Options
Statistical Improbabilities
Valen
✭✭
in Ready Room
I've played Timelines for well over year, almost two now and enjoy the game very much, save for one improbable truth. The percentage chances for success on missions simply aren't even close to reality.
Time after time after time (pun included) the indication from the game is a good percentage of success on a mission only leads to failure which defies logic. So glaring is this discrepancy that if one does the statistics on the probability of failing three missions in a row with a 95% chance of success, you're looking at the same probability of being struck by lightning. Twice. In the same spot. I should know, considering my vocation, I had to endure top level university statistical analysis (not recommended).
My point is this - it's an issue that is sorely in need of a course correction. It is a blemish on an otherwise amazing game. Why? Not simply because it isn't possible, but because it's frustrating, not fun or challenging. And that's the point where you loose customers like myself.
Let me fill you in on the difference between frustrating and challenging. Challenging is where a mission is difficult or even not possible at one's present level of expertise but could be possible with more skill and/or resources. Frustrating is where by all reasoning and logic, a mission that should have been easy as pie failed for no discernible reason. Challenge drives people to continue, to engage and drive forward. Even spend more to get there. Frustration pushes them to stop, quit and cry unfair. Oh. And stop paying for your game.
I've listened to my squad and my fleet anger over this issue more than any other in the game and I agree. It needs to be addressed. Your 95% should be exactly that - success on 95 out of 100 missions. No hidden adjendas or loopholes. If the probability isn't 95% then let us know so we are not frustrated and screaming foul when the game boots us out of a sure thing.
After all, these are folks that travel the cosmos. If they can't figure out such probabilities with little margin for error they would have flown into a star by now. I can't imagine Spock was ever that far off, but with the game as it is, he wouldn't have stood a chance of slingshoting around the sun with his best guess... *poof goes the Vulcan*.
Respectfully Submitted,
A Captain on the Edge
Time after time after time (pun included) the indication from the game is a good percentage of success on a mission only leads to failure which defies logic. So glaring is this discrepancy that if one does the statistics on the probability of failing three missions in a row with a 95% chance of success, you're looking at the same probability of being struck by lightning. Twice. In the same spot. I should know, considering my vocation, I had to endure top level university statistical analysis (not recommended).
My point is this - it's an issue that is sorely in need of a course correction. It is a blemish on an otherwise amazing game. Why? Not simply because it isn't possible, but because it's frustrating, not fun or challenging. And that's the point where you loose customers like myself.
Let me fill you in on the difference between frustrating and challenging. Challenging is where a mission is difficult or even not possible at one's present level of expertise but could be possible with more skill and/or resources. Frustrating is where by all reasoning and logic, a mission that should have been easy as pie failed for no discernible reason. Challenge drives people to continue, to engage and drive forward. Even spend more to get there. Frustration pushes them to stop, quit and cry unfair. Oh. And stop paying for your game.
I've listened to my squad and my fleet anger over this issue more than any other in the game and I agree. It needs to be addressed. Your 95% should be exactly that - success on 95 out of 100 missions. No hidden adjendas or loopholes. If the probability isn't 95% then let us know so we are not frustrated and screaming foul when the game boots us out of a sure thing.
After all, these are folks that travel the cosmos. If they can't figure out such probabilities with little margin for error they would have flown into a star by now. I can't imagine Spock was ever that far off, but with the game as it is, he wouldn't have stood a chance of slingshoting around the sun with his best guess... *poof goes the Vulcan*.
Respectfully Submitted,
A Captain on the Edge
5
Comments
Personal I have the impression, but no proof (!), that the system has Problems with Numbers that follow in near succession. Maybe it is possible that it has a higher Chance that it takes the same Number twice in a row?
Looking at the Gaunlet I sometimes even think it is part of the Code to stop and try to convince me to spend some Dil.
Not a Native English speaker - be lenient toward me
The problem with this is we don't really know if the "99%" is 98.5% or 99.9%. These lead to radically different probabilities (since chance of failure is literally 15x higher in the 98.5% scenario).
I can personally recall two 99% failures (not in the same set). However, I have sent hundreds of 99% shuttles, so, if anything, I might be beating the odds there.
And for SkyMarshall, with all due respect, I'm not used to showing my belly so easily when I know there's a wrong here. Much like other houses that deal cards, they must show accurate odds even if they are in the house's favor. To do otherwise is simply misleading. As Nikita points out, perhaps this is done to force us to spend dilithium. If that is the case, the house is cheating us out of money.
Thats a rather chippy way to call out someone. I am not showing my belly at all. At least I am using my ig name. What is yours? Guest-6917whateva.
Also how much time have you spent in this game and dealing with DB. While I have not had as much as others I know DB's style. Fairness really doesn't exist as we know it in SST. It is a gambling game full of psychological triggers to enable you to spend.
