Overall, though, my view on this tends to coincide most with the comments by @Dirk Gunderson. What matters is using sleep time to recall the voyage -- and thus maximizing your daily Voyage take. So, my usual schedule is to start a voyage when I wake up, hopefully check-in enough during the day to keep it going, and hit recall as soon as it's unlikely to clear another dilemma or I go to bed, whichever comes first. Ideally, I've got enough opportunities during the day to check-in on a strong Voyage and hit 10 hours during that day.
This was also my biggest take-away. I can't keep up with that "ideal" player that Bylo tested, so it's good to know that I can achieve decent results just by recalling those 8-hour voyages if it happens to be bedtime.
Paladin3³ had said that there was no appreciable difference in voyage yields after the 8 hour dilemma resolves. [...]
seem to indicate that the playerbase believes that 10+ hour voyages are the optimal play, [...]
But that comment about 8 hour voyages from the most accomplished player in the game stuck with me. So I set out to test it.
These two statements (paraphrased: "no difference after 8 hour" and "optimal: voyages as long as possible") aren't contradictory in any way. If you getting small rewards in the first 8 hours and bigger rewards later on, then it is optimal to increase the ratio of your "after 8 hour" time (lets call it "quality time"). In an 8 hour-voyage, your quality time is 0 %, in an 10-hour voyage, it is 20 % and so on, so longer voyagers give more quality time ratio, so more rewards in relation to time spent.
I think, Paladin is right and actually, I think it is even the 6 hour-mark at which the rewards reach their max.
And as said above, I also think the playerbase (and your intuition) are right about having long voyages.
Now, your experiment here tests the hypothesis of the player base. But although Paladin's statements was the cause for the experiment, it does not test Paladin's statement (for that you would have to compare the rewards between 8 and 10 hour mark with the rewards between 10 and 12 hour mark and so on.
If reward drops flatten at 6 hours, as you say (and I agree), then testing 8 hours to 10 hours a bunch of time should yield the same results as 10 to 12, and 12 to 14, and so on. Since players can get to the 10-hour dilemma without a revival, it seemed both a logical approach and a reasonable way to simulate the way players actually play the game.
== MY RESULTS ==
Since I read your post I made my own experiments with 424 voyages (that was possible due to the timey-wimey time-altering nature of Timelines... obviously).
8-10 Hour Voyage (count: 334): 0.97 Honor/minute; 0.64 chronitons/minute
10-12 Hour Voyage (count: 90): 1.06 Honor/minute; 0.70 chronitons/minute
Now, you didn't want to compare apples with oranges, so now I did - kind of. As the count already gives away, these are different voyages, so it is not values taken from the same voyage at different times, it's really just different voyages. Also, these are voyages that ran between 8 and 10 hours or between 10 and 12 hours, so it is not the value taken directly after the 8 hour dilemma or 10 hour dilemma like in your data.
All the data that you presented is good and worthy of its own thread, complete with your analysis of it. But as you say, it's not apples to apples and falls outside the scope of what we were trying to determine.
The total time an 8 hour voyage is away from the moment you hit send until it returns with your rewards is 11:12 as the voyage requires 3:12 to recall. A 10 hour voyage actually takes 14:00 in total as it requires 4:00 to recall. So really what we were trying to answer was this: is the extra 2 hours of voyage time worth it when the additional 2:48 is taken into account?
Actually, that is not relevant if you just want to look at the plain optimal per time reward. The recall time is always 40 % of the original voyage time. This is true for 8-hour voyages, it is true for 10-hour voyages, it is always true. For any voyage, the rewards considering recall time to not considering recall time will exactly change by the factor 1.4.
That means, the highest value without consideration of recall time is also the highest value with consideration of recall time.
Only point, where it is relevant is when checking to incorporate into a given schedule; eg because of sleep time.
Our purpose was to determine if 8-hour or 10-hour voyages were more beneficial for honor-farming - including a sleep schedule. For that purpose, recall time is relevant. Even Borg have a regeneration cycle. You have enough of your own data to simulate your own sleep schedule or instant recalls with dilithium. Bylo laid out our parameters. It's up to readers to determine how that matches their play style.
One of the things I was tracking from day 1 was starting antimatter (AM) and I noticed that there was a base level of starting AM one needs to realistically have to have a good chance at hitting 10 hours, and after averaging all of the successful voyages' starting AM (and removing the data from those that required a revival token) the average starting AM for all of our successful 10 hour voyages was 2,831.25.
I think this conclusion is not valid. I mean, obviously, more AM improves your chance to get to 10 hours, but more important are the crew stats you have. The AM just gives a guaranteed minimum time. 2600 AM can never deplete faster than 2 hours, so If you start a voyage with 2600, you securely reach the 2 hour mark.
The other 8 hours is up to your crew. Now, for a save 4 hour mark, you would need 5200 AM. Now realistically, all your voyages will start between 2500 and 2950. That's a difference of 450 AM or 21 minutes (3.5 % of a 10 hour voyage) for a totally failing crew. These 21 minutes can help you getting over the edge, if your crew already brought you near it, but the crew is it which needs you to bring most of the way.
So, it is always nice to have an AM-bonus, but it is normally not worth sacrificing better crew options for one 25-AM bonus (adds a little bit more than one minute).
Having said that, I think you probably got the impression that the AM is so important, because you have a well-balanced crew (you actually care about the skill combos which already tells a lot) and you are currently in a state where your crew basically always brings you into the proximity of 10 hours (I would guess that 95 % of your voyages will go at least 09h50). So, even though there are good and bad skill combos, your crew is not very volatile in its very good capabilities. On the other hand, the AM value is something that changes in a comparatively big way from one voyage to the other.
So, it is natural that the intuition gives the AM a big impact, although it actually doesn't really have (long term).
For that, I conducted my own experiment and got the result that the average AM for the 90 voyages that ran between 10 and 12 hours was 2775 (with the smallest at 2625), where the average AM for the 346 voyages that ran between 8 and 10 hours was 2738*. Now, the 8 to 10 hour voyages are older in average, so I also had worse ships, so the actual difference might be even smaller.
In comparison: the average AM of a voyage's start hour ranges from 2700 to 2803. I mean that difference is obviously just statistical noise, so I wouldn't give 2775 over 2738 too much credit.
* Actually, I revived 12 of them (which started with an average AM of 2783) directly before the 10 hour mark.
This part is almost interesting. You don't present any skill (stat) breakdown to support your argument, so it carries no more weight than Bylo's assertion. However, you do present a floor AM value for reaching 10 hours, which does support Bylo's conclusion. Banjo, Rayzor, and a couple others have threads dedicated to reaching 10 hours and beyond. I don't want to re-hash any of that here. It appears to be a side observation, anyway.
Here is the part that I think you're missing, because you're looking at full voyage length you're obscuring the step function after 6 hours. If we accept the assertion that voyage rewards flatten after 6 hours(that should be tested to confirm, but I'm pretty confident in it), then what you have is a fixed 8.4 hour cost to start a voyage(6 hours to start and 2.4 to recall). Then every extra hour you run is really 1.4 hours factoring in return.
