Forums » Suggestions
From what I can tell by looking through the Deneb stats starting from the week of Dec. 25 - Jan. 2 2012 up through last week, the most imbalanced NPC win count ever was last week, with 61 Itani NPC wins and 37 Serco NPC wins. Meanwhile there were 78 Serco player wins and 39 Itani player wins. The Serco won overall.
On average, there are 60.19 Itani NPC wins and 59.77 Serco NPC wins per week. That's only a 1% difference. So no, there is no bias.
As for whether NPC victories are typically the deciding factor: no, they aren't, at least not for the overall week (there are no daily stats, sadly). There have only been two weeks this year when the difference between NPC victories was greater than the difference between player victories, and only one of those actually counts. Both of those times were in the Itani's favor, and both times the Itani won. However, one of those times the player victories were also in the Itani's favor, so they'd have won even without the NPC victories. The other time was last week, when the number of player victories was exactly equal, which of course means that any NPC difference at all will win it. Interestingly, for some reason that week was also the week with the highest NPC victory difference, at 25. The average difference is about 9 (which compared to the average player win difference of 23 isn't really a huge deal).
So, I am forced to conclude that the NPC activity is not the deciding factor, at least over the course of a week.
I don't know how evenly NPC victories are distributed throughout the week and how the distribution of player victories compares. I would need that data to make any conclusive statements pertaining to how this impacts the blockade.
The rest of this post is just off topic stat reporting. You can ignore it if you only care about the NPC victory stuff.
-----
There have been, on average, 49.88 Itani player wins vs. 30.81 Serco player wins per week. That is a good 38% difference.
The average total wins is 110.08 for the Itani and 90.58 for the Serco. 18% difference.
The Itani won 22/26 of those weeks. Since the year began, the Serco have only won four times, all of which happened since May. (I'm guessing this is when RED got involved.)
I believe that participation has been the deciding factor, not NPCs. Until recently, the Itani had on average 5.2 more players than the Serco, a 27% difference. The last six weeks the balance has shifted the other way, with an average of 6.7 more Serco than Itani, during which time the Serco won 4/6 times.
---
TLDR:
The NPCs have behaved evenly overall to within a single percent difference, so you really need to stop with all this "randomly wins/loses in Deneb typically in Itani favor" bullshit.
The NPCs also have only been the deciding factor a single time since Christmas (last week). I am not saying that they don't periodically shift the balance enough during the week to change who gets the blockade, but on average the difference between player wins is more than twice the difference between NPC wins by the time the week is over.
On average, there are 60.19 Itani NPC wins and 59.77 Serco NPC wins per week. That's only a 1% difference. So no, there is no bias.
As for whether NPC victories are typically the deciding factor: no, they aren't, at least not for the overall week (there are no daily stats, sadly). There have only been two weeks this year when the difference between NPC victories was greater than the difference between player victories, and only one of those actually counts. Both of those times were in the Itani's favor, and both times the Itani won. However, one of those times the player victories were also in the Itani's favor, so they'd have won even without the NPC victories. The other time was last week, when the number of player victories was exactly equal, which of course means that any NPC difference at all will win it. Interestingly, for some reason that week was also the week with the highest NPC victory difference, at 25. The average difference is about 9 (which compared to the average player win difference of 23 isn't really a huge deal).
So, I am forced to conclude that the NPC activity is not the deciding factor, at least over the course of a week.
I don't know how evenly NPC victories are distributed throughout the week and how the distribution of player victories compares. I would need that data to make any conclusive statements pertaining to how this impacts the blockade.
The rest of this post is just off topic stat reporting. You can ignore it if you only care about the NPC victory stuff.
-----
There have been, on average, 49.88 Itani player wins vs. 30.81 Serco player wins per week. That is a good 38% difference.
The average total wins is 110.08 for the Itani and 90.58 for the Serco. 18% difference.
The Itani won 22/26 of those weeks. Since the year began, the Serco have only won four times, all of which happened since May. (I'm guessing this is when RED got involved.)
I believe that participation has been the deciding factor, not NPCs. Until recently, the Itani had on average 5.2 more players than the Serco, a 27% difference. The last six weeks the balance has shifted the other way, with an average of 6.7 more Serco than Itani, during which time the Serco won 4/6 times.
---
TLDR:
The NPCs have behaved evenly overall to within a single percent difference, so you really need to stop with all this "randomly wins/loses in Deneb typically in Itani favor" bullshit.
The NPCs also have only been the deciding factor a single time since Christmas (last week). I am not saying that they don't periodically shift the balance enough during the week to change who gets the blockade, but on average the difference between player wins is more than twice the difference between NPC wins by the time the week is over.
This is typical and it's been like this for at least 2 years that I've been playing
But I'll try to figure out a more efficient way to track this and create the graph, but you could more easily check the Deneb stats on a weekly basis and see this but they don't have a totals page like I made and they should to make it more transparently evident.
Maybe someone could make a plugin to track this or automate this.
