It's possible that 400k will be higher than 1500 at the end of the event. Mirror Landry isn't a very good card, so my sense is that a few people are taking this faction off to save boosts.
To be fair, the expanded threshold rewards were a long-time request by players here on the forums (hard to believe I've been playing for over 2 years and feel like one of those long-time players now). Too many players were clearing thresholds within the first 2 or 3 days of a 4-day event, so DB listened and provided additional rewards as stretch-goals. They were never intended to be attainable easily or by all players.
You've conflated two different developments - the legendary added to thresholds in repeat events and expanded threshold rewards.
Even if I were to accept this mistaken connection, I would ask what players requested moving the goal posts on an old legendary to the nigh-unobtainable 400k level?
People can make excuses for the accessibility of 400k all they want, but it's a small percentage of players participating in an event that can reach that rank. I would think most people that can regularly pull down that kind of VP level don't need an obsolete card unless they're completionists. So who exactly is this "reward" targeted to?
i realize people who have spent a ton on this game don't want to "devalue" their purchases, but a gold card has never been worth the investment at the current price points. It seems like most people advocate for the so-called legendary to remain expensive and unobtainable because of their investment, not because it makes for a better game play experience.
Sure you can be a resource hoarder and stock up enough boosts etc., but this still isn't a sustainable strategy for people playing events every week.
It's sustainable for people with adwarps. I place top 1000 every week without spending money on events. The new ticketless adwarps for Cadet missions have made it even easier to do so.
And I think you've misinterpreted "hard work" - in this context, it means "challenge". Some people like some challenge in their video games, rather than just be allowed to win no matter how badly you play.
I've been playing since near the start of the game and have lurked on the forum and other STT social media since near the start. After about the first six months, provided I could play the game all day long, top 1k was easy peasy regardless of format. Now even with adwarps, that's not the case since there's a solid 9 or so hours two days out of four that I can't play the game.
This is not to make the same "everyone must be like me/can do this" mistake. I expect most players haven't put in the time and resources I have, and invariably most are probably playing casually instead of trying to be "competitive." So that's what I base sustainability on - that my above average crew and understanding of the game is not the benchmark of what the average player is experiencing. If it's tough for me, it's invariably tougher for the 50K+ players that rank lower than I do week in and week out.
If your benchmark of sustainability truly fit the definition of the word, more than 3-5k players a week would hit that mark. It's probably closer to 1k that can follow your model every week. That's such an obviously terrible benchmark.
And I think you've misinterpreted what "challenge" means. How is it "challenging" to have the free time to play the game every three hours??
I very badly want to know what's challenging about this game... either spend a lot of time doing repetitive tasks and/or spend a boatload of money is now somehow a challenge? Literally everything else is in the most razor thin of margins. To call it superior tactics/strategy/gameplay is almost charmingly naive. Money and lots of free time offset everything else by a wide margin.
A game of chess against an opponent better than you is a challenge. Whatever this game is, a challenge it is not. It's not even a challenging CCG, if that's the nearest analog one wants to use for comparison.
Also just a point of reference the old legendary card was introduced into the threshold first, at a much more achievable threshold before expanding the threshold rewards as I recall.
[was on Sabbatical/Hiatus] Currently a trialist at Galaxy SquadronSTAY SAFE and KBO
I very badly want to know what's challenging about this game... either spend a lot of time doing repetitive tasks and/or spend a boatload of money is now somehow a challenge? Literally everything else is in the most razor thin of margins. To call it superior tactics/strategy/gameplay is almost charmingly naive. Money and lots of free time offset everything else by a wide margin.
I don't disagree that the two things in this game that drive a significant portion of performance are money and time. That's as it should be. At the end of the day this is a game, operated by a company, that has to pay employees. The only way they can achieve that goal are by people spending money on in app purchases or by spending time in the game viewing ads.
However there are plenty of things players can do that help on small levels to be more efficient than other players putting in comparable levels of time and effort.
Here is one detailed Quick-start example plus a few others ideas for strategies:
Quick-start Option A: Open 24 missions, complete 11 1 minute missions, open and complete 11 with 3* boosts. Complete remaining 13 1 minute missions. 35 missions, Uses 11 3* boosts and 3898 VP received.
Quick-start Option B: Open 24 missions, complete (12 times) and reopen (11 times) one mission repeatedly with minimum boost required each time. Then complete 23 remaining 1 minute missions. 35 missions, Uses 2 3* boosts and 1557 VP received from the Quick-start. Then use those 9 extra 3* boosts on 4k missions later. At an estimate of an extra 1500 VP each from those 3* boosts later that is 13500VP additional VP, or 15KVP from the same resources as option A.