If your function is (pre 6 reward + post 6 reward rate * x)/(8.4 + 1.4x) where x is the length of your voyage after 6 hours, then the way to maximize your return per overall hour is to increase x. As x increases the function begins to become (post 6 reward rate * x)/1.4x. This is a linear function post 6 reward rate / 1.4.
Of course none of that includes sleep time. If you factor in your sleep time then the time a voyage is idle becomes your limiting factor. The optimal strategy at that point is to begin a voyage every morning, keep it running for 16-18 hours, recall it before bed so that it will return as you wake up, then start again. That way you are not losing idle time while sleeping.
But that is only maximizing honor and chrons per run time. If you want to talk about maximizing per dil/token that is a different analysis.
One more point. Your 8 and 10 hour study doesn't factor in your sleep time at all. Was your 8 hour voyage really 8 + 4 idle while sleeping + 3.2 to recall, or was it 8 hours + 3.2 to recall all during the day?
One more point. Your 8 and 10 hour study doesn't factor in your sleep time at all. Was your 8 hour voyage really 8 + 4 idle while sleeping + 3.2 to recall, or was it 8 hours + 3.2 to recall all during the day?
Before I share our results, I need to explain something contextually. Anybody who has ever run a voyage from 8 to 10 hours already knows that the totals for both Honor and chronitons are higher at 10 hours than at 8 hours so you may be asking what the purpose of this experiment is, and the answer comes down to recall times. The total time an 8 hour voyage is away from the moment you hit send until it returns with your rewards is 11:12 as the voyage requires 3:12 to recall. A 10 hour voyage actually takes 14:00 in total as it requires 4:00 to recall. So really what we were trying to answer was this: is the extra 2 hours of voyage time worth it when the additional 2:48 is taken into account?
In Bylo's simulation of a week of voyages, yes, recall times were factored in. I'm not sure if the spreadsheet lends itself to posting on the forum, so I will leave that to him.
As to the step function, I stated that we were trying to approximate game play. Personally, extending voyages may happen once a week. Less if I can help it so that I can accumulate tokens for a really long voyage. 8-hour and 10-hour voyages are achievable without spending resources, which seems more normal for the average player.
It seems obvious that 72-hour voyages would be the ideal if you really want to minimize the 6-hour start-up costs. Then of course you would want to recall with dilithium to completely eliminate that wasted time. I don't have those kind of resources, but I'm sure those who do would be eternally grateful for a guide on how to spend them.
I intend to post a more thorough update when I wake up this afternoon, but I want to give like a million gold stars to @Matt_Decker for succinctly encapsulating the absolute core of what we were trying to do:
I think your most valuable takeaway is for players who don't have the crew to hit 10 hours to not worry too much -- you're getting nearly as good a takeaway by keeping 8 hour voyages running consistently.
Giving newer players not only hope, but knowledge that they can play just as hard even if they cannot hit 10 hours. This was intended to be uplifting and inspire both players of all levels, but also to inspire other captains to pick up this baton and run with it...
...and on that note, I am excited to announce that I have reached out to @Exanimus and we will be assisting with a second version of this project where we look at 4 and 6 hour voyages, to see how those results look.
If you are looking at 4, 6 and 8 hour voyages, it may be an idea to include trainers in the results. Players who are at this level might be struggling with trainers, and it could be that they will not have enough until they reliably hit 8 hour voyages.
I think your most valuable takeaway is for players who don't have the crew to hit 10 hours to not worry too much -- you're getting nearly as good a takeaway by keeping 8 hour voyages running consistently.
This is a very good point. It is probably better to recall at 8 hours when there is little chance of hitting 10 hours, than to try and run down AM until the last minute, as you still only get four dilemmas, and risk losing the ship.
One advantage of recalling at eight hour is that the recall time is about 3 hours 12 minutes. Do the dilemma, hit recall, then send out four shuttles. The shuttles should return a few minutes before the voyage returns, so the player will have full crew available for the next voyage, and there is little down time in shuttles.
Actually, moving between the 6 & 8 hour marks, you nearly double your chrons and honor just in those 2 hours, so yeah, it is a big milestone once you have the crew to get you that high. I just started noticing that on my VIP0 account getting past that 6 hour mark is HUGE to start farming chrons!
I think I have also noticed a significant jump in chrons around 14 hours when I have done those extensions. So, my personal thought on this experiment is that it should not compare between 8 & 10 hour Voyages, but between 10 & 14+, since most people are going to have to extend to get to 10+.
Also, I think any Voyages that have been extended to get to 10 hours used in the calculations for this experiment should be eliminated, since you are "paying" for those extra rewards. I think the baseline should be between 8 & 10 hours WITHOUT extending to get your "apples to apples". Just a thought.
Extending doesn’t affect the end result though. Data on 10 hours is data on 10 hours regardless of how you get there
Data yes. But it seems @Bylo Band's intent is to show that going beyond 8 hours to hit the 10 hour+ mark is basically pointless, so why would you be wasteful and use $(dils) or tokens to extend just for a data set, if the goal is not to get to 10 hours?
Actually, moving between the 6 & 8 hour marks, you nearly double your chrons and honor just in those 2 hours, so yeah, it is a big milestone once you have the crew to get you that high. I just started noticing that on my VIP0 account getting past that 6 hour mark is HUGE to start farming chrons!
I think I have also noticed a significant jump in chrons around 14 hours when I have done those extensions. So, my personal thought on this experiment is that it should not compare between 8 & 10 hour Voyages, but between 10 & 14+, since most people are going to have to extend to get to 10+.
Also, I think any Voyages that have been extended to get to 10 hours used in the calculations for this experiment should be eliminated, since you are "paying" for those extra rewards. I think the baseline should be between 8 & 10 hours WITHOUT extending to get your "apples to apples". Just a thought.
Extending doesn’t affect the end result though. Data on 10 hours is data on 10 hours regardless of how you get there
Data yes. But it seems @Bylo Band's intent is to show that going beyond 8 hours to hit the 10 hour+ mark is basically pointless, so why would you be wasteful and use $(dils) or tokens to extend just for a data set, if the goal is not to get to 10 hours?
Because I have many voyages that crash and burn right before 10 hours so I revive to get the 10 and 12 hour dilemna since I still have the skill points to pass hazards. As an example, the last one I did crapped out at 9:53 and one refresh carried me all the way to 12:38
Actually, moving between the 6 & 8 hour marks, you nearly double your chrons and honor just in those 2 hours, so yeah, it is a big milestone once you have the crew to get you that high. I just started noticing that on my VIP0 account getting past that 6 hour mark is HUGE to start farming chrons!
I think I have also noticed a significant jump in chrons around 14 hours when I have done those extensions. So, my personal thought on this experiment is that it should not compare between 8 & 10 hour Voyages, but between 10 & 14+, since most people are going to have to extend to get to 10+.
Also, I think any Voyages that have been extended to get to 10 hours used in the calculations for this experiment should be eliminated, since you are "paying" for those extra rewards. I think the baseline should be between 8 & 10 hours WITHOUT extending to get your "apples to apples". Just a thought.