But I'll try to figure out a more efficient way to track this and create the graph, but you could more easily check the Deneb stats on a weekly basis and see this but they don't have a totals page like I made and they should to make it more transparently evident.
Maybe someone could make a plugin to track this or automate this.
No it is not typical, as explained in the long post I probably submitted while you were typing. I'm sneaky like that :)
It is very typical I've watched Deneb lose to itani by appox 20 NPC wins per week and sometimes there were only like 2 players who took missions in which there were only a handful of player wins such as 8 player serco wins vs 2 itani wins and itani NPC wins Deneb by 20 quit frequently actually
I showed the example, but this happens all the time I wish I had the historical records of it I would gladly create a graph and put this on a spreadsheet and create the html for it with totals would not be too hard if we had the data but the Deneb stats pages did not happen until recently so I would only like the sector / score totals and I guess there would be no real way to see the player missions wins vs the NPC wins
But for a long long time the NPC's do overcome the player missions wins this is why I'm making the suggestion to begin with.
This is not a bug or complaint post but a 2 year observation and suggestion based on such.
As I said I watched sector counts tally up with NO other missions to take while I am waiting to take a missions itani get 2-3 NPC scores and you don't even need Deneb stats to see this you only need to work in Deneb for a couple months to see this very clearly, but I've been keeping tabs on the score using the /score plugin for about 1.5 - 2 years now
I would not be talking about this if it were not very very noticeable and no suggestion would be needed.
But for a long long time the NPC's do overcome the player missions wins this is why I'm making the suggestion to begin with.
This is not a bug or complaint post but a 2 year observation and suggestion based on such.
As I said I watched sector counts tally up with NO other missions to take while I am waiting to take a missions itani get 2-3 NPC scores and you don't even need Deneb stats to see this you only need to work in Deneb for a couple months to see this very clearly, but I've been keeping tabs on the score using the /score plugin for about 1.5 - 2 years now
I would not be talking about this if it were not very very noticeable and no suggestion would be needed.
Your perceptions are wrong. They do not match the data. I will provide the spreadsheet I made later. Need to clean it up first. But as I said, there has so far only been a single week in the last half year when the NPC victories were the deciding factor, unless the Deneb stats page is horribly broken.
Okay, here is a spreadsheet with all the data from the Deneb Stats page from last week going back to Jan 2, 2012.
deneb.xls
If any of the numbers work out to slightly different than they were in my post, it's because I originally included the Dec. 25 - Jan. 2 data, not realizing it was incomplete. So I omitted that week from this file.
deneb.xls
If any of the numbers work out to slightly different than they were in my post, it's because I originally included the Dec. 25 - Jan. 2 data, not realizing it was incomplete. So I omitted that week from this file.
You used the data from the Deneb stats page for wins/losses which includes turret kill initiated fighter wins/losses which show up on the Deneb stats but are not part of the actual sector wins/losses totals
At the time of this initial post just look at the discrepancy here:
Deneb stats page - 103 / 81
Actual sector counts - 103 / 65
Then the spreadsheet subtracts the player assisted wins from the Deneb stats page counts to get the NPC wins.
This is a very inaccurate calculation and would cause the spreadsheet calcs to be way off as well.
We need to know either the actual sector counts or the actual NPC wins would even be better not extract them from inaccurate numbers.
But anyhow if you increase the number of Faction wins by killing the turrets and taking a fighter mission to get some extra wins on the Deneb stats page then you can't simply subtract the player assisted wins to get the NPC wins
The actual number of sectors won must be used for this calculation.
So unless we have actual historical sector counts the NPC counts extracted will not be useful or accurate
Anyhow, as I said I've watched it for appox. 2 years and typically at the end of each week.
While using the /score plugin which is always different then the Deneb stats page because for the reason I noted above however it is accurate; and I noticed this bias for about 2 years.
I wish I had the actual counts to compare that would be great.
As I said it's very noticeable along with all the other Deneb issues like zombie ships that don't shoot the enemy which compounds this problem as well.
But still I would prefer to win based on player scores not NPC scores.
If not player counted wins only, then at least tell us where the sectors are that are in play at that moment. Not that you could do much about it but with enough players you might be able to.
At this point player numbers have nothing to do with it as I once thought and likely will not be able to overcome the NPC's on a good week.
Again the lottery system is just no good in my opinion.
At the time of this initial post just look at the discrepancy here:
Deneb stats page - 103 / 81
Actual sector counts - 103 / 65
Then the spreadsheet subtracts the player assisted wins from the Deneb stats page counts to get the NPC wins.
This is a very inaccurate calculation and would cause the spreadsheet calcs to be way off as well.
We need to know either the actual sector counts or the actual NPC wins would even be better not extract them from inaccurate numbers.
But anyhow if you increase the number of Faction wins by killing the turrets and taking a fighter mission to get some extra wins on the Deneb stats page then you can't simply subtract the player assisted wins to get the NPC wins
The actual number of sectors won must be used for this calculation.
