Home The Bridge

Crew Power Ratings

Been working on this tool for a little bit - a slightly different approach than the ones used by the BBoB and other tiering tools. So not a replacement - just a different way of looking at it.

Purples will be added in the next couple of days.

Thoughts?

http://sttpowerratings.com/
«1

Comments

  • robownagerobownage ✭✭✭✭✭
    Intriguing. Love the idea, but I'd be curious to know how the ratings are derived.
  • robownage wrote: »
    Intriguing. Love the idea, but I'd be curious to know how the ratings are derived.

    I'm not going to post the formulas, but basically I take all of the stats, and the formula accounts for Voyage effectiveness in the various pairings, Faction utility (according to the game's scoring system), an element for Gauntlet utility, and small bonuses based on exceptional Arena abilities (Killy, Ardra, etc) and collections.

    It does not include subjective measures like rare skill pairings (because that changes over time) or event count.
  • SSR BarkleySSR Barkley ✭✭✭✭✭
    this is awesome. Love the idea of a more objective ranking system. both types have their place, but have been waiting for someone to create something like this.
    /SSR/ Barkley
    Second Star to the Right - Join Today!
    Fleet Admiral
  • I'm intrigued.
    Is being part of a collection (or multiple collections) something that leads to bonus points as well?
  • AviTrekAviTrek ✭✭✭✭✭
    robownage wrote: »
    Intriguing. Love the idea, but I'd be curious to know how the ratings are derived.

    I'm not going to post the formulas, but basically I take all of the stats, and the formula accounts for Voyage effectiveness in the various pairings, Faction utility (according to the game's scoring system), an element for Gauntlet utility, and small bonuses based on exceptional Arena abilities (Killy, Ardra, etc) and collections.

    It does not include subjective measures like rare skill pairings (because that changes over time) or event count.

    I'm thinking out loud here, but what about including a ranking by skill pairing in your formula? It would shift rankings over time, but it would provide an objective way of measuring value for rare skills vs another CMD/DIP/SEC crew.
  • I'm intrigued.
    Is being part of a collection (or multiple collections) something that leads to bonus points as well?

    Yes! A very small bonus, but there is one. Collections increase your stats, so completing them makes you stronger. I think that justifies a bonus on a power rating scale.
    AviTrek wrote: »
    I'm thinking out loud here, but what about including a ranking by skill pairing in your formula? It would shift rankings over time, but it would provide an objective way of measuring value for rare skills vs another CMD/DIP/SEC crew.

    Actually, I left of the rare skill rankings to maintain objectivity. The system is supposed to be overall - and not accounting for things like skillsets that are rare now, or where someone's crew might be lacking. That's what the Big Book is for.

    My thought is that I never want to change the formula. The second I start tweaking things to weight a particular skillset I think is more valuable, it becomes more subjective. Yes - doing so would increase the ranking of someone like Warship EMA (which is a great card), but it leads to other very deserving cards getting kicked down the list because they excel in a common skillset. It also leads to some crew staying at the top longer than they deserve to.

    The BBoB is a great resource, this is just a different way of looking at it. I'd say if you are looking for a focus on rare skillsets, that's a better place!

  • Legate Damar Legate Damar ✭✭✭✭
    I was surprised to see Torpedo McCoy rated way higher than Cheesecake, their voyage totals are almost the same.
  • I was surprised to see Torpedo McCoy rated way higher than Cheesecake, their voyage totals are almost the same.

    The difference is bonuses - McCoy has a small boost for Arena ability... an area Seven doesn't really have much going for her in.

    Again, she's a strong card, but it looks at the overall picture
  • Legate Damar Legate Damar ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14
    Ok, I’ve never used him in the arena. I had no idea he had 400% damage after 5 seconds.
  • AviTrekAviTrek ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm intrigued.
    Is being part of a collection (or multiple collections) something that leads to bonus points as well?

    Yes! A very small bonus, but there is one. Collections increase your stats, so completing them makes you stronger. I think that justifies a bonus on a power rating scale.
    AviTrek wrote: »
    I'm thinking out loud here, but what about including a ranking by skill pairing in your formula? It would shift rankings over time, but it would provide an objective way of measuring value for rare skills vs another CMD/DIP/SEC crew.