Extending doesn’t affect the end result though. Data on 10 hours is data on 10 hours regardless of how you get there
Data yes. But it seems @Bylo Band's intent is to show that going beyond 8 hours to hit the 10 hour+ mark is basically pointless, so why would you be wasteful and use $(dils) or tokens to extend just for a data set, if the goal is not to get to 10 hours?
This amounts to "why didn't you know the outcome of your experiment before you conducted it?"
Also, if my voyage does at 9:54, then I will probably revive it to get to 12 hours. I can collect the 10 hour data as a small perk.
I apologize that forum restrictions will not allow me to quote your whole post. I did my best to keep context.
Actually, I prefer posts that quote only the relevant parts. For the full text, one can still scroll up. So, no apologies needed. On the other hand: my apologies that I now had to do the same thing with your post.
[...]
Now, your experiment here tests the hypothesis of the player base. But although Paladin's statements was the cause for the experiment, it does not test Paladin's statement (for that you would have to compare the rewards between 8 and 10 hour mark with the rewards between 10 and 12 hour mark and so on.
If reward drops flatten at 6 hours, as you say (and I agree), then testing 8 hours to 10 hours a bunch of time should yield the same results as 10 to 12, and 12 to 14, and so on. Since players can get to the 10-hour dilemma without a revival, it seemed both a logical approach and a reasonable way to simulate the way players actually play the game.
Yes, but there is a difference between "rewards of the voyage up to 8 hours" and "rewards between 8 and 10 hours". From your experiments, you can say that the rewards between 8 and 10 hours mark are bigger as the ones before 8 hours. But your experiments does not include information about whether the rewards after 8 hours still grow. Basically, it is the difference between average and marginal rate (or average and derivative).
Paladins statement is: the marginal rate/derivative stays the same after 8 hours.
The experiment instead looks into the average rate. I also think that this is an interesting topic and there is nothing wrong in following the question that you found more interesting; but I found it worth to mention that the experiment did not cover information about the original statement.
Actually, that is not relevant if you just want to look at the plain optimal per time reward.
Our purpose was to determine if 8-hour or 10-hour voyages were more beneficial for honor-farming - including a sleep schedule. For that purpose, recall time is relevant.
OK, but the sleep schedule does not show in the given average numbers, right?
So, the recall time information only refers to the part of the three-player simulation done by Bylo Band!? Thanks for pointing that out again.
== AM == (antimatter)[...]
For that, I conducted my own experiment and got the result that the average AM for the 90 voyages that ran between 10 and 12 hours was 2775 (with the smallest at 2625), where the average AM for the 346 voyages that ran between 8 and 10 hours was 2738. [...]
This part is almost interesting. You don't present any skill (stat) breakdown to support your argument, so it carries no more weight than Bylo's assertion. However, you do present a floor AM value for reaching 10 hours, which does support Bylo's conclusion. Banjo, Rayzor, and a couple others have threads dedicated to reaching 10 hours and beyond. I don't want to re-hash any of that here. It appears to be a side observation, anyway.
I have some maxed-out 5-star ships. So, 2625 AM is basically as low as it gets when I start a voyage and have bad luck with traits. So, that I never had a 10 hour voyage with less than 2625 AM does not proof any floor AM value. It just means that basically all my voyages (i.e. since I started hitting the 10 hour mark), started with at least 2625 AM.
I have to add that I still don't manage to hit the 10 hour mark with every voyage.
On the other hand, that I hit the 10 hour mark even with just 2625 AM (aka the smallest realistic* value), shows that there is no realistic* lower bound needed for 10 hours. I can just hit the mark with any starting AM that realistically will come up for me - as long as I have a good crew for the skill combo.
* What does "realistic" mean here? Obviously, there is a needed floor start AM to hit the 10 hour mark and that is 0 AM. With less than 0 AM, you won't ever get to any mark. But also, you can't start with that amount. I think, you also can replace the 0 with the AM amout for a level 1 one-star ship. That is obviously a floor value. But it is practically as irrelevant as it can get.
This part is almost interesting. You don't present any skill (stat) breakdown to support your argument, so it carries no more weight than Bylo's assertion. However, you do present a floor AM value for reaching 10 hours, which does support Bylo's conclusion. Banjo, Rayzor, and a couple others have threads dedicated to reaching 10 hours and beyond. I don't want to re-hash any of that here. It appears to be a side observation, anyway.
So, you denounce my statement for focussing on the AM part and not rehashing the skill parts that we all know from the other threads just to then add that you don't want a rehash of these information here? Hmm.
Yes, but there is a difference between "rewards of the voyage up to 8 hours" and "rewards between 8 and 10 hours". From your experiments, you can say that the rewards between 8 and 10 hours mark are bigger as the ones before 8 hours. But your experiments does not include information about whether the rewards after 8 hours still grow. Basically, it is the difference between average and marginal rate (or average and derivative).
Paladins statement is: the marginal rate/derivative stays the same after 8 hours.
The experiment instead looks into the average rate. I also think that this is an interesting topic and there is nothing wrong in following the question that you found more interesting; but I found it worth to mention that the experiment did not cover information about the original statement.
You lost me. We were testing 8-hour voyages vs 10-hour voyages. Our numbers reflect one vs the other. Nothing more, and I'm pretty sure nothing less, though I won't swear to it.
OK, but the sleep schedule does not show in the given average numbers, right?
So, the recall time information only refers to the part of the three-player simulation done by Bylo Band!? Thanks for pointing that out again.
The sleep schedules mentioned are for our three fictional players. We conducted our research voyages as our RL schedules allowed.
I have some maxed-out 5-star ships. So, 2625 AM is basically as low as it gets when I start a voyage and have bad luck with traits. So, that I never had a 10 hour voyage with less than 2625 AM does not proof any floor AM value. It just means that basically all my voyages (i.e. since I started hitting the 10 hour mark), started with at least 2625 AM.
I have to add that I still don't manage to hit the 10 hour mark with every voyage.
On the other hand, that I hit the 10 hour mark even with just 2625 AM (aka the smallest realistic* value), shows that there is no realistic* lower bound needed for 10 hours. I can just hit the mark with any starting AM that realistically will come up for me - as long as I have a good crew for the skill combo.
* What does "realistic" mean here? Obviously, there is a needed floor start AM to hit the 10 hour mark and that is 0 AM. With less than 0 AM, you won't ever get to any mark. But also, you can't start with that amount. I think, you also can replace the 0 with the AM amout for a level 1 one-star ship. That is obviously a floor value. But it is practically as irrelevant as it can get.
You could start a thread called "What is the lowest starting anti-matter you've had on a 10-hour voyage?"
We made a small observation based on a small set of data. If you're having trouble getting to 10 hours on a voyage, consider citing someone who has traits that come up frequently on voyages if you think that is the best way to improve your game.
This part is almost interesting. You don't present any skill (stat) breakdown to support your argument, so it carries no more weight than Bylo's assertion. However, you do present a floor AM value for reaching 10 hours, which does support Bylo's conclusion. Banjo, Rayzor, and a couple others have threads dedicated to reaching 10 hours and beyond. I don't want to re-hash any of that here. It appears to be a side observation, anyway.