So unless we have actual historical sector counts the NPC counts extracted will not be useful or accurate
Anyhow, as I said I've watched it for appox. 2 years and typically at the end of each week.
While using the /score plugin which is always different then the Deneb stats page because for the reason I noted above however it is accurate; and I noticed this bias for about 2 years.
I wish I had the actual counts to compare that would be great.
As I said it's very noticeable along with all the other Deneb issues like zombie ships that don't shoot the enemy which compounds this problem as well.
But still I would prefer to win based on player scores not NPC scores.
If not player counted wins only, then at least tell us where the sectors are that are in play at that moment. Not that you could do much about it but with enough players you might be able to.
At this point player numbers have nothing to do with it as I once thought and likely will not be able to overcome the NPC's on a good week.
Again the lottery system is just no good in my opinion.
The numbers may not match the count of the colored sectors, but they do accurately reflect the number of NPC fights, just not the number of NPC fights that mattered for coloring. Coloring is not the point.
The point is that it is not biased. If there were an Itani bias, then when people spawn those fighter skirmishes, the Itani bots would win more often than the Serco bots, and the numbers would reflect that.
They do not.
You could try to suggest that the Itani bias only exists for battles with capital ships, and that there is a Serco bias for the fighter skirmishes, and that the two biases are so serendipitously well matched that after 2951 NPC battles the total wins on each side come out within 1% of eachother, resulting in a strong bias toward the Itani in the colored count but making it perfectly undetectable in the stats page.
I don't buy it. Of the two possibilities, lack of bias is so much more likely that I'd sooner believe you are a troll or complete moron than that there are perfectly counterbalanced biases at play here.
If you want to convince me otherwise, you'd better find some solid evidence. I've already provided mine.
The point is that it is not biased. If there were an Itani bias, then when people spawn those fighter skirmishes, the Itani bots would win more often than the Serco bots, and the numbers would reflect that.
They do not.
You could try to suggest that the Itani bias only exists for battles with capital ships, and that there is a Serco bias for the fighter skirmishes, and that the two biases are so serendipitously well matched that after 2951 NPC battles the total wins on each side come out within 1% of eachother, resulting in a strong bias toward the Itani in the colored count but making it perfectly undetectable in the stats page.
I don't buy it. Of the two possibilities, lack of bias is so much more likely that I'd sooner believe you are a troll or complete moron than that there are perfectly counterbalanced biases at play here.
If you want to convince me otherwise, you'd better find some solid evidence. I've already provided mine.
Even if it statistically even, it's pretty retarded that you can have single case weeks with that much of an NPC bias. It's not really a fair mechanic. The CtC surplus is designed to give a chance for the opposing team to win the next week, CtC has its problems, but it seems a lot fairer to give the losing side an advantage next week, rather than a random chance that you will have a swing in one sides favour.
So, in summary, deneb is imbalanced and needs to be removed.
So, in summary, deneb is imbalanced and needs to be removed.
Except that there isn't that much bias within single weeks. Counting the extra fights, there is on average a difference between Serco and Itani player wins of 27, but only an average difference of 9 for the NPCs. So unless the different counting done by the stats page throws it off by more than 18 in a particular direction per week, player wins are typically the deciding factor. Note the "particular direction" stipulation. If for example the incorrect counting throws off the Serco by 11 and the Itani by 8, that is only an additional difference of three, and is not sufficient to overcome the difference in player victories: 9+3 = 11 < 27. I don't see any reason why the error would be heavily in the Itani's favor and therefor implying that the Serco bots prefer to win the unimportant battles than the important ones.
But wait, there's more. If the Captain is to be believed, it is the total wins that are incorrect, not the player wins, as he is finding the NPC wins by subtracting the stat page's player count from the manual count, which is smaller since the stats page counts too many fights. If that is actually the case, then it means my NPC win numbers are too high in general, but not my player win numbers. Since we've already established that there is no NPC bias, the actual NPC numbers are likely just scaled down from the numbers I found, but with similar proportions. That means the differences are scaled down as well, making the NPC victories even less significant compared to the player victories, which would remain unscaled.
If on the other hand he is mistaken, and it is counting extraneous player wins as well, then that means his example numbers are even more broken than mine are, and that my numbers are at least correct in proportion, if not in totals - which means the 3:1 ratio of player-difference to NPC-difference is correct.
But wait, there's more. If the Captain is to be believed, it is the total wins that are incorrect, not the player wins, as he is finding the NPC wins by subtracting the stat page's player count from the manual count, which is smaller since the stats page counts too many fights. If that is actually the case, then it means my NPC win numbers are too high in general, but not my player win numbers. Since we've already established that there is no NPC bias, the actual NPC numbers are likely just scaled down from the numbers I found, but with similar proportions. That means the differences are scaled down as well, making the NPC victories even less significant compared to the player victories, which would remain unscaled.
If on the other hand he is mistaken, and it is counting extraneous player wins as well, then that means his example numbers are even more broken than mine are, and that my numbers are at least correct in proportion, if not in totals - which means the 3:1 ratio of player-difference to NPC-difference is correct.