    Actually, I left of the rare skill rankings to maintain objectivity. The system is supposed to be overall - and not accounting for things like skillsets that are rare now, or where someone's crew might be lacking. That's what the Big Book is for.

    My thought is that I never want to change the formula. The second I start tweaking things to weight a particular skillset I think is more valuable, it becomes more subjective. Yes - doing so would increase the ranking of someone like Warship EMA (which is a great card), but it leads to other very deserving cards getting kicked down the list because they excel in a common skillset. It also leads to some crew staying at the top longer than they deserve to.

    The BBoB is a great resource, this is just a different way of looking at it. I'd say if you are looking for a focus on rare skillsets, that's a better place!

    Sorry if I wasn't clearer, I don't think you should ever change the formula either. Or put in your opinion about what is a rarer skill. My thought is to rank the crew in each skill pair and then give a bonus for top 5 of each pair. Or maybe normalize the total points in the skill pair and factor that in. That way you are not putting your own opinion in on what skills are rare, but your ranking will still give a bonus for crew with a rarer skillset. Yes this means a crew may potentially drop in rankings later, but if that's because new crew have come out, I think that's reasonable.
  • eXo | SilverRoseeXo | SilverRose ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ok, I’ve never used him in the arena. I had no idea he had 400% damage after 5 seconds.

    It's a phase skill, though, so worthless for auto battles.
    Proud Admiral of eXodus
    Officer of The Gluten Empire

    Check out our guides to crew and the game!
  • robownagerobownage ✭✭✭✭✭
    robownage wrote: »
    Intriguing. Love the idea, but I'd be curious to know how the ratings are derived.

    I'm not going to post the formulas, but basically I take all of the stats, and the formula accounts for Voyage effectiveness in the various pairings, Faction utility (according to the game's scoring system), an element for Gauntlet utility, and small bonuses based on exceptional Arena abilities (Killy, Ardra, etc) and collections.

    It does not include subjective measures like rare skill pairings (because that changes over time) or event count.

    I'd actually be curious to see the formulas, to be honest. As someone who's really into the stats aspect of the game, I'm really interested by different approaches. I've thought about doing something like this, but struggled with how to weigh things.
  • Dirk GundersonDirk Gunderson ✭✭✭✭✭
    Looks cool but it seems like the ranking still has subjective scoring to some degree. How does Dr. ‘Bones’ McCoy have the second lowest faction score when he has by far the highest medical skill level and there are many faction events where there are solo med slots and even with a med and some other skill slot he is useful?

    Dude, we’re agreeing on a lot of things right now. If this is meant to be a purely objective ranking system, Bones should be near the top of the Faction ranking list because he was my #2 MED crew in this last event right behind Imprinted Archer.
  • (A) Traveling Man(A) Traveling Man ✭✭✭
    edited July 15
    Looks cool but it seems like the ranking still has subjective scoring to some degree. How does Dr. ‘Bones’ McCoy have the second lowest faction score when he has by far the highest medical skill level and there are many faction events where there are solo med slots and even with a med and some other skill slot he is useful?

    I can't deny there is subjectivity in there - I had to focus it on something. But the list is meant to be "overall," not one specific area. If you have the crew space to justify spending a slot that is only great for one kind of slot in one facet of the game, outstanding - you should go with that. That's part of knowing your own crew and what you need.

    But to rank him highly on an overall scale when his use is so limited... it doesn't mesh with the rest of the list.

    The kind of rating you are looking for already exists in the BBoB... this really is something different.
  • (HGH)Apollo(HGH)Apollo ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 15
    Looks cool but it seems like the ranking still has subjective scoring to some degree. How does Dr. ‘Bones’ McCoy have the second lowest faction score when he has by far the highest medical skill level and there are many faction events where there are solo med slots and even with a med and some other skill slot he is useful?