So, you denounce my statement for focussing on the AM part and not rehashing the skill parts that we all know from the other threads just to then add that you don't want a rehash of these information here? Hmm.
Live long and prosper,
Doctor 8472
I will be happy to discuss such things in a relevant thread. Pick a relevant thread, present your argument, and tag me. Banjo has his methods of balancing skills, I have mine, and Bylo has his. Using a particular method to reach 10 hours was not within the scope of the experiment, be it starting anti-matter or skill balance. I'm still experimenting with ways to get more consistent 10-hour voyages. If you have ideas, then I would love to discuss them in a better setting so as not to hijack Bylo's thread.
I'm getting quoted an awful lot in this thread for not having commented yet.
One point I've tried to make in the past and will say again here is that to truly evaluate the chron return, you need to include any 0/1/2 star components that you still farm (these can be different for different people). As it stands now I don't have to farm any 2 star components so those have no value to me after hour 6, while in hour 0-6 there are several 0/1 star components such as furs, databases, clothing patters, and casings that almost everyone needs.
The metrics that I think would be useful to have are
Average honor (adjusted for airlocked crew) and chrons (adjusted for items) for a 6 hour voyage
Average honor (adjusted for airlocked crew) and chrons (adjusted for items) per minute of voyage run time (excluding dilemmas) for hours 6+, the general belief is that loot tables for the item/chron drops are constant after hour 6.
Average honor (adjusted for airlocked crew) and chrons at 8 and 10 hour dilemmas.
Honor Comments
I think its un-disputable and the data here supports it, that honor for hours 6-8 (including the dilemma) or hour 8-10 (including the dilemma) is better than your average honor for 1/3 of a 6 hour voyage. So if you know you can make it to that next dilemma and honor is the most important thing, than go for it.
I also believe that the honor per minute from hour 6+ without dilemmas, is worse than the honor per minute for a voyage that is exactly 6 or 8 hours long and is recalled exactly at those times.
This means that if you get to 8 hours, depending on your chance of getting to 10 hours (not based on your start of voyage odds, but based on how much antimatter you have left at hour 8, 900-1000 am and still passing the primary and secondary is close to 50/50), you may want to recall exactly at 8. If you had the answers to those three metrics above you could get this exact percentage (It may be 40% or 90% but there is a break-even. As an example, if you only have 700 am left at hour 8, your chance of getting to hour 10 is under 10% and you should probably recall immediately at 8 hours and not wait around to get low on antimatter at 9:20.
Chrons
WIthout components adding to chron value, I think its likely that you can basically take everything I just said about honor as a starting point.
With components I think that the 0-6 hour chron total gets boosted some. It may not be enough to make 6 hour voyages better than 8 or 10 hour voyages, but it at the least boosts the break even percentage some. If it was a 50% chance of needing to get to that 8 or 10 hour dilemma without items, maybe its a 90% chance with the items boosting the 6 hour voyage value.
Let people also know they will get the most base and common components running a 4 hour voyage. So running longer voyages will provide more chron, better rarity crew and honor, 8 hour voyages may actually be the better choice.
Or, if not better, that the extra drop of components that are needed might offset what one gains from longer voyages.
I think the only 2 star component I need is database.
I can not speak for my experiment mates, but I can speak for my own sleep schedule. I am one of those people who wake up randomly at night. Throw in that one of my dogs has to get up and go to the bathroom 2-4 times a night, and I am able to solve dilemnas all night long then go back to sleep. Or if I recall before bed I’m able to send another one out before I get out of bed in the morning
I can not speak for my experiment mates, but I can speak for my own sleep schedule. I am one of those people who wake up randomly at night. Throw in that one of my dogs has to get up and go to the bathroom 2-4 times a night, and I am able to solve dilemnas all night long then go back to sleep. Or if I recall before bed I’m able to send another one out before I get out of bed in the morning
That use to be me too. But for some reason over at least the last year(I think around 2) I have been sleeping though the night. I had to start modifying my play accordingly with faction events. That means using those 9 hours boosts at night before going to sleep.
I can not speak for my experiment mates, but I can speak for my own sleep schedule. I am one of those people who wake up randomly at night. Throw in that one of my dogs has to get up and go to the bathroom 2-4 times a night, and I am able to solve dilemnas all night long then go back to sleep. Or if I recall before bed I’m able to send another one out before I get out of bed in the morning
That use to be me too. But for some reason over at least the last year(I think around 2) I have been sleeping though the night. I had to start modifying my play accordingly with faction events. That means using those 9 hours boosts at night before going to sleep.
I don’t know what or why but it just happens. Except for the dog, Einstein. I get up then so there isn’t poop in the basement
I took a day away from this thread to a large degree, because intentional or not, much of the response has been...hard to accept. Before I continue I just want to state at the outset that I 100% regret ever, EVER mentioning antimatter in this thread, and if I had it to do over again I would leave it out. My intention was to draw attention to antimatter to remind the same people who may find this thread useful to remember antimatter when staffing voyages. I've read several threads about tactics for getting to 10 hour voyages and they all focus on hitting various benchmarks of skill distributions and while those are definitely the most important, I wanted to just bring up that starting antimatter is also a factor. Just like my Honor Pińata thread which got completely derailed/sidetracked by one concept that represented about 2% of what I was saying, this thread has already devoted way too much time and negativity toward something I said multiple times was nothing more than a general reminder, so going forward, any comments regarding antimatter in here will be ignored.
Now, I get into "trouble" often in my forum threads because there is a communication breakdown between what is in my head and how people interpret/react to what I type. As a kid I very, VERY much identified with the TNG episode "Darmok" because that is my every day, to a lesser extent. I think, speak, communicate in metaphors, and I struggle at times to either communicate my thoughts or be heard by others. I'm also a jack-of-all-trades; I am good at a wide range of things, but I am great at almost nothing. In a room full of sports fans I can relate to them because I like sports too, but to them I'm a nerd. In a forum full of Star Trek fans many of whom are mathematicians, statisticians, computer programmers, etc I can relate because I enjoy Star Trek, but I'm more of an artist here. Every time I put myself out there on this forum I am reminded again and again that I'm not sure I truly belong here, and this is another example of that, because for some reason I simply am unable to reach people or communicate my ideas.
So to try and communicate how many of the reactions here have affected me, I'm going to reduce it down to a metaphor both for my own reasons but also to try and blunt some of the impact.
Hey everyone, I thought it would be interesting to paint a picture of a car, so I gave up a fair amount of my free time to this painting. After I had worked on it for several weeks I reached out to two of my friends and showed it to them and they thought it looked cool and wanted to help, so the three of us finished the painting together. And here it is, a painting of a silver two-door sedan, in a parking lot! We are not professional artists, but we think the final product looks cool and we hope you enjoy it. A couple of notes: while painting the trees in the background we ran out of green paint, so for a few we had to combine a bit of yellow and blue to make it work, and while painting the car we noticed that if we used a straight in model for the parking lot stripes rather than the diagonal model the car seemed to fit better. Anyway, we hope you like it!