Your just not seeing it, that one week example I showed is every week and has been for years
Again you can take the faction wins and subract player wins to get the difference of the NPC wins this calculation is wrong
If you use the actual sector wins which is typically much lower then the Deneb Faction wins shown to acurately reflect the actual number of sector wins, then using your spread sheet might be acurate by subracting the player assisted wins but also the percentage of NPC wins will be much much higher due to the fact that you will lower the number of actual Faction wins and we don't know who is taking more of these emulated fighter missions either so thats another whole subject but I can say that Serco are typically down due to the bias and thus take many more of these missions to pump up the Deneb stats even though in actuality the actual sector wins/losses are totally much diffent, but we can artificially pump up those number to show Serco on top and have been doing it for quit a while as well. Even though it really doesn't count for a sector win at all and results in a loss LOL
I'm not the one who posted a spreadsheet that uses the Deneb faction wins then subtracts player wins to get the NPC wins you did
Look at the formula in your spreadsheed and see how the NPC is calculated which is based on the initial starting number of Deneb faction wins which is totally wrong
The entire spreadsheet is wrong.
If players take extra fighter missions lets say even just 15 in the week this adds to the Deneb faction wins but does not add any player assisted wins nor does it ad any wins on the Deneb stats list below.
So in general using the Deneb stats page to calculate the difference in NPC wins for either side means absolutely nothing at all unless you know for sure the exact number of sector wins.
The sector wins/losses is the only number that matters when trying to extract the NPC wins by subtracting the assisted player wins
If you use the Deneb faction wins then you have no idea how many NPC wins/losses really occured because that number is completely bogus
I can take out a turret in Deneb and win a fighter mission right now to ad to the count but it does not give a sector win, but it does give a Deneb faction win making the entire calculation completely bogus
However, regardless the point is that it is noticeable and I would not have suggested it other wise
No other game that I know of gives the losing team a win for the week due to computer generated lottery system
The win should go to the team with the most wins not the one who has more computer generated wins it's just beyond silly.
But again it's my opinion others seem to like it so we don't need to keep going on about all this perplexing data trying to convince me that it's not bias and then the data your using is not even correct.
I'm happy to consider this topic but I don't think it's really relevent anyhow regardless of the fact that it's completely wrong in my opinion.
I think the suggestion stands as I suggested it, and others disagree and have their reasons
Ok moving on now
Again you can take the faction wins and subract player wins to get the difference of the NPC wins this calculation is wrong
If you use the actual sector wins which is typically much lower then the Deneb Faction wins shown to acurately reflect the actual number of sector wins, then using your spread sheet might be acurate by subracting the player assisted wins but also the percentage of NPC wins will be much much higher due to the fact that you will lower the number of actual Faction wins and we don't know who is taking more of these emulated fighter missions either so thats another whole subject but I can say that Serco are typically down due to the bias and thus take many more of these missions to pump up the Deneb stats even though in actuality the actual sector wins/losses are totally much diffent, but we can artificially pump up those number to show Serco on top and have been doing it for quit a while as well. Even though it really doesn't count for a sector win at all and results in a loss LOL
I'm not the one who posted a spreadsheet that uses the Deneb faction wins then subtracts player wins to get the NPC wins you did
Look at the formula in your spreadsheed and see how the NPC is calculated which is based on the initial starting number of Deneb faction wins which is totally wrong
The entire spreadsheet is wrong.
If players take extra fighter missions lets say even just 15 in the week this adds to the Deneb faction wins but does not add any player assisted wins nor does it ad any wins on the Deneb stats list below.
So in general using the Deneb stats page to calculate the difference in NPC wins for either side means absolutely nothing at all unless you know for sure the exact number of sector wins.
The sector wins/losses is the only number that matters when trying to extract the NPC wins by subtracting the assisted player wins
If you use the Deneb faction wins then you have no idea how many NPC wins/losses really occured because that number is completely bogus
I can take out a turret in Deneb and win a fighter mission right now to ad to the count but it does not give a sector win, but it does give a Deneb faction win making the entire calculation completely bogus
However, regardless the point is that it is noticeable and I would not have suggested it other wise
No other game that I know of gives the losing team a win for the week due to computer generated lottery system
The win should go to the team with the most wins not the one who has more computer generated wins it's just beyond silly.
But again it's my opinion others seem to like it so we don't need to keep going on about all this perplexing data trying to convince me that it's not bias and then the data your using is not even correct.
I'm happy to consider this topic but I don't think it's really relevent anyhow regardless of the fact that it's completely wrong in my opinion.
I think the suggestion stands as I suggested it, and others disagree and have their reasons
Ok moving on now
First of all, you mistake me. I did not say that you subtracted player counts from the deneb stats count. I said you subtracted them from the manual count, which is exactly what you did on page 1.
Secondly: Use some goddamn punctuation. I am sorry to have to say this, but honestly the way you type reeks of rambling idiocy. I suppose it is possible that you are not an idiot, but if you aren't, please stop typing like one.