Even though Option A is referred to as the option that gives you more VP from the Quick-start (3898 VP versus 1557 VP), in the long run it costs you 11k VP over option B.
Other ideas:
Pre-farm most of your ship battle items during skirmishes. This can cut your cost of a lot of galaxy specific items (e.g. Stem bolts, novels, flux couplers) in half due to the skirmish rewards.
Use missions than aren't the best farming mission for any specific item, but have 2-3 useful drops.
If you want to improve galaxy performance, recall all your voyages right after the 6 or 8 hour dilemma to increase the amount of time the voyage drops 0 and 1* items that are used in galaxies.
Hold open extra faction missions you don't want to run by using extra transmissions so you can run your best 4 missions each time. This can add 5-10% to your average success rates.
Balance your faction missions. With the same crew being used you are usually better off with 4 shuttles as close to the same percentage as possible since the average skill versus shuttle percentage is not linear.
To be fair, the expanded threshold rewards were a long-time request by players here on the forums (hard to believe I've been playing for over 2 years and feel like one of those long-time players now). Too many players were clearing thresholds within the first 2 or 3 days of a 4-day event, so DB listened and provided additional rewards as stretch-goals. They were never intended to be attainable easily or by all players.
You've conflated two different developments - the legendary added to thresholds in repeat events and expanded threshold rewards.
Even if I were to accept this mistaken connection, I would ask what players requested moving the goal posts on an old legendary to the nigh-unobtainable 400k level?
People can make excuses for the accessibility of 400k all they want, but it's a small percentage of players participating in an event that can reach that rank. I would think most people that can regularly pull down that kind of VP level don't need an obsolete card unless they're completionists. So who exactly is this "reward" targeted to?
i realize people who have spent a ton on this game don't want to "devalue" their purchases, but a gold card has never been worth the investment at the current price points. It seems like most people advocate for the so-called legendary to remain expensive and unobtainable because of their investment, not because it makes for a better game play experience.
Sure you can be a resource hoarder and stock up enough boosts etc., but this still isn't a sustainable strategy for people playing events every week.
It's sustainable for people with adwarps. I place top 1000 every week without spending money on events. The new ticketless adwarps for Cadet missions have made it even easier to do so.
And I think you've misinterpreted "hard work" - in this context, it means "challenge". Some people like some challenge in their video games, rather than just be allowed to win no matter how badly you play.
I've been playing since near the start of the game and have lurked on the forum and other STT social media since near the start. After about the first six months, provided I could play the game all day long, top 1k was easy peasy regardless of format. Now even with adwarps, that's not the case since there's a solid 9 or so hours two days out of four that I can't play the game.
This is not to make the same "everyone must be like me/can do this" mistake. I expect most players haven't put in the time and resources I have, and invariably most are probably playing casually instead of trying to be "competitive." So that's what I base sustainability on - that my above average crew and understanding of the game is not the benchmark of what the average player is experiencing. If it's tough for me, it's invariably tougher for the 50K+ players that rank lower than I do week in and week out.
If your benchmark of sustainability truly fit the definition of the word, more than 3-5k players a week would hit that mark. It's probably closer to 1k that can follow your model every week. That's such an obviously terrible benchmark.
And I think you've misinterpreted what "challenge" means. How is it "challenging" to have the free time to play the game every three hours??
I very badly want to know what's challenging about this game... either spend a lot of time doing repetitive tasks and/or spend a boatload of money is now somehow a challenge? Literally everything else is in the most razor thin of margins. To call it superior tactics/strategy/gameplay is almost charmingly naive. Money and lots of free time offset everything else by a wide margin.
A game of chess against an opponent better than you is a challenge. Whatever this game is, a challenge it is not. It's not even a challenging CCG, if that's the nearest analog one wants to use for comparison.
Fair point about the old 5* being moved to a higher level on the expanded thresholds for repeat events, from where it was originally introduced.
My hunch is that they felt it was too easy to obtain where they first placed it, which somewhat devalued the 5* card. With the introduction of completely revamped and expanded threshold rewards for all events, the easy 'fix' was to simply add it to the end as the next 50k reward, exclusively for repeat events.
On one hand, I think that's fair, since it's still a free 5*. On the other hand, they had already set precedent in several events, at a much lower score. I suppose they could still make it harder to obtain that extra reward, without making it the extreme reward after all the other rewards. Perhaps slotting it in as an extra reward at 225k, 275k, or 325k during repeat events?