"Hey, that looks cool, thank you for painting it. But why did you paint the car silver? Blue looks better." I wanted to see how a silver sedan looked against a backdrop of trees.
"Why didn't you tell all of us that you were painting this car, we could have painted it with you." I'm sorry, it did not occur to me, maybe we can do the next painting together as a group?
"A two-door car is called a coupée, not a sedan." I'm sorry, like I said, I'm not a professional artist and I'm not a car expert. It's just a painting. "How do you expect me to take this painting seriously if you call it a sedan?" I've already given you an explanation, what else do you need to hear?
"Why did you use two-doors? It is well understood that four-door sedans are better for hauling passengers." Sounds like you have a personal preference, I'm not sure how that relates to this painting
"It looks pretty cool, but your brushstrokes look a little crude in spots, why didn't you use gradient blending there?" Like I said, I'm not a professional artist, I just wanted to paint a picture of a car.
"I like the painting but you should be aware that your car has the bumper of a Subaru but the doors of a Nissan." Thanks?
"I don't think it is right to not use green paint for every tree, all of the trees should have been painted with green paint." We ran out of green paint as we said, and we improvised to allow us to finish the painting, but the end result is the same so it really doesn't matter, does it?
"Thank you for sharing this, I love seeing the work of others. One thing though, you didn't know this, but I already have a few dozen paintings of cars I have done myself, and they have more details than the one you painted, next time you should paint your car like this." This is the car we wanted to paint, so we did. I'm not entirely sure if you like our painting or not, but thank you for responding. That being said, had you shared any of your paintings with the community before now, maybe we wouldn't have had to do this painting.
"I'm not sure why you felt so comfortable changing the angles of the parking lot stripes, diagonal stripes are just as good, and are used in more parking lots." Yeah, I'm sorry for that. I just mentioned it because I thought it might be helpful, feel free to ignore the parking stripes. "No thank you, I really think it is important to focus on those parking lot stripes, you were irresponsible to suggest a preference for using the striping method you did." ....
If you use voyages for collecting 4* crew, this thread probably isn't for you. If you are motivated to try and send out the longest voyages possible, this thread is not for you. If you just run one voyage a day no matter what, this thread is not for you. If you just run your voyages until they run out of fuel, this thread is not for you. If you regularly extend voyages or regularly do the instant recall option, this thread is not for you. If those things are important to you that is great, do a thread about it, I promise I'll be supportive and contribute if I am able, and I won't try and turn your vision into my own.
If you don't understand why recall times are a factor in a real-world look at voyages, I think we just need to agree to disagree and move on. Start a thread to debate that topic if you feel it needs further discussion, but this thread is not the place for it.
This project was undertaken for and this thread was written mainly for three groups of people: people who are interested in reading about different approaches to thinking about STT, people currently unable to hit 10 hour voyages (ie newer players), and people who feel a compulsion to push themselves to achieving 10 hour voyages because they feel they need to be better, strictly from an Honor and chroniton harvesting perspective. If none of those describe you and you cannot just be supportive of what we did or say nothing at all, why can't you just leave it alone, why can't you just let us have our thing? If you feel you need to respond to this, do it in a private message.
I do want to thank everyone for taking an interest in this, and I am specifically thankful to Paladin for helping me communicate one thing I had lost in translation from my brain to the "paper": recalling voyages right after a dilemma offers the best bang for the buck, and to those who suggested doing a third data point at 9 hours for comparison are correct, that would have been an amazing idea, and I am sorry for not thinking of it. And if the 9 hour data point were added in, I suspect the importance of recall time would have been clearer.
Paladin. When you suggest adjusting chron drop for components, what would be an reasonable adjustment in your opinion? A direct chron cost for a single copy of the item at the top recommended run?
Sometimes multiple copies drop. Sometimes the run fails to drop what you want. Would you consider these to reasonably cancel eachother out suggesting an assumption of a single run to convert? Would a cost shift of 1.25x be more realistic to reflect practical play?
Paladin. When you suggest adjusting chron drop for components, what would be an reasonable adjustment in your opinion? A direct chron cost for a single copy of the item at the top recommended run?
Sometimes multiple copies drop. Sometimes the run fails to drop what you want. Would you consider these to reasonably cancel eachother out suggesting an assumption of a single run to convert? Would a cost shift of 1.25x be more realistic to reflect practical play?
Average chron costs to obtain items are easily available on the wiki. (Whether you choose to factor in the cost reduction via a supply kit - if, for example, you farm only during Skirmish events - is up to you.) Of course your real costs for farming will vary with every time you press the Warp button or run a mission, but unless you really enjoy math the averages should be sufficient for voyage efficiency calculations.
We are collecting thoughts and working on what data we want to collect for the next phase of our voyage project. @Paladin 27 's thoughts on components are particularly intriguing. But it also brings its own set of questions.
Is it acceptable to use chroniton costs from the wiki? If not, what method might be better?
Dirk raised my own question about supply kits and skirmishes. I only farm with supply kits, personally, and skirmishes are hit and miss. My thoughts are Supply Kit YES and Skirmish NO. We are open to hearing other thoughts though, of course.
Which 0* and 1* items have a practical chroniton value? This is the bigger and more subjective question. I have an abundance of some components, while others save me chronitons. We don't want to give a chroniton value to items that most players will not spend chronitons to farm. Hopefully this makes sense.
Due to the practicality of collecting data, I think it will be more realistic to pick 4 or 5 high cost items, then lump the rest together and assign an average chroniton cost so we can capture the data on some level. (Sorry if this is not ideal, but we live in a real world and not an ideal one.)
After we answer these questions, it will take take some time to arrange a spreadsheet for data collection. Please let us know if you are willing and able to help us collect voyage data for the upcoming phases of our voyage study.
Thank you!
Edit to specify 0* and 1* items. We may also track 2* databases because I also found that those save me chronitons.
Considering components, it is also interesting to note that players who achieve longer voyages need different components. For example, when I was new, many of the 2* items mattered to me. Now I have so many that I never have to warp a mission for them. But the "cheap" items that are abundant in the first two hours are the ones I'm always missing. I remember when I would recall always after 2 hours and coordinate my voyages with sending shuttles. I was swimming in cheap items I now lack, but I was waiting an hour to ad-warp a mission for 2* components. That makes your job of choosing chroniton value more difficult. Good luck.
As @DavideBooks mentioned, as a starting player, the 2* components are important, as are gold trainers. if you can't get to 8 hours reliably, chances are you also need gold trainers and some 2* components so that probably tilts things to trying to get as far as you can up to 8 hours.
For most folks who can reach 8 hours consistently, 2* components other than maybe databases are no longer an issue. Whether or not 2*databases are a need or not is even dependent on other game play decisions. If you pre-farm loads of 3* casings on Pirate Problems during skirmishes as I do, you'll never have a 2* database need.
For 0/1 star components. I think pretty much everyone would give value to 0/1* furs, 1* databases, 0/1* casings, 0/1* clothing patterns. A decent number of folks might also have value for 0* databases, 0/1* power cells, 0* subprocessors, 0* sensors, 1* interlinks, 1* crystal emitters, 1* synthesized polymers, 1* spices, 1* alcohol, and 1* polyalloys.