Thirdly: Yes, my numbers are wrong. That neither makes them meaningless nor useless, as long as we know how they are wrong. They count extra battles in the total wins, but do not update the PC column with those extra results. Knowing that it is wrong in in this way, we can still analyze the data to find information, albeit with less precision than if we had more detailed data. That is what I did in my previous posts.
Also, some other incorrect statements:
"also the percentage of NPC wins will be much much higher due to the fact that you will lower the number of actual Faction wins"
No, you have it backwards. If we replace the bogus wins by the correct (and smaller) number, the total wins will decrease, but the total player wins will not. That means the player wins will become more significant.
"but I can say that Serco are typically down due to the bias"
No, they are typically down due to incompetence and lack of manpower, regardless of whether the NPCs are biased. You have already agreed that the player kills on the stats page are correct. There is a 38% overall difference between the Itani player wins and the Serco player wins. Prior to RED getting involved, there was a 59% difference in the Itani's favor. Since RED started fighting in Deneb, there has been a 23% difference in the Serco's favor. Serco participation has also been greater than the Itani since then. Seems pretty clear to me.
Oh, and you claim that large offsets between actual sector counts and the stats page are the norm, yet as of now the stats are only off by two points total, one each for Serco and Itani. Granted it is only Friday morning.
Secondly: Use some goddamn punctuation. I am sorry to have to say this, but honestly the way you type reeks of rambling idiocy. I suppose it is possible that you are not an idiot, but if you aren't, please stop typing like one.
Thirdly: Yes, my numbers are wrong. That neither makes them meaningless nor useless, as long as we know how they are wrong. They count extra battles in the total wins, but do not update the PC column with those extra results. Knowing that it is wrong in in this way, we can still analyze the data to find information, albeit with less precision than if we had more detailed data. That is what I did in my previous posts.
Also, some other incorrect statements:
"also the percentage of NPC wins will be much much higher due to the fact that you will lower the number of actual Faction wins"
No, you have it backwards. If we replace the bogus wins by the correct (and smaller) number, the total wins will decrease, but the total player wins will not. That means the player wins will become more significant.
"but I can say that Serco are typically down due to the bias"
No, they are typically down due to incompetence and lack of manpower, regardless of whether the NPCs are biased. You have already agreed that the player kills on the stats page are correct. There is a 38% overall difference between the Itani player wins and the Serco player wins. Prior to RED getting involved, there was a 59% difference in the Itani's favor. Since RED started fighting in Deneb, there has been a 23% difference in the Serco's favor. Serco participation has also been greater than the Itani since then. Seems pretty clear to me.
Oh, and you claim that large offsets between actual sector counts and the stats page are the norm, yet as of now the stats are only off by two points total, one each for Serco and Itani. Granted it is only Friday morning.
As far as the irrelevant babble about grammer goes, and since this is blogging and not an English assignment, I would suggest that I don't think that your an idiot either however your rudeness certainly expresses that you are. Perhaps your rudness and need to point out gammar correctness in the most belittling way may be evident of further phycological issues as well. Do you have a spreadsheet on this in which to draw a comparison on any previous posts in which you are rude to others and also belittle them when attempting to mention grammar correction ? Or are you using the grammar corrections to cover up the fact that your spreadsheet was completely wrong and you have a deeper need to make yourself feel better ? I'm not quite sure the reason for the rudeness in the way that your want to point out the grammer correctness but I can only say that this would appear to be a bigger problem.
But back to the topics.
And your statement regarding this
"No, you have it backwards. If we replace the bogus wins by the correct (and smaller) number, the total wins will decrease, but the total player wins will not. That means the player wins will become more significant".
-----side note. even this forum posting is primative and non user friendly,non compliant wywyg editing etc etc.
You really need to read what your writing because your mixing equations and not making much sense.
If you lower the number of total wins to reflect the actual sector wins and subtract the player wins this will increase the impact and lower the number/percentage of NPC wins for that faction. Then and only then will you know the difference between the NPC wins vs the opposing team
If for example lets say you have Deneb stats with 100 wins and 50player wins you spreadsheet would show 50 NPC using the equation
If in actuality, the number of sector wins was only 80 then you would subtract the player wins of 50 and this leaves you with only 30NPC serco wins
This is a huge difference and shows a much weaker NPC win number and is approximately 60% difference in this calculation
And then you would also use that number to see the difference in the NPC wins of the itani and you would clearly see the major overall difference
Again I don't know if your just being funny or if you really just can't see that this entire spreadsheet is completely wrong by a large percentage amount. It's way off because the starting number is way off and not actual sector wins.
As I said, I think this subject has been covered in my previous post and the suggestion stands as I suggested it.
Deneb should be won by the players with the most actual wins plain and simple.
You don't agree ok, but your just making a fool of yourself now trying to defend your inaccurate data; and trying to justify your opinion about why you disagree with my suggestion.
It would appear that the reasons do not matter but only that you disagree I get that.
