherent to the design of the Deneb Warfare system, it basically rewards greater player participation. If people want to suggest alternate designs, then Suggestions is the appropriate place for that. But the system is not "unfair" due to PRNG problems.
But does that fairness "matter" if players "believe" it is weighted in some unfair manner, based on misunderstanding of available data?
(Again, not trying to offend anyone here, but): This was raised as an Objective issue, and what matters in responding to that kind of issue is determining if it is real or not. Opinions and "perceptions" don't enter into it. What matters is the objective reality, not subjective and flawed assumptions based on limited data.
What is important, from an engineering standpoint, is that the binomial distribution of random values is sufficient to converge to a "coin-toss" in a reasonable period of time.
No PRNG will converge extremely quickly, so expectation otherwise (say, based on viewing a limited period of battles) is not that informative. Flipping a coin in real-life also has "weird" variances, you need enough tosses to average out to 50/50.
There is a different argument to be made around design, essentially that communicating the information to the player in a way that is helpful for them to understand the results are fundamentally fair is a useful thing.
That is beneficial, so again, I'm all for improving the game (and interfaces, and website) so that people are better equipped to "realize" it is fundamentally fair. But that is a perceptual "User Experience Design" subject, inherently subjective, and not related to the objective fairness of the game.
But aren't people "cheating" by using player capships in Deneb?
No, not to my knowledge.
There was a point in time (2018) when it was possible to utilize a player capship by someone who was not engaged with the Deneb mission.
This meant they could effectively "spectate", and not really put their own ship at any kind of risk (as it was ignored by Deneb forces), and provide assistance to whomever they wanted. For instance, they could repair the (NPC) capships they wanted to see win, without any direct risk to themselves (the level of "risk" now is debatable but beside the point: the issue was worse previously).
This was a problem, and went through a series of "fixes" in late 2018 through the middle of 2019. Basically, we mandated that capships be part of the "Deneb Mission".
Unfortunately, the original implementation of the "fix" was flawed, and had problems when the owning-player was in one sector, and the capship was in another, and so on. This resulted in ships being targeted and destroyed more actively than they would have been by the intended design.
Over time, this was addressed through improvements and fixes.
I'm not going to go back through every other adjustment and tweak we've made over decades, but no, as far as I'm aware: player capships in the current system are "Working as Intended".
Again, if people want to suggest some alternative gameplay change, then the Suggestions Forum is the place to do that.
Now, I know I contributed to the misconception on here when I oversimplified the reality in my response above, saying "prior advantages like player capships were curtailed by making them KoS in the Deneb battle sectors.". I was in a hurry and making a larger point about player participation.
It would be more accurate to say "unaffiliated player capships were curtailed".
The idea was, once player caps were more actively folded into the battle (as they are now), then more direct forces could be added to endanger those ships, much like Spidey suggests above (again, a good topic for Suggestions).
And, of course, whether it is possible to use player-capships in Deneb or not gives no specific advantage to either side, as either may deploy player capships.
Why do threads like this result in lengthy Developer Responses?
Going back to my initial point, this thread is going to sit here, forever, in General, implying to the casual reader that there is a serious flaw in the mathematical fairness of the Deneb warfare system.
This is not true, but a lot of people who even start to read the thread will "TL;DR" and still leave uncertain about the situation.
Non-English speaking players (of which we have many), reading the site through Google Translate, will be that much more likely to mis-understand.
So, I have to try and do what I can to push back against situations that result in player confusion and misinformation, because we've seen this spiral out of control in some cases, taking on a "life of their own" and becoming difficult conspiracy theories.
As a result, I'm locking this thread.. it has been going on for weeks, people have contributed and I think whatever value it had has been exhausted.
If you think something is bad about Deneb, then post a Suggestion for an improvement on the Suggestions Forum.
That results in a better, more fun game.
While I'm not against open discussion, threads like this tend to result in distribution of misinformation, finger-pointing, name-calling and misplaced mistrust.