I would at least reduce the assigned chron value by supply kit value. Beyond that it gets complicated, in addition to possible skirmish discounting some of the missions I run for these drop other items as well, so the cost attributable to each item is less.
Considering components, it is also interesting to note that players who achieve longer voyages need different components. For example, when I was new, many of the 2* items mattered to me. Now I have so many that I never have to warp a mission for them. But the "cheap" items that are abundant in the first two hours are the ones I'm always missing. I remember when I would recall always after 2 hours and coordinate my voyages with sending shuttles. I was swimming in cheap items I now lack, but I was waiting an hour to ad-warp a mission for 2* components. That makes your job of choosing chroniton value more difficult. Good luck.
Good point - I remember having to worry about 2* and even some 1* items before some of the later episodes were released, and now I have more than I could ever need. Prime Lorca’s point about not counting chron values from items that are overly abundant is a good one.
Dirk raised my own question about supply kits and skirmishes. I only farm with supply kits, personally, and skirmishes are hit and miss. My thoughts are Supply Kit YES and Skirmish NO. We are open to hearing other thoughts though, of course.
Two things:
1) Chron costs from the wiki seem reasonable to me as they are usually the result of many data points collected by many people. The real question is whether to always use the lowest-cost mission or to use the lowest-cost ship battle (when possible) to account for people who preferentially farm holoemitters.
2) I figure that I am going to go hard in every Skirmish (for honor accumulation purposes) and do the vast majority of my item shopping while loading up on Intel that I would be acquiring anyway, while doing only very limited farming work on a regular basis for satisfying the daily mission requirements. I feel this approach scales to players of most skill/experience levels, to maximize the benefit of opening supply kits, but do recognize that not everyone uses the chron-hoarding approach that makes this work best.
Given that not everyone uses supply kits, and nobody can use them all the time without a serious dilithium drain, I think it would be appropriate to present the results without supply kits, and anyone who wishes to farm only with one can apply that 25% savings on their own...unless you want to get in real deep when it comes to how it’s not always 25% thanks to missions with base chron costs not wholly divisible by 4.
My thoughts are to see if any of these are close to the sort of low-end average and lump them in for streamlined data collection. I would also like to see if there is concensus on this and see if any on Paladin's secondary list are more appealing:
0* databases and 1* alcohol jump out to me. But again, if they are close to that low-end average, then they could be lumped in.
Dirk, how would you feel about accounting for supply kit, then anyone who wants to adjust can add 33% and we can move the rounding errors over to the other side?
Dirk, how would you feel about accounting for supply kit, then anyone who wants to adjust can add 33% and we can move the rounding errors over to the other side?
Alright, this is getting exciting! Anybody interesting in volunteering to help us gather data on the 0-2 hour items listed, please let us know. My inbox is open if you are not comfortable replying publicly
Alright, this is getting exciting! Anybody interesting in volunteering to help us gather data on the 0-2 hour items listed, please let us know. My inbox is open if you are not comfortable replying publicly
I can get you info on any voyage stuff. What do you want? Screenshots? Let me know and where to send it.
Comments
This was also my biggest take-away. I can't keep up with that "ideal" player that Bylo tested, so it's good to know that I can achieve decent results just by recalling those 8-hour voyages if it happens to be bedtime.
Here is the part that I think you're missing, because you're looking at full voyage length you're obscuring the step function after 6 hours. If we accept the assertion that voyage rewards flatten after 6 hours(that should be tested to confirm, but I'm pretty confident in it), then what you have is a fixed 8.4 hour cost to start a voyage(6 hours to start and 2.4 to recall). Then every extra hour you run is really 1.4 hours factoring in return.
If your function is (pre 6 reward + post 6 reward rate * x)/(8.4 + 1.4x) where x is the length of your voyage after 6 hours, then the way to maximize your return per overall hour is to increase x. As x increases the function begins to become (post 6 reward rate * x)/1.4x. This is a linear function post 6 reward rate / 1.4.
Of course none of that includes sleep time. If you factor in your sleep time then the time a voyage is idle becomes your limiting factor. The optimal strategy at that point is to begin a voyage every morning, keep it running for 16-18 hours, recall it before bed so that it will return as you wake up, then start again. That way you are not losing idle time while sleeping.
But that is only maximizing honor and chrons per run time. If you want to talk about maximizing per dil/token that is a different analysis.
In Bylo's simulation of a week of voyages, yes, recall times were factored in. I'm not sure if the spreadsheet lends itself to posting on the forum, so I will leave that to him.
As to the step function, I stated that we were trying to approximate game play. Personally, extending voyages may happen once a week. Less if I can help it so that I can accumulate tokens for a really long voyage. 8-hour and 10-hour voyages are achievable without spending resources, which seems more normal for the average player.
It seems obvious that 72-hour voyages would be the ideal if you really want to minimize the 6-hour start-up costs. Then of course you would want to recall with dilithium to completely eliminate that wasted time. I don't have those kind of resources, but I'm sure those who do would be eternally grateful for a guide on how to spend them.
If you are looking at 4, 6 and 8 hour voyages, it may be an idea to include trainers in the results. Players who are at this level might be struggling with trainers, and it could be that they will not have enough until they reliably hit 8 hour voyages.
This is a very good point. It is probably better to recall at 8 hours when there is little chance of hitting 10 hours, than to try and run down AM until the last minute, as you still only get four dilemmas, and risk losing the ship.
One advantage of recalling at eight hour is that the recall time is about 3 hours 12 minutes. Do the dilemma, hit recall, then send out four shuttles. The shuttles should return a few minutes before the voyage returns, so the player will have full crew available for the next voyage, and there is little down time in shuttles.
Data yes. But it seems @Bylo Band's intent is to show that going beyond 8 hours to hit the 10 hour+ mark is basically pointless, so why would you be wasteful and use $(dils) or tokens to extend just for a data set, if the goal is not to get to 10 hours?
Because I have many voyages that crash and burn right before 10 hours so I revive to get the 10 and 12 hour dilemna since I still have the skill points to pass hazards. As an example, the last one I did crapped out at 9:53 and one refresh carried me all the way to 12:38
This amounts to "why didn't you know the outcome of your experiment before you conducted it?"
Also, if my voyage does at 9:54, then I will probably revive it to get to 12 hours. I can collect the 10 hour data as a small perk.
Yes, but there is a difference between "rewards of the voyage up to 8 hours" and "rewards between 8 and 10 hours". From your experiments, you can say that the rewards between 8 and 10 hours mark are bigger as the ones before 8 hours. But your experiments does not include information about whether the rewards after 8 hours still grow. Basically, it is the difference between average and marginal rate (or average and derivative).
Paladins statement is: the marginal rate/derivative stays the same after 8 hours.
The experiment instead looks into the average rate. I also think that this is an interesting topic and there is nothing wrong in following the question that you found more interesting; but I found it worth to mention that the experiment did not cover information about the original statement.
OK, but the sleep schedule does not show in the given average numbers, right?
So, the recall time information only refers to the part of the three-player simulation done by Bylo Band!? Thanks for pointing that out again.