I would have thought for sure that everyone would want the actual winning team no matter who they are to be the actual winners not just a lottery system.
Your defending the lottery system and believe that you have proven to yourself that it's completely fair but you don't know because you used incorrect data, and also did not observe the actual scores ongoingly like I have.
I have witnessed this first hand and you want to disagree with the witness because you have some calculations you have convinced yourself to believe that you must be correct.
Again, the witness and descriptions I have provided are true, along with the observation of the continous zombie ships which helps provide the premise for suggestion as well.
Without a clear path to win and beat the NPC's overwhelming counting in Deneb is basically just boring.
I posted in other posts about the zombie ships and other problem in Deneb; and for a long time just gave up on Deneb due to NO activity and overwhelming NPC wins for itani side. This was routinely observed and so I did other things for many month, while watching Deneb go up in smoke with maybe 2 players attending for a long time.
Since others have also complained about the same things that the devs said would not be fixed and are not important then I suggested perahps more number and we have had more activity but looks like this is starting to die out again many see the ongoing zombie ships along with the bogus NPC itani wins counting up.
Instead of trying to defend your spreadsheet why not get actual sector counts and real data to look at so you can see for your self instead of hypothesizing adnausium ?
Again this post is way past dead and over, and way beyond the subject in general.
I can't say this enough but the suggestion is what it is and if you can't understand the suggestion here it is again.
"Deneb sector wins only for player selected missions".
You don't agree ok then don't implement it and watch Deneb slowly die out as it's been for the last 2 years with only recent increase in activity over the last 1.5-2 months.
Over and Out.
But back to the topics.
And your statement regarding this
"No, you have it backwards. If we replace the bogus wins by the correct (and smaller) number, the total wins will decrease, but the total player wins will not. That means the player wins will become more significant".
-----side note. even this forum posting is primative and non user friendly,non compliant wywyg editing etc etc.
You really need to read what your writing because your mixing equations and not making much sense.
If you lower the number of total wins to reflect the actual sector wins and subtract the player wins this will increase the impact and lower the number/percentage of NPC wins for that faction. Then and only then will you know the difference between the NPC wins vs the opposing team
If for example lets say you have Deneb stats with 100 wins and 50player wins you spreadsheet would show 50 NPC using the equation
If in actuality, the number of sector wins was only 80 then you would subtract the player wins of 50 and this leaves you with only 30NPC serco wins
This is a huge difference and shows a much weaker NPC win number and is approximately 60% difference in this calculation
And then you would also use that number to see the difference in the NPC wins of the itani and you would clearly see the major overall difference
Again I don't know if your just being funny or if you really just can't see that this entire spreadsheet is completely wrong by a large percentage amount. It's way off because the starting number is way off and not actual sector wins.
As I said, I think this subject has been covered in my previous post and the suggestion stands as I suggested it.
Deneb should be won by the players with the most actual wins plain and simple.
You don't agree ok, but your just making a fool of yourself now trying to defend your inaccurate data; and trying to justify your opinion about why you disagree with my suggestion.
It would appear that the reasons do not matter but only that you disagree I get that.
I would have thought for sure that everyone would want the actual winning team no matter who they are to be the actual winners not just a lottery system.
Your defending the lottery system and believe that you have proven to yourself that it's completely fair but you don't know because you used incorrect data, and also did not observe the actual scores ongoingly like I have.
I have witnessed this first hand and you want to disagree with the witness because you have some calculations you have convinced yourself to believe that you must be correct.
Again, the witness and descriptions I have provided are true, along with the observation of the continous zombie ships which helps provide the premise for suggestion as well.
Without a clear path to win and beat the NPC's overwhelming counting in Deneb is basically just boring.
I posted in other posts about the zombie ships and other problem in Deneb; and for a long time just gave up on Deneb due to NO activity and overwhelming NPC wins for itani side. This was routinely observed and so I did other things for many month, while watching Deneb go up in smoke with maybe 2 players attending for a long time.
Since others have also complained about the same things that the devs said would not be fixed and are not important then I suggested perahps more number and we have had more activity but looks like this is starting to die out again many see the ongoing zombie ships along with the bogus NPC itani wins counting up.
Instead of trying to defend your spreadsheet why not get actual sector counts and real data to look at so you can see for your self instead of hypothesizing adnausium ?
Again this post is way past dead and over, and way beyond the subject in general.
I can't say this enough but the suggestion is what it is and if you can't understand the suggestion here it is again.
"Deneb sector wins only for player selected missions".
You don't agree ok then don't implement it and watch Deneb slowly die out as it's been for the last 2 years with only recent increase in activity over the last 1.5-2 months.
Over and Out.
Stop calling it a lottery it isn't a random dice roll
Rins account of things makes more sense, yours does not
Let's not forget other zany zzak ramblings like how for a year VO must have had a bug that only affected zzak and made his vo alone act weird in ways like everyone jumping about, rendering errors, and it was also at that time responsible for his losses in Deneb then.
In any case there has been enough arguments here to ensure this never happens anyways so issue resolved!