    I can't deny there is subjectivity in there - I had to focus it on something. But the list is meant to be "overall," not one specific area. If you have the crew space to justify spending a slot that is only great for one kind of slot in one facet of the game, outstanding - you should go with that. That's part of knowing your own crew and what you need.

    But to rank him highly on an overall scale when his use is so limited... it doesn't mesh with the rest of the list.

    The kind of rating you are looking for already exists in the BBoB... this really is something different.

    I was specifically talking about his faction score which should be quite high. Using your scale I would have him at a 16 or 17 for faction even though he is one skill since his one skill is so much higher than any other med in the game. 270 more points than number 2 med Dr. Hugh Culber. I think for the most part your chart is quite good and I agree with it I would just make a change to Dr. ‘Bones’ McCoy in faction.

    One more note, I am a little confused on what is the top number for each category. Overall and Voyage goes up to 14, but Faction goes up to 18 and Gauntlet to 15. Maybe a ten point scale would be easier to understand.
  • I was specifically talking about his faction score which should be quite high. Using your scale I would have him at a 16 or 17 for faction even though he is one skill since his one skill is so much higher than any other med in the game. 270 more points than number 2 med Dr. Hugh Culber. I think for the most part your chart is quite good and I agree with it I would just make a change to Dr. ‘Bones’ McCoy in faction.

    One more note, I am a little confused on what is the top number for each category. Overall and Voyage goes up to 14, but Faction goes up to 18 and Gauntlet to 15. Maybe a ten point scale would be easier to understand.

    I'll keep him on the radar. I don't want to arbitrarily bump anyone just because I think they are too low - I need a real math reason to do it that fits with the system. However - it is new, and if I come up with a way that makes sense and is in the spirit of the list, I'll definitely consider it. He's just a very, very unusual crew...

    As far as the scale goes - I did expand it past 10 because the lower rarities are going to use the same scoring system, so their power ratings will be lower. Purples should end up between 5 and 10 I think - we will see how that shakes out. This way, you can do direct comparisons, or separate them. They will be presented both ways.

    It's also a static formula. So stat creep will eventually give us 15 overalls, then 16s, etc. This way the formula doesn't have to change because of the creep. The current peaks aren't really uniform because it would be hard to do so in a way to guarantee that each category's highest rating will always be the same.

    I'd say, consider it to be on a scale to 20, with room for growth? :D
  • AviTrekAviTrek ✭✭✭✭✭
    You shouldn't arbitrarily bump McCoy because he's too low. But if McCoy's numbers don't match roughly what you would expect, then that may be an indication of a flaw in your formula. If you assumed all shuttle missions were AND slots and only looked at McCoy's skill pairs, then you could be undervaluing him by not considering single MED slots.

    I just looked at shuttle pairs and McCoy is the #1 in 4/5 pairs and #2 slightly behind Culber in the 5th. Seeing him ranked so low says to me there is something wrong with your formula.
  • AviTrekAviTrek ✭✭✭✭✭
    Something else to consider, I think you may want even more tiers or shift how you bucket the crew to limit the number at the extremes.

    Looking at Voyager ranking, after the 4 crew you have at 14, there are 76 crew at 13. While they may all be between crew 5 and 81, it's not really a useful measure. Telling me 76 crew are "equal" doesn't help me to decide who to pick in a behold or who to give citations to. I need a clearer indication of who is better.

    To use a baseball analogy, if you are looking at professional baseball and give me MLB, AAA, AA, and A as your 4 categories as rankings it tell me which are the best 30 teams in the US/Canada, but it doesn't even tell me which teams are likely to make the playoffs.
  • AviTrek wrote: »
    You shouldn't arbitrarily bump McCoy because he's too low. But if McCoy's numbers don't match roughly what you would expect, then that may be an indication of a flaw in your formula. If you assumed all shuttle missions were AND slots and only looked at McCoy's skill pairs, then you could be undervaluing him by not considering single MED slots.

    I just looked at shuttle pairs and McCoy is the #1 in 4/5 pairs and #2 slightly behind Culber in the 5th. Seeing him ranked so low says to me there is something wrong with your formula.