I have some maxed-out 5-star ships. So, 2625 AM is basically as low as it gets when I start a voyage and have bad luck with traits. So, that I never had a 10 hour voyage with less than 2625 AM does not proof any floor AM value. It just means that basically all my voyages (i.e. since I started hitting the 10 hour mark), started with at least 2625 AM.
I have to add that I still don't manage to hit the 10 hour mark with every voyage.
On the other hand, that I hit the 10 hour mark even with just 2625 AM (aka the smallest realistic* value), shows that there is no realistic* lower bound needed for 10 hours. I can just hit the mark with any starting AM that realistically will come up for me - as long as I have a good crew for the skill combo.
* What does "realistic" mean here? Obviously, there is a needed floor start AM to hit the 10 hour mark and that is 0 AM. With less than 0 AM, you won't ever get to any mark. But also, you can't start with that amount. I think, you also can replace the 0 with the AM amout for a level 1 one-star ship. That is obviously a floor value. But it is practically as irrelevant as it can get.
So, you denounce my statement for focussing on the AM part and not rehashing the skill parts that we all know from the other threads just to then add that you don't want a rehash of these information here? Hmm.
Live long and prosper,
Doctor 8472
You lost me. We were testing 8-hour voyages vs 10-hour voyages. Our numbers reflect one vs the other. Nothing more, and I'm pretty sure nothing less, though I won't swear to it.
The sleep schedules mentioned are for our three fictional players. We conducted our research voyages as our RL schedules allowed.
You could start a thread called "What is the lowest starting anti-matter you've had on a 10-hour voyage?"
We made a small observation based on a small set of data. If you're having trouble getting to 10 hours on a voyage, consider citing someone who has traits that come up frequently on voyages if you think that is the best way to improve your game.
I will be happy to discuss such things in a relevant thread. Pick a relevant thread, present your argument, and tag me. Banjo has his methods of balancing skills, I have mine, and Bylo has his. Using a particular method to reach 10 hours was not within the scope of the experiment, be it starting anti-matter or skill balance. I'm still experimenting with ways to get more consistent 10-hour voyages. If you have ideas, then I would love to discuss them in a better setting so as not to hijack Bylo's thread.
One point I've tried to make in the past and will say again here is that to truly evaluate the chron return, you need to include any 0/1/2 star components that you still farm (these can be different for different people). As it stands now I don't have to farm any 2 star components so those have no value to me after hour 6, while in hour 0-6 there are several 0/1 star components such as furs, databases, clothing patters, and casings that almost everyone needs.
The metrics that I think would be useful to have are
Honor Comments
I think its un-disputable and the data here supports it, that honor for hours 6-8 (including the dilemma) or hour 8-10 (including the dilemma) is better than your average honor for 1/3 of a 6 hour voyage. So if you know you can make it to that next dilemma and honor is the most important thing, than go for it.
I also believe that the honor per minute from hour 6+ without dilemmas, is worse than the honor per minute for a voyage that is exactly 6 or 8 hours long and is recalled exactly at those times.
This means that if you get to 8 hours, depending on your chance of getting to 10 hours (not based on your start of voyage odds, but based on how much antimatter you have left at hour 8, 900-1000 am and still passing the primary and secondary is close to 50/50), you may want to recall exactly at 8. If you had the answers to those three metrics above you could get this exact percentage (It may be 40% or 90% but there is a break-even. As an example, if you only have 700 am left at hour 8, your chance of getting to hour 10 is under 10% and you should probably recall immediately at 8 hours and not wait around to get low on antimatter at 9:20.
Chrons
WIthout components adding to chron value, I think its likely that you can basically take everything I just said about honor as a starting point.
With components I think that the 0-6 hour chron total gets boosted some. It may not be enough to make 6 hour voyages better than 8 or 10 hour voyages, but it at the least boosts the break even percentage some. If it was a 50% chance of needing to get to that 8 or 10 hour dilemma without items, maybe its a 90% chance with the items boosting the 6 hour voyage value.
Or, if not better, that the extra drop of components that are needed might offset what one gains from longer voyages.
I think the only 2 star component I need is database.
That use to be me too. But for some reason over at least the last year(I think around 2) I have been sleeping though the night. I had to start modifying my play accordingly with faction events. That means using those 9 hours boosts at night before going to sleep.
I don’t know what or why but it just happens. Except for the dog, Einstein. I get up then so there isn’t poop in the basement
Now, I get into "trouble" often in my forum threads because there is a communication breakdown between what is in my head and how people interpret/react to what I type. As a kid I very, VERY much identified with the TNG episode "Darmok" because that is my every day, to a lesser extent. I think, speak, communicate in metaphors, and I struggle at times to either communicate my thoughts or be heard by others. I'm also a jack-of-all-trades; I am good at a wide range of things, but I am great at almost nothing. In a room full of sports fans I can relate to them because I like sports too, but to them I'm a nerd. In a forum full of Star Trek fans many of whom are mathematicians, statisticians, computer programmers, etc I can relate because I enjoy Star Trek, but I'm more of an artist here. Every time I put myself out there on this forum I am reminded again and again that I'm not sure I truly belong here, and this is another example of that, because for some reason I simply am unable to reach people or communicate my ideas.
So to try and communicate how many of the reactions here have affected me, I'm going to reduce it down to a metaphor both for my own reasons but also to try and blunt some of the impact.
Hey everyone, I thought it would be interesting to paint a picture of a car, so I gave up a fair amount of my free time to this painting. After I had worked on it for several weeks I reached out to two of my friends and showed it to them and they thought it looked cool and wanted to help, so the three of us finished the painting together. And here it is, a painting of a silver two-door sedan, in a parking lot! We are not professional artists, but we think the final product looks cool and we hope you enjoy it. A couple of notes: while painting the trees in the background we ran out of green paint, so for a few we had to combine a bit of yellow and blue to make it work, and while painting the car we noticed that if we used a straight in model for the parking lot stripes rather than the diagonal model the car seemed to fit better. Anyway, we hope you like it!
"Hey, that looks cool, thank you for painting it. But why did you paint the car silver? Blue looks better." I wanted to see how a silver sedan looked against a backdrop of trees.
"Why didn't you tell all of us that you were painting this car, we could have painted it with you." I'm sorry, it did not occur to me, maybe we can do the next painting together as a group?
"A two-door car is called a coupée, not a sedan." I'm sorry, like I said, I'm not a professional artist and I'm not a car expert. It's just a painting. "How do you expect me to take this painting seriously if you call it a sedan?" I've already given you an explanation, what else do you need to hear?
"Why did you use two-doors? It is well understood that four-door sedans are better for hauling passengers." Sounds like you have a personal preference, I'm not sure how that relates to this painting
"It looks pretty cool, but your brushstrokes look a little crude in spots, why didn't you use gradient blending there?" Like I said, I'm not a professional artist, I just wanted to paint a picture of a car.
"I like the painting but you should be aware that your car has the bumper of a Subaru but the doors of a Nissan." Thanks?
"I don't think it is right to not use green paint for every tree, all of the trees should have been painted with green paint." We ran out of green paint as we said, and we improvised to allow us to finish the painting, but the end result is the same so it really doesn't matter, does it?