Rins account of things makes more sense, yours does not
Let's not forget other zany zzak ramblings like how for a year VO must have had a bug that only affected zzak and made his vo alone act weird in ways like everyone jumping about, rendering errors, and it was also at that time responsible for his losses in Deneb then.
In any case there has been enough arguments here to ensure this never happens anyways so issue resolved!
Poor ole CrazySpence
Show me how the data makes more sense then using actual real data ? Did you even read my posts here ?
I don't know what your other rambling is about, but the devs expressed they know about some of the problems I posted in the forums and that they are not a priority.
Things like zombie ships etc, but I don't know what your going on about.
Some even suggested to try to bump them in the back to push them closer to the opposing ships so they might start fireing or something but they just sit there watching. Hac, Teradon etc.
Whats wrong with wanting your teams ships to shoot at the enemy and not just sit directly next to the fight while the connie is getting torn apart.
Sometimes there is missions where is looks like Serco didn't get the memo and they just hold formation as if they are waiting for the mission to start.
Itani teradons come and take em all out in nothing flat while they just sit there looking at eachother.
Devs know about zombie ships and they said it's low priority which I was totally surprised about that one but whatever.
All I can say is once again, it's amazing the types of responses I'm getting for simply suggesting that the Deneb sector wins should only be counted for player attended missions and not for NPC counts. Who cares if the NPC's win or lose Deneb so what.
Why even bother showing up knowing that the NPC's could and typically do overcome the player wins anyhow ?
Yes that is a lottery just like vegas even though there are players but same concept.
Show me how the data makes more sense then using actual real data ? Did you even read my posts here ?
I don't know what your other rambling is about, but the devs expressed they know about some of the problems I posted in the forums and that they are not a priority.
Things like zombie ships etc, but I don't know what your going on about.
Some even suggested to try to bump them in the back to push them closer to the opposing ships so they might start fireing or something but they just sit there watching. Hac, Teradon etc.
Whats wrong with wanting your teams ships to shoot at the enemy and not just sit directly next to the fight while the connie is getting torn apart.
Sometimes there is missions where is looks like Serco didn't get the memo and they just hold formation as if they are waiting for the mission to start.
Itani teradons come and take em all out in nothing flat while they just sit there looking at eachother.
Devs know about zombie ships and they said it's low priority which I was totally surprised about that one but whatever.
All I can say is once again, it's amazing the types of responses I'm getting for simply suggesting that the Deneb sector wins should only be counted for player attended missions and not for NPC counts. Who cares if the NPC's win or lose Deneb so what.
Why even bother showing up knowing that the NPC's could and typically do overcome the player wins anyhow ?
Yes that is a lottery just like vegas even though there are players but same concept.
Well, even though this isn't an English assignment, the general idea (even in blogging) is to try to communicate your ideas. Without punctuation, it is more difficult for other people to read your ideas. When you type 167 word run-on sentence, that makes it harder than it needs to be. This might be counter-intuitive, but typing the way you talk usually isn't an effective way to convey ideas, unless you have an oddly formal speaking style.
And by the way, "blogging" does not refer to just any random posting of stuff on the net. What we're doing here is called forum discussion. Similar in some respects, but very much distinct. Not that it has any relevance to whether you should type clearly.
And by the way, "blogging" does not refer to just any random posting of stuff on the net. What we're doing here is called forum discussion. Similar in some respects, but very much distinct. Not that it has any relevance to whether you should type clearly.
So, I watched the deneb stats closely yesterday, and it turns out that the overlap bug that CS identified also impacts all numbers listed (I had thought it only affected the skirmish list at the bottom). This includes the number of player wins, which means that my computations comparing the Serco and Itani player effectiveness may be incorrect, if the Itani have a much higher participation rate than Serco during the first 24 hours after the system resets. It also means that you cannot take the actual manual sector count and subtract the player count on the stats page to get the NPC count, the way we believed we could up until just now, nor can you subtract the manual count from the deneb stats to get the number of extra fights. Well, you can, but only for the current week, not previous weeks, because the data for previous weeks is polluted due to overlap.
Anyways, like I said I was watching Deneb. At the end, the actual sector count was this:
Itani: 82
Serco: 86
Now, if you go to the stats page and check the stats for last week, it makes it seem that there were many extra fights that didn't count for anything, but that is not true. The extra numbers it is showing are overlap with today. I know this because I have watched the numbers on the stats page, and they have been still increasing since Deneb reset, and the changes match the wins that have happened for the new week.
So as of right now, for example, it shows the following for last week:
Itani: 92 total, 24 player
Serco: 96 total, 25 player
But for the current week it currently shows the following:
Itani: 9 total, 4 player
Serco: 9 total, 0 player
After subtraction to remove the overlap, we get the following for last week:
Itani: 83 total, 20 player
Serco: 87 total, 25 player
This is what the stat page actually showed at the time when the system reset. This trick will probably stop working this afternoon or so, when we hit the 24 hour mark since the system reset, and the current week begins accumulating data that doesn't overlap.