    I didn't assume that - I am not discounting the thought that the formulas could be refined, and do plan to re-evaluate regularly. But single-skill slots factor as well. Trouble is, he just has the one skill, which hurts him. I've toyed with some ideas to account for this, but they end up also inflating others that don't deserve it in the process. With 900+ crew overall, a couple will be placed weirdly, that's just the nature of the system. Eventually I'll find the fairest way to account for crew like him. Call him an outlier for now.

    I do appreciate the feedback, and will consider it as things evolve.
  • Bylo BandBylo Band ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ok, I’ve never used him in the arena. I had no idea he had 400% damage after 5 seconds.

    It's a phase skill, though, so worthless for auto battles.

    This is mostly true, and the full 400% bonus is pretty much off the table, but in the Krayton with the timer speed up ability he gets up to the 250% plateau at 4.1 seconds, which when combined with his boost in accuracy does make him very useful in skirmishes utilizing auto pilot.

    ==========================

    (A Traveling Man [Cymru Am Byth], your name makes tagging you impossible, FYI)

    I like this idea. If you are accepting feedback I would suggest including a separate category for "Other" value aspects that you are referencing (like Arena/Skirmish) utility so it is easier for people to spot those impacts in the scores.

    But yeah, this is cool :)
  • (HGH)Apollo(HGH)Apollo ✭✭✭✭✭
    AviTrek wrote: »
    You shouldn't arbitrarily bump McCoy because he's too low. But if McCoy's numbers don't match roughly what you would expect, then that may be an indication of a flaw in your formula. If you assumed all shuttle missions were AND slots and only looked at McCoy's skill pairs, then you could be undervaluing him by not considering single MED slots.

    I just looked at shuttle pairs and McCoy is the #1 in 4/5 pairs and #2 slightly behind Culber in the 5th. Seeing him ranked so low says to me there is something wrong with your formula.

    I didn't assume that - I am not discounting the thought that the formulas could be refined, and do plan to re-evaluate regularly. But single-skill slots factor as well. Trouble is, he just has the one skill, which hurts him. I've toyed with some ideas to account for this, but they end up also inflating others that don't deserve it in the process. With 900+ crew overall, a couple will be placed weirdly, that's just the nature of the system. Eventually I'll find the fairest way to account for crew like him. Call him an outlier for now.

    I do appreciate the feedback, and will consider it as things evolve.

    That is a good point that he is just one skill but with faction all the slots are one skill or two skill so his high med works for me quite well. Also in doing daily shuttles I can throw him on in a med slot and not have to use a crew person who might be needed in a voyage which adds to his usefulness for me.
  • Dirk GundersonDirk Gunderson ✭✭✭✭✭
    AviTrek wrote: »
    You shouldn't arbitrarily bump McCoy because he's too low. But if McCoy's numbers don't match roughly what you would expect, then that may be an indication of a flaw in your formula. If you assumed all shuttle missions were AND slots and only looked at McCoy's skill pairs, then you could be undervaluing him by not considering single MED slots.

    I just looked at shuttle pairs and McCoy is the #1 in 4/5 pairs and #2 slightly behind Culber in the 5th. Seeing him ranked so low says to me there is something wrong with your formula.

    I didn't assume that - I am not discounting the thought that the formulas could be refined, and do plan to re-evaluate regularly. But single-skill slots factor as well. Trouble is, he just has the one skill, which hurts him. I've toyed with some ideas to account for this, but they end up also inflating others that don't deserve it in the process. With 900+ crew overall, a couple will be placed weirdly, that's just the nature of the system. Eventually I'll find the fairest way to account for crew like him. Call him an outlier for now.

    I do appreciate the feedback, and will consider it as things evolve.

    Is he, though? If he’s still a stronger option for a MED/COM, MED/SEC, MED/ENG, or MED/DIP shuttle seat than any other character currently in the game and only falls behind one other in MED/SCI, then his shuttle utility is extreme - especially if you don’t weight skill combos. Factoring in that he’s a main cast member with one or two traits that could theoretically be useful in future events (Physician and Exobiology) and a base skill that