Voyage priorities / crew development
![[TFA] CaptainObvious](https://us.v-cdn.net/6030345/uploads/userpics/863/n094XHTCG5LP5.png)
[TFA] CaptainObvious
✭✭✭✭
in The Bridge
As I was writing this post, asking the community about where to best invest what will eventually be 12 citations, I realised that there is a more fundamental decision to make. My goal is to increase my share of 10h voyages (possibly someday breaking the 11h barrier). I already more or less reliably make 10h for a certain few combinations, mostly involving CMD-based voyages. According to @[10F] Captain Idols fantastic crew analysis sheet, the quality of my voyage crew drops off significantly after a certain point:
CMD/SEC will probably surprise no-one as the top combination. I have successfully completed 10h voyages for DIP/MED, so I would set the goal at 26K to strive for in the other combinations as well. Now, I realise that this way to look at my crew strength does not take tertiary skills into account, and also not the fact that I can only place 12 crewmen onto a voyage. But it seems to reflect the current reality of my game.
Until now, I was planning to immortalise my more obscure crew (Stranded Quark 1/5, Ba'ul 1/5, Warship EMA 1/5, DF Paris 4/5). However, even all of these combined will probably not put any of my weakest combinations (MED/ENG, MED/SEC) nowhere near the the 26K goal. So, would it make more sense to:
1) invest into the weakest combinations anyway and hope for favourable RNG. 8h voyages are no issue at the current weak spot MED/CMD, 10 are out of the question. Will EMA and Paris' combined extra 20 minutes really make a difference?
2) invest top-heavy. I am already going strong in CMD, DIP and ENG individually, but combined a little off the 26K goal. Should I be investing in crew like Captain Lorian, Interfaced La Forge or Laborer Kirk to possibly bring a few more combinations over the threshold? That might also make 11h for a select few combinations more feasible.
3) forego skill combinations entirely and just cite whoever is an actual good voyager.
Out of my top 10 voyage crew (which are recruited from the top 20 overall voyagers), only three are immortal. It has been hurting a little to leave FO Burnham at 1/5, but she would mostly be improving an already well covered combination. Is it advisable to strengthen a powerhouse in a strong skill field over a weak voyager in a extremely rare one?
Not necessarily taking my particular crew into account, what is your philosophy? Where do you set priorities for increasing your voyage capabilities?
CMD/SEC will probably surprise no-one as the top combination. I have successfully completed 10h voyages for DIP/MED, so I would set the goal at 26K to strive for in the other combinations as well. Now, I realise that this way to look at my crew strength does not take tertiary skills into account, and also not the fact that I can only place 12 crewmen onto a voyage. But it seems to reflect the current reality of my game.
Until now, I was planning to immortalise my more obscure crew (Stranded Quark 1/5, Ba'ul 1/5, Warship EMA 1/5, DF Paris 4/5). However, even all of these combined will probably not put any of my weakest combinations (MED/ENG, MED/SEC) nowhere near the the 26K goal. So, would it make more sense to:
1) invest into the weakest combinations anyway and hope for favourable RNG. 8h voyages are no issue at the current weak spot MED/CMD, 10 are out of the question. Will EMA and Paris' combined extra 20 minutes really make a difference?
2) invest top-heavy. I am already going strong in CMD, DIP and ENG individually, but combined a little off the 26K goal. Should I be investing in crew like Captain Lorian, Interfaced La Forge or Laborer Kirk to possibly bring a few more combinations over the threshold? That might also make 11h for a select few combinations more feasible.
3) forego skill combinations entirely and just cite whoever is an actual good voyager.
Out of my top 10 voyage crew (which are recruited from the top 20 overall voyagers), only three are immortal. It has been hurting a little to leave FO Burnham at 1/5, but she would mostly be improving an already well covered combination. Is it advisable to strengthen a powerhouse in a strong skill field over a weak voyager in a extremely rare one?
Not necessarily taking my particular crew into account, what is your philosophy? Where do you set priorities for increasing your voyage capabilities?
3
Comments
I'm not sure how that spreadsheet calculates stuff ... but on my own spreadsheet I've found that some of my stronger voyage pairs (e.g. DIP/MED - #3 for me) have been rough to get 10 hrs on because of the crew I have ... only yesterday was I able to hit 10 hrs there ... the 10th of 15 combos ... where I've long since hit 10 hrs with SEC/SCI (my #11 pairing!).
One of the reasons behind this is that I had too many similar crew for DIP/MED which led to wonky stats ... yesterday's voyage included the recently immortalised Xindi Insectoid and Queen Po, neither of which have MED. Both gave me a boost in areas I was lacking in ... e.g. my SCI almost hit 8000 as third highest skill with the rest comfortably above 4000.
--> In that sense, I would definitely cite up someone like Stranded Quark, if I had him, just because he brings something different to the table ... ENG. A strong voyager in a rare skill set.
1. I'd personally want to get all voyages to 10 hrs on a regular basis instead of 2 to 11 hrs and the rest with luck to 10 - so my vote goes for crew width there (I know other players feel different about this).
2. However, some combos might be a long way off (e.g. CMD/MED) ... so is it reasonable to get to 10 there or will I have to invest in 5 different crew to do so?
--> Can I invest into crew who might hit other weak voyages for me (e.g. SCI/MED)? ... Someone like Pollard would check those boxes ... so I cited her, she's now my #1 CMD/MED, #2 SCI/MED and #4 ENG/MED option. I've currently got a CMD/MED voyage out with over 1500 AM at 8hrs and 10 mins ... we'll see if it paid off.