So first let me say that I'm gratefully for everyone who has taken the time to read and respond and offer advice. This is what a gaming community is supposed to be about. I had no idea the thread would generate such interest and as many responses. I'm glad the thread was not perceived as a venting thread and that it did not devolve into one.
[quote="12345678 of 123456789;c-148538" Here is one detailed Quick-start example plus a few others ideas for strategies:
Quick-start Option A: Open 24 missions, complete 11 1 minute missions, open and complete 11 with 3* boosts. Complete remaining 13 1 minute missions. 35 missions, Uses 11 3* boosts and 3898 VP received.
Quick-start Option B: Open 24 missions, complete (12 times) and reopen (11 times) one mission repeatedly with minimum boost required each time. Then complete 23 remaining 1 minute missions. 35 missions, Uses 2 3* boosts and 1557 VP received from the Quick-start. Then use those 9 extra 3* boosts on 4k missions later. At an estimate of an extra 1500 VP each from those 3* boosts later that is 13500VP additional VP, or 15KVP from the same resources as option A.
[/list]
So here's the question.
People keep talking about "Opening X number of 1 minute missions" or "X number of 1.5 hour missions."
I don't totally understand this. It sound like what people are saying is that by opening the mission you are locking in 2 things.
1- the length of time the shuttle mission takes. and...
2- the XP value of the mission
Is this correct? I've never paid that close of attention before but I always assumed that the time length and XP rewards just increased with each mission you completed.
But what about all the 3min, 5min, 10min, 30 minute missions. Don't those still have to be completed?
Re: "Hard Work"
In the context that we are talking about, the guy asking the original question and soliciting advice from the player base - who has 3 shuttles and not the greatest crew - it's hard work for him to hit 400k - it's doable, it won't be fun (which is the point of a game) - but it is illustrating a point for him. But ultimately is it a game? Yes. Should the phrase 'hard work' and a game go together? Probably not.
And yet, here we are.
Do I think DB should include an old gold in reward tables for re-runs? Sure!
Do I think 400K is the appropriate total for it? Nope. Bump the gold down to ...250K? Roughly in that neighborhood gives it more reach to more players - probably those it could benefit more. DB has the potential to sell more $25 DYS that way as well.
So here's the question.
People keep talking about "Opening X number of 1 minute missions" or "X number of 1.5 hour missions."
I don't totally understand this. It sound like what people are saying is that by opening the mission you are locking in 2 things.
1- the length of time the shuttle mission takes. and...
2- the XP value of the mission
Is this correct? I've never paid that close of attention before but I always assumed that the time length and XP rewards just increased with each mission you completed.
But what about all the 3min, 5min, 10min, 30 minute missions. Don't those still have to be completed?
Missions length and VP are determined when you open (not send or complete) the shuttle based on your net successes (passes - 1.5xfails) at the time you open it.
The table below has details.
You can open up to 24 (or the max missions at once for the event) and they will all be the same as long as you don’t complete any missions while opening them.
Obviously not all 32 runs will produce 12k VP, so....
Might want to prioritize a calculator over that dictionary, Frank.
I'm not against DB making money or the game taking time (and some thoughtful consideration) to improve game outcome. I wouldn't be almost 3 years in and well on the way to VIP 14 if that were the case. What I take issue with is the frequent overvaluing of in game assets and the continual poor value propositions masquerading as deals, incentives, or what have you.
For my part, it's actually made the game easier not chasing golds in thresholds, rank, or packs. I don't mind playing non-competitively most weeks. I would expect this to be a minority sentiment, though.
@BIOMECHANIK - forgot to mention this earlier and I don't think I saw this in other posts - one thing you might want to try to mine dilithium for that 4th shuttle is to immortalize 1*'s to drive up the achievement count. Each immortalized card works towards the achievement, regardless of if you've immortalized them before. Ensign Kim and Yeoman Rand are your new best friends. Avoid Maquis Chakotay, Chief Engineer Torres, and Teenager Nog. The rest depends on your inventory.
hmm at this point in the event i got 156k in pts not sure to be abale to make 400k for the agent janeway. and needed 1 Ro laren i buy 1 pack got me Ro Laren and suprise got 2 behold 1st is this and me 2nd i got choice between Founder, Cullber, Joahchim
if i am not abale to hit Agent Janeway at least i got this good pack
I forget the exact results of my recent no speedboost test. No extra shuttles. 4 shuttles. Sleeping overnight 9 hours. It was somewhere between 300,000 and 350,000 with appx 80% success rate.