"Thank you for sharing this, I love seeing the work of others. One thing though, you didn't know this, but I already have a few dozen paintings of cars I have done myself, and they have more details than the one you painted, next time you should paint your car like this." This is the car we wanted to paint, so we did. I'm not entirely sure if you like our painting or not, but thank you for responding. That being said, had you shared any of your paintings with the community before now, maybe we wouldn't have had to do this painting.
"I'm not sure why you felt so comfortable changing the angles of the parking lot stripes, diagonal stripes are just as good, and are used in more parking lots." Yeah, I'm sorry for that. I just mentioned it because I thought it might be helpful, feel free to ignore the parking stripes. "No thank you, I really think it is important to focus on those parking lot stripes, you were irresponsible to suggest a preference for using the striping method you did." ....
If you use voyages for collecting 4* crew, this thread probably isn't for you. If you are motivated to try and send out the longest voyages possible, this thread is not for you. If you just run one voyage a day no matter what, this thread is not for you. If you just run your voyages until they run out of fuel, this thread is not for you. If you regularly extend voyages or regularly do the instant recall option, this thread is not for you. If those things are important to you that is great, do a thread about it, I promise I'll be supportive and contribute if I am able, and I won't try and turn your vision into my own.
If you don't understand why recall times are a factor in a real-world look at voyages, I think we just need to agree to disagree and move on. Start a thread to debate that topic if you feel it needs further discussion, but this thread is not the place for it.
This project was undertaken for and this thread was written mainly for three groups of people: people who are interested in reading about different approaches to thinking about STT, people currently unable to hit 10 hour voyages (ie newer players), and people who feel a compulsion to push themselves to achieving 10 hour voyages because they feel they need to be better, strictly from an Honor and chroniton harvesting perspective. If none of those describe you and you cannot just be supportive of what we did or say nothing at all, why can't you just leave it alone, why can't you just let us have our thing? If you feel you need to respond to this, do it in a private message.
I do want to thank everyone for taking an interest in this, and I am specifically thankful to Paladin for helping me communicate one thing I had lost in translation from my brain to the "paper": recalling voyages right after a dilemma offers the best bang for the buck, and to those who suggested doing a third data point at 9 hours for comparison are correct, that would have been an amazing idea, and I am sorry for not thinking of it. And if the 9 hour data point were added in, I suspect the importance of recall time would have been clearer.
Sometimes multiple copies drop. Sometimes the run fails to drop what you want. Would you consider these to reasonably cancel eachother out suggesting an assumption of a single run to convert? Would a cost shift of 1.25x be more realistic to reflect practical play?
Average chron costs to obtain items are easily available on the wiki. (Whether you choose to factor in the cost reduction via a supply kit - if, for example, you farm only during Skirmish events - is up to you.) Of course your real costs for farming will vary with every time you press the Warp button or run a mission, but unless you really enjoy math the averages should be sufficient for voyage efficiency calculations.
Is it acceptable to use chroniton costs from the wiki? If not, what method might be better?
Dirk raised my own question about supply kits and skirmishes. I only farm with supply kits, personally, and skirmishes are hit and miss. My thoughts are Supply Kit YES and Skirmish NO. We are open to hearing other thoughts though, of course.
Which 0* and 1* items have a practical chroniton value? This is the bigger and more subjective question. I have an abundance of some components, while others save me chronitons. We don't want to give a chroniton value to items that most players will not spend chronitons to farm. Hopefully this makes sense.
Due to the practicality of collecting data, I think it will be more realistic to pick 4 or 5 high cost items, then lump the rest together and assign an average chroniton cost so we can capture the data on some level. (Sorry if this is not ideal, but we live in a real world and not an ideal one.)
After we answer these questions, it will take take some time to arrange a spreadsheet for data collection. Please let us know if you are willing and able to help us collect voyage data for the upcoming phases of our voyage study.
Thank you!
Edit to specify 0* and 1* items. We may also track 2* databases because I also found that those save me chronitons.
As @DavideBooks mentioned, as a starting player, the 2* components are important, as are gold trainers. if you can't get to 8 hours reliably, chances are you also need gold trainers and some 2* components so that probably tilts things to trying to get as far as you can up to 8 hours.
For most folks who can reach 8 hours consistently, 2* components other than maybe databases are no longer an issue. Whether or not 2*databases are a need or not is even dependent on other game play decisions. If you pre-farm loads of 3* casings on Pirate Problems during skirmishes as I do, you'll never have a 2* database need.
For 0/1 star components. I think pretty much everyone would give value to 0/1* furs, 1* databases, 0/1* casings, 0/1* clothing patterns. A decent number of folks might also have value for 0* databases, 0/1* power cells, 0* subprocessors, 0* sensors, 1* interlinks, 1* crystal emitters, 1* synthesized polymers, 1* spices, 1* alcohol, and 1* polyalloys.
I would at least reduce the assigned chron value by supply kit value. Beyond that it gets complicated, in addition to possible skirmish discounting some of the missions I run for these drop other items as well, so the cost attributable to each item is less.
Good point - I remember having to worry about 2* and even some 1* items before some of the later episodes were released, and now I have more than I could ever need. Prime Lorca’s point about not counting chron values from items that are overly abundant is a good one.
Two things:
1) Chron costs from the wiki seem reasonable to me as they are usually the result of many data points collected by many people. The real question is whether to always use the lowest-cost mission or to use the lowest-cost ship battle (when possible) to account for people who preferentially farm holoemitters.
2) I figure that I am going to go hard in every Skirmish (for honor accumulation purposes) and do the vast majority of my item shopping while loading up on Intel that I would be acquiring anyway, while doing only very limited farming work on a regular basis for satisfying the daily mission requirements. I feel this approach scales to players of most skill/experience levels, to maximize the benefit of opening supply kits, but do recognize that not everyone uses the chron-hoarding approach that makes this work best.
Given that not everyone uses supply kits, and nobody can use them all the time without a serious dilithium drain, I think it would be appropriate to present the results without supply kits, and anyone who wishes to farm only with one can apply that 25% savings on their own...unless you want to get in real deep when it comes to how it’s not always 25% thanks to missions with base chron costs not wholly divisible by 4.
0* furs
1* furs
1* databases
0* casings
1* casings
0* clothing patterns
1* clothing patterns
My thoughts are to see if any of these are close to the sort of low-end average and lump them in for streamlined data collection. I would also like to see if there is concensus on this and see if any on Paladin's secondary list are more appealing:
0* databases
0* power cells
1* power cells
0* subprocessors
0* sensors
1* interlinks
1* crystal emitters
1* synthesized polymers
1* spices
1* alcohol
1* polyalloys
0* databases and 1* alcohol jump out to me. But again, if they are close to that low-end average, then they could be lumped in.
Dirk, how would you feel about accounting for supply kit, then anyone who wants to adjust can add 33% and we can move the rounding errors over to the other side?
That seems like a reasonable safety factor to me.
I can get you info on any voyage stuff. What do you want? Screenshots? Let me know and where to send it.