Anyway, compare the corrected deneb stats to the manual sector count, and you will see that there were only two extra fights, one for each side.
Two out of 168 fights is pretty much insignificant. Now, this is just a single week, so obviously I can't extrapolate to say that it was a typical example of the number of extra fights. If that is the case however, it would mean that though the Deneb stats page is useless for finding who won, it is not useless for analyzing bias and NPC relevance. But it will take several weeks before I have enough data to determine that. (Sorry, but no I will not take your word for it.)
But for this last week at least, there was neither bias nor lottery, as the two sides had almost identical NPC victories.
PS: Is this what it's like to be a baseball fan?
Anyways, like I said I was watching Deneb. At the end, the actual sector count was this:
Itani: 82
Serco: 86
Now, if you go to the stats page and check the stats for last week, it makes it seem that there were many extra fights that didn't count for anything, but that is not true. The extra numbers it is showing are overlap with today. I know this because I have watched the numbers on the stats page, and they have been still increasing since Deneb reset, and the changes match the wins that have happened for the new week.
So as of right now, for example, it shows the following for last week:
Itani: 92 total, 24 player
Serco: 96 total, 25 player
But for the current week it currently shows the following:
Itani: 9 total, 4 player
Serco: 9 total, 0 player
After subtraction to remove the overlap, we get the following for last week:
Itani: 83 total, 20 player
Serco: 87 total, 25 player
This is what the stat page actually showed at the time when the system reset. This trick will probably stop working this afternoon or so, when we hit the 24 hour mark since the system reset, and the current week begins accumulating data that doesn't overlap.
Anyway, compare the corrected deneb stats to the manual sector count, and you will see that there were only two extra fights, one for each side.
Two out of 168 fights is pretty much insignificant. Now, this is just a single week, so obviously I can't extrapolate to say that it was a typical example of the number of extra fights. If that is the case however, it would mean that though the Deneb stats page is useless for finding who won, it is not useless for analyzing bias and NPC relevance. But it will take several weeks before I have enough data to determine that. (Sorry, but no I will not take your word for it.)
But for this last week at least, there was neither bias nor lottery, as the two sides had almost identical NPC victories.
PS: Is this what it's like to be a baseball fan?
I just fixed the overlap issue. I'm not sure I completely followed all the statistical arguments, but I seriously doubt that there's an Itani bias in either of the two types of skirmish emulation. If there are any other specific stats I can add to the page to help alleviate the confusion, I'll look into doing so.
In the case where a skirmish of a given size is to be started, but there's already one of that size running, the winner is decided in the simplest way you can imagine, and I'm quite sure it's as even as a coin flip.
In the case of a posted skirmish in a non-running sector, individual ships are randomly destroyed in a somewhat complicated manner that favors the side with more ships. Both sides start with the same number of ships, and when I first wrote the code, I verified that the results were balanced. On the other hand, it is conceivable that one side would be favored in a running sector since they do have different types of fighters; I may try to determine if that's the case soon, if I can find the time.
Note that I'm not commenting on the original suggestion; John makes those decisions.
In the case where a skirmish of a given size is to be started, but there's already one of that size running, the winner is decided in the simplest way you can imagine, and I'm quite sure it's as even as a coin flip.
In the case of a posted skirmish in a non-running sector, individual ships are randomly destroyed in a somewhat complicated manner that favors the side with more ships. Both sides start with the same number of ships, and when I first wrote the code, I verified that the results were balanced. On the other hand, it is conceivable that one side would be favored in a running sector since they do have different types of fighters; I may try to determine if that's the case soon, if I can find the time.
Note that I'm not commenting on the original suggestion; John makes those decisions.
Thanks for the response
Perhaps separating those fighter missions that get initiated by turret kills could so you could see the actual sector wins on the Deneb page.
Then maybe a separate column that shows those number of reset sector fighter missions etc.
Then a column to show the NPC win/losses based on the event that occured but not an equation unless it's actually based on sector counts
Another topic seems to be emerging too.
Currently there are 2 player mission that show 0 player assist which was aborted to look at other missions and then RL stuff too, and so the mission ended before I could get back to the station and see it so what happens to the win ?
I can only hope that this is the case for both sides, but somehow I have doubts.
I've seen missions where there was no stats in which there are player wins.
I don't recall seing a 0
Is this something new ?
Perhaps separating those fighter missions that get initiated by turret kills could so you could see the actual sector wins on the Deneb page.
Then maybe a separate column that shows those number of reset sector fighter missions etc.
Then a column to show the NPC win/losses based on the event that occured but not an equation unless it's actually based on sector counts
Another topic seems to be emerging too.
Currently there are 2 player mission that show 0 player assist which was aborted to look at other missions and then RL stuff too, and so the mission ended before I could get back to the station and see it so what happens to the win ?
I can only hope that this is the case for both sides, but somehow I have doubts.
I've seen missions where there was no stats in which there are player wins.
I don't recall seing a 0
Is this something new ?