I've been here since day 1 with a let's say moderate crew (still vip 12 woohoo!)
3 shuttles = boost every one to 1.5 hours or forget it.
4 shuttles = maybe 40 boosts needed.
Let's also be honest - unless you have an all 5/5 crew and all shuttles stocked with event crew this talk of 100% success or 95% success is ridiculous. It's going to be in the 70-90% range for most people.
I have zero interest anymore in being put on the clock like this. I wouldn't even do it for a card I had at 4/5. The only replay I would do is a hybrid or galaxy. Then the 400,000 required is fine.
Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, is all ancient history. Then, before you can blink an eye, suddenly, it threatens to start all over again."
Shan has already stated they r not going to reduce the thresholds. I believe it was increased because many veteran players were saying it was too easy to make threshold and they were bored. Which makes sense.
But for new or mid lvl players it is a nightmare when u review the reward vp amt.
maybe a better balance where 1 copy of top 400k reward is avail at 200k, and a second at 400k. And make the 4* copies a bit more anainable at a lower vp, below 200k, then add the 3rd* and/or 4th* at a higher vp such as 320k-375k.
Give every level of player a fair chance and make the good stuff attainable for all to some degree.
I guarantee you'd get people complaining they couldn't obtain the second copy. It's good to have stretch goals - the entirety of the game shouldn't be immediately accessible to every new player. It would get boring with no challenge, and DB would make less money - ultimately you then risk losing the game altogether.
Well, OP, Friday night I logged in, lurked, read your post and nodded my head. I think 400K is too much for newer to mid-level players and probably should be closer to 200K. My situation: I had Noah at 3* and figured, maybe I could do enough to get a 4th copy of him. Though I had never finished higher than 3000 in Faction events. Just not a deep enough crew. At the start of this event I had the following:
I did a jumpstart, and sent out 4 shuttles, lead by Noah, Disguised Tuvok, High Roller+Promoted, Niners+Janeway, each filled out with non-event crew. Shuttles kept coming back successful Thursday and Friday. Saturday I was in the 1100s and going, huh, I'm competitive. So I leveled up Maquis Ro, Noah, and Disguised Tuvok all to 100 and used Noah, Ro, Tuvok, and Rifle Janeway as my 4 shuttle leaders with mostly non-event crew. Saturday the shuttles kept coming in successful. Sunday I realized I was sitting on all these 3 hour doublers I had won from Skirmish rewards but never saw fit to use since I don't compete in Factions normally and they don't show up on the time boost page. Sent out 10 shuttles with those (6 each lead by Noah and Ro) and 9 came back with 8000 VP. Anyway, I finished this morning in the upper 600s. I did burn a lot of boosts but I have tons left since I never push hard in Factions (or Galaxy) anyway. So apparently what a mid-level player needs to compete in one of these is:
1) Bunches of established players sitting out
2) Lots of built up boosts that we typically never use
3) Some luck on shuttle returns.
That 3rd point probably is its own discussion. Once I hit the 4000 point shuttles, I did not see a single shuttle that said it had a predicted success rate higher than 72% for the entire weekend. Most were listed in the mid 60s% level. (including boosts) Not surprising since I only had 1-2 event crew on every shuttle and most are weaker varieties. Yet I had very few failures. Now I've lurked enough on this forum to know everyone cries RNG! in situations like this. Hey, I get random numbers; I'm a scientist and we deal with random error and variation every day. But I no longer think the success rates should be taken all that seriously, or should I say that I no longer think that the probability results in this game follow a normal distribution of error.
Regardless I have Noah's 4th star and 2 new yellows I didn't have before, so all in all, a good weekend.
Comments
You've conflated two different developments - the legendary added to thresholds in repeat events and expanded threshold rewards.
Even if I were to accept this mistaken connection, I would ask what players requested moving the goal posts on an old legendary to the nigh-unobtainable 400k level?
People can make excuses for the accessibility of 400k all they want, but it's a small percentage of players participating in an event that can reach that rank. I would think most people that can regularly pull down that kind of VP level don't need an obsolete card unless they're completionists. So who exactly is this "reward" targeted to?
i realize people who have spent a ton on this game don't want to "devalue" their purchases, but a gold card has never been worth the investment at the current price points. It seems like most people advocate for the so-called legendary to remain expensive and unobtainable because of their investment, not because it makes for a better game play experience.
I've been playing since near the start of the game and have lurked on the forum and other STT social media since near the start. After about the first six months, provided I could play the game all day long, top 1k was easy peasy regardless of format. Now even with adwarps, that's not the case since there's a solid 9 or so hours two days out of four that I can't play the game.
This is not to make the same "everyone must be like me/can do this" mistake. I expect most players haven't put in the time and resources I have, and invariably most are probably playing casually instead of trying to be "competitive." So that's what I base sustainability on - that my above average crew and understanding of the game is not the benchmark of what the average player is experiencing. If it's tough for me, it's invariably tougher for the 50K+ players that rank lower than I do week in and week out.
If your benchmark of sustainability truly fit the definition of the word, more than 3-5k players a week would hit that mark. It's probably closer to 1k that can follow your model every week. That's such an obviously terrible benchmark.
And I think you've misinterpreted what "challenge" means. How is it "challenging" to have the free time to play the game every three hours??
I very badly want to know what's challenging about this game... either spend a lot of time doing repetitive tasks and/or spend a boatload of money is now somehow a challenge? Literally everything else is in the most razor thin of margins. To call it superior tactics/strategy/gameplay is almost charmingly naive. Money and lots of free time offset everything else by a wide margin.
A game of chess against an opponent better than you is a challenge. Whatever this game is, a challenge it is not. It's not even a challenging CCG, if that's the nearest analog one wants to use for comparison.
I don't disagree that the two things in this game that drive a significant portion of performance are money and time. That's as it should be. At the end of the day this is a game, operated by a company, that has to pay employees. The only way they can achieve that goal are by people spending money on in app purchases or by spending time in the game viewing ads.
However there are plenty of things players can do that help on small levels to be more efficient than other players putting in comparable levels of time and effort.
Here is one detailed Quick-start example plus a few others ideas for strategies:
Quick-start Option A: Open 24 missions, complete 11 1 minute missions, open and complete 11 with 3* boosts. Complete remaining 13 1 minute missions. 35 missions, Uses 11 3* boosts and 3898 VP received.
Quick-start Option B: Open 24 missions, complete (12 times) and reopen (11 times) one mission repeatedly with minimum boost required each time. Then complete 23 remaining 1 minute missions. 35 missions, Uses 2 3* boosts and 1557 VP received from the Quick-start. Then use those 9 extra 3* boosts on 4k missions later. At an estimate of an extra 1500 VP each from those 3* boosts later that is 13500VP additional VP, or 15KVP from the same resources as option A.
Even though Option A is referred to as the option that gives you more VP from the Quick-start (3898 VP versus 1557 VP), in the long run it costs you 11k VP over option B.
Other ideas:
Fair point about the old 5* being moved to a higher level on the expanded thresholds for repeat events, from where it was originally introduced.
My hunch is that they felt it was too easy to obtain where they first placed it, which somewhat devalued the 5* card. With the introduction of completely revamped and expanded threshold rewards for all events, the easy 'fix' was to simply add it to the end as the next 50k reward, exclusively for repeat events.
On one hand, I think that's fair, since it's still a free 5*. On the other hand, they had already set precedent in several events, at a much lower score. I suppose they could still make it harder to obtain that extra reward, without making it the extreme reward after all the other rewards. Perhaps slotting it in as an extra reward at 225k, 275k, or 325k during repeat events?
So here's the question.
People keep talking about "Opening X number of 1 minute missions" or "X number of 1.5 hour missions."
I don't totally understand this. It sound like what people are saying is that by opening the mission you are locking in 2 things.
1- the length of time the shuttle mission takes. and...
2- the XP value of the mission
Is this correct? I've never paid that close of attention before but I always assumed that the time length and XP rewards just increased with each mission you completed.
But what about all the 3min, 5min, 10min, 30 minute missions. Don't those still have to be completed?
In the context that we are talking about, the guy asking the original question and soliciting advice from the player base - who has 3 shuttles and not the greatest crew - it's hard work for him to hit 400k - it's doable, it won't be fun (which is the point of a game) - but it is illustrating a point for him. But ultimately is it a game? Yes. Should the phrase 'hard work' and a game go together? Probably not.
And yet, here we are.
Do I think DB should include an old gold in reward tables for re-runs? Sure!
Do I think 400K is the appropriate total for it? Nope. Bump the gold down to ...250K? Roughly in that neighborhood gives it more reach to more players - probably those it could benefit more. DB has the potential to sell more $25 DYS that way as well.
Do I think it will change? Likely not.
Missions length and VP are determined when you open (not send or complete) the shuttle based on your net successes (passes - 1.5xfails) at the time you open it.
The table below has details.
You can open up to 24 (or the max missions at once for the event) and they will all be the same as long as you don’t complete any missions while opening them.
Obviously not all 32 runs will produce 12k VP, so....
Might want to prioritize a calculator over that dictionary, Frank.
I'm not against DB making money or the game taking time (and some thoughtful consideration) to improve game outcome. I wouldn't be almost 3 years in and well on the way to VIP 14 if that were the case. What I take issue with is the frequent overvaluing of in game assets and the continual poor value propositions masquerading as deals, incentives, or what have you.
For my part, it's actually made the game easier not chasing golds in thresholds, rank, or packs. I don't mind playing non-competitively most weeks. I would expect this to be a minority sentiment, though.
@BIOMECHANIK - forgot to mention this earlier and I don't think I saw this in other posts - one thing you might want to try to mine dilithium for that 4th shuttle is to immortalize 1*'s to drive up the achievement count. Each immortalized card works towards the achievement, regardless of if you've immortalized them before. Ensign Kim and Yeoman Rand are your new best friends. Avoid Maquis Chakotay, Chief Engineer Torres, and Teenager Nog. The rest depends on your inventory.
if i am not abale to hit Agent Janeway at least i got this good pack
78 FE ,78 Lvl 100,
Immortalized: 190
Vip:12 Lvl :64
:DD
I've been here since day 1 with a let's say moderate crew (still vip 12 woohoo!)
3 shuttles = boost every one to 1.5 hours or forget it.
4 shuttles = maybe 40 boosts needed.
Let's also be honest - unless you have an all 5/5 crew and all shuttles stocked with event crew this talk of 100% success or 95% success is ridiculous. It's going to be in the 70-90% range for most people.
I have zero interest anymore in being put on the clock like this. I wouldn't even do it for a card I had at 4/5. The only replay I would do is a hybrid or galaxy. Then the 400,000 required is fine.
The OP has three shuttles, so I did the math that way in this example.
But for new or mid lvl players it is a nightmare when u review the reward vp amt.
maybe a better balance where 1 copy of top 400k reward is avail at 200k, and a second at 400k. And make the 4* copies a bit more anainable at a lower vp, below 200k, then add the 3rd* and/or 4th* at a higher vp such as 320k-375k.
Give every level of player a fair chance and make the good stuff attainable for all to some degree.
3* Noah, lv 60
4* Disguised Tuvok, lv 60
1* High Roller Sisko, lv 50
1* Niners Siksko, lv 50
3* Rifle Janeway, lv 100
2* Promoted Sisko, lv 100
I did a jumpstart, and sent out 4 shuttles, lead by Noah, Disguised Tuvok, High Roller+Promoted, Niners+Janeway, each filled out with non-event crew. Shuttles kept coming back successful Thursday and Friday. Saturday I was in the 1100s and going, huh, I'm competitive. So I leveled up Maquis Ro, Noah, and Disguised Tuvok all to 100 and used Noah, Ro, Tuvok, and Rifle Janeway as my 4 shuttle leaders with mostly non-event crew. Saturday the shuttles kept coming in successful. Sunday I realized I was sitting on all these 3 hour doublers I had won from Skirmish rewards but never saw fit to use since I don't compete in Factions normally and they don't show up on the time boost page. Sent out 10 shuttles with those (6 each lead by Noah and Ro) and 9 came back with 8000 VP. Anyway, I finished this morning in the upper 600s. I did burn a lot of boosts but I have tons left since I never push hard in Factions (or Galaxy) anyway. So apparently what a mid-level player needs to compete in one of these is:
1) Bunches of established players sitting out
2) Lots of built up boosts that we typically never use
3) Some luck on shuttle returns.
That 3rd point probably is its own discussion. Once I hit the 4000 point shuttles, I did not see a single shuttle that said it had a predicted success rate higher than 72% for the entire weekend. Most were listed in the mid 60s% level. (including boosts) Not surprising since I only had 1-2 event crew on every shuttle and most are weaker varieties. Yet I had very few failures. Now I've lurked enough on this forum to know everyone cries RNG! in situations like this. Hey, I get random numbers; I'm a scientist and we deal with random error and variation every day. But I no longer think the success rates should be taken all that seriously, or should I say that I no longer think that the probability results in this game follow a normal distribution of error.
Regardless I have Noah's 4th star and 2 new yellows I didn't have before, so all in all, a good weekend.