I'm currently looking at both SEC/MED and SCI/MED ... I don't have many options, but relatively weaker crew like Merry Men Crusher and Dr. Pulaski might help (Defensive Phlox is a third option). Another option is both Da Vinci and TO Neelix, but that's 8 citations ...
I haven't decided on what to do yet, but I don't mind citing up weaker crew as a stop-gap because there's no guarantee I'll get better crew in quickly.
These are some initial points, as I said, can provide more feedback later (with actual numbers if you want), but have to work.
https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/15247/is-stranded-quark-the-only-dip-eng-med-5-out-there/p1
Starport
My reasoning for not pushing my top end voyages up higher:
The total voyage score for the top 12 in the game is just under 49,000 with max bonuses. Even if those were arranged perfectly (roughly 13400/13400/5500...) and gave top trait bonuses to 2950 AM, you're looking at a 10:30 voyage on average and a 4% chance of 11 hour voyage. From what I see it's not realistic to consistently get an 11 hour voyage.
See https://codepen.io/somnivore/full/Nabyzw to do your own estimate
Just so I understand you, for a COM/SCI voyage to last 10 hours, do you think you need 4 specifically COM/SCI crew? Or do you need 4 crew that are COM/SCI or SCI/COM?
Because (for example) I’ve been counting all my SCI/COM and COM/SCI crew together for COM/SCI and SCI/COM Voyages, figuring the specific order didn’t really matter. (Especially in the case of ones whose top two were pretty even, like Captain Spock.)
So I’m just trying to figure out if my strategy is good to get to 10 hours, or if I need to narrow my focus to get the correct crew with the correct order of skills.
To get 10 hours, I would look for 5 CMD crew and 5 SCI crew. If you can find CMD/SCI to help that even better. Then fill out your remaining crew with other skills to round out your voyage.
1. I made 10 hrs on the CMD/MED ... see Ready Room "Rays 10 hr Voyages" for crew make-up ... it will also give insights in how I choose optimal crew for voyages ... will I make 10 hrs again with the same set-up? Probably not due to luck factor ... I'll need better crew for a constant result, but still, it proves to me I can get there and it also shows me where I need to focus to improve that skill combo.
2. Here's a table of voyage stats for top 12 crew in a skill combo ... left to right: CD, CS, CSc, CE, CM / DS, DSc, DE, DM / SSc, SE, SM / ScE, ScM / EM. The ones in RED are combos that have made 10 hrs. I'm working on levelling crew so the rank is a touch skewed.
I try to include all top 6 crew in a voyage of a specific skill combo ... and then I find a balance ... where I take #6-12 in consideration, as well as looking where I need more emphasis and which crew might fill that gap, I often end up sending 1/5s on my 10 hrs voyages because of this ... that is what I meant with the DIP/MED voyage ... my top 6 crew were too much of the same, so it was difficult to balance the voyage.
3. If I want to improve a voyage combo I look at #s 6-12 to see if any crew are viable to be cited up ... if I look at the SEC/MED column (with #13 at the bottom) the best crew doesn't have a super high score (2515 - Cornwell) compared to other skill combos and #6-12 are all bunched around 1800s ... Dr. Pulaski is in #8 and Merry Men Crusher is #6, both are 1/5. I look to see what the changes are if they are 5/5. I have a table above this one that highlights crew's top 12 skill combos, so I can see where else they provide benefit and how crew in other combos shift because of that.
TO Neelix is #3 in that list.
So, I identify options for citations and then, at some point, choose.
4. To be certain ... in another post, we brought up low-hanging fruit ... if you are a player in that situation (fairly new crew composition) then I'd just cite up the best possible crew without looking at overlap between skills ... better to have both Gary Seven and FO Burnham immortalised in my opinion than a great spread of crew with unique skill sets.
@marschallin I like to use a combo ... so Tenavik and Armus are both excellent choices for CMD/SCI voyages ... throw in Mirror Picard and Surak and you have a great base to start from ... all 4 being crew we've been able to get with fairly minimal effort.
The general opinion of the forum for a while now holds that the total skill points for each of the featured skills should be equal, so COM/SCI and SCI/COM would indeed be treated equally. If you disagree or just want to experiment, as there is a stated 10% difference in the skill check probability, maybe put a slight emphasis on the gold skill over the silver.
AviTrek points out expertly that there are really two approaches to staffing voyages: selecting a few crew strong in both featured skills (then backfilling the other skills with crew that may or may not have either featured skill as long as the final skill point breakdown works out) versus choosing crew strong in either featured skill but not the other one. If I were to staff a COM/SCI voyage, these competing philosophies might look like this:
COM: Captain Spock and Tenavik versus Braxton and Borg Queen
DIP: Professor Sato and Evolved Janeway versus BO#1 and Surak
ENG: La Borge and Survivalist Kirk versus RAF O’Brien and The Caretaker
SEC: Armus and Gary Seven versus Wrathful Kirk and Klingon Janeway
SCI: Yarnek and Surak versus Gary Seven and Survivalist Kirk
MED: Dr. Pollard and Qod versus Warship EMA and Juliana Tainer
As long as you can maximize your skills, how you do so is up to your crew makeup. There’s no wrong way to do it.
This is very useful, if only to illustrate that there is only so much one can do with the currently available crew.
Unless Med goes cray-cray on me!!!!!!