I'm pretty sure the Gauntlet is rigged to stop your streaks. With a streak of 2, 5, 8, etc, expect the next match to be especially tough.
There is hope that the new owners will address these shortfalls and clear up the mismanagement of what started out as an awesome game.
My first impression was, that I do not get such streaks during regular shuttle missions, but only during the events. So what's the difference? Most obvious, that I use BOOSTS only during the events. Ofc, observer bias could cause me to ignore loss streaks during regular shuttle missions, because long term effects of such streak would not be as damaging and visible, as during an event, but I've decided to run my missions without any boost... anyway at that time using boosts was like throwing good money after bad. When I have done so, my results immediately went back to what should be expected according to percentages shown! And stayed this way for the next 3 days.
After 24 hours I have broadcasted in widely in fleet's chat. Close to 8 people took part in the discussion, probably 3 of them stating, that there was nothing wrong/unexpected happening to them, when running missions with boosts. At least 3 other folks have turned the boosts off for the last 2 days of the event and 2 of them (very sensible folks) decisively reported "things back to normal" after doing so, but 1 player reported no improvement.
Those are obviously preliminary data and not giving a really simple answers. However my conclusion is, that most likely it's the boosts, that are somehow bugged and in some conditions (which I'm unable to determine) at least for some players are causing loosing (and possibly also winning) streaks, that are practically impossible, if results were in accordance with shown win chances.
I am practically certain, that for me during the events the randoms do not work, as they should. I am also convinced, that stopping to use the boosts has fixed those randoms. Therefore it seems very likely, that the bug is somehow triggered by using the boosts and I believe, that it's the first thing, that should be investigated in the effort to fix the problem.
But I use Booster although only at Events - with the exception of Time related Boosts.
Not a Native English speaker - be lenient toward me
I wished people would stop repeating this misleading "argument"! The problem with randomly created numbers on computers is that a pure algorithm based RNG creates random numbers always from a deterministic source and thus they are not truly random. There are some experiments done, where RNGs use real random outside sources to create real randomness, e.g. external sound through a microphone, etc.
BUT: This does not mean that it is difficult to create random numbers that are DISTRIBUTED the way they are supposed to. THAT is no problem at all. So this is not an excuse for observations deviating from the expected average outcomes.
I actually have collected some data on shuttle missions that I wanted to share and wanted to post them today, but it turns out, I cannot create any new threads (wanted to do it in a new post), for whatever reason.
Not a Native English speaker - be lenient toward me
Wow! How many runs do you have recorded?
We need to track this as well as the opposite end of the spectrum. 2 events ago, I was consistently succeeding in 54%-70%+ shuttles with no skill boosts. I attribute this to the "bonus crew" which in itself gives boosts that is NOT reflected in the success percentage displayed.
about 5k ...
Color me impressed with that level of tracking. I tip my hat at the amount of time you put into that.
It certainly IS reflected in the success percentage displayed... at least to the same degree, as other crew stats.
However it's obvious, that there are 2 different algorithms used for showing stats when mission is launched and for counting stats for the mission completion.
The algorithm for mission launch is certainly bugged (for example it doesn't account for hidden stats - use any 4* or 5* FF/FE crew with no matching skills on any 30 sec - 2 min mission and the mission will show 0% chance, yet practically always succeed, cause the hidden unaccounted stats really push it to 99%).
Which does not mean, that the algorithm for resolving the mission success isn't bugged as well, quite opposite, for all that I've seen, it is most likely also is bugged.
I had something strange happen the other day (which I should have documented better) with a set of 4 standard missions. I ran some from a faction I haven't run in a while and is not honored yet. Haven't had an event with them either. The success rates were quite low (45% - 50%) and I did not add boosts because I wanted to get them to fail so as to reset the difficulty. I did think they were quite strangely low. When they returned, they all passed and when I ran 4 more, the percentages were much higher. I don't know what was going on and like I said, I should have taken notes or screenshots but I was doing something else and didn't take the time.
The closest match for 50-50 return rate for shuttles is 80% in-game stated success rate.
Statements like "The Problem is, that creating Random-Numbers is not that easy for a Computer as you might think." from above are irrelevant.
RNG is ultra easy if you do not over-complicate it for nothing.
The scam is further supported by the fact that the math behind the RNG is never disclosed.
" it is most likely also is bugged" --> rigged. If it was bugged, it would of been fixed. It's intentional.
Just like the upper line in the dabo that never drops anything. 24 veteran fleets confirmed that they never got a single item from the upper line until exhausting the below lines. Another rigged number generator.
"On the flip side I'm regularly passing shuttle missions that supposedly have a 0% chance of success. I haven't tracked the numbers but I'd estimate I pass 20-25% of 0% shuttles, so something is clearly off."
It may be a very absurd math function that tries to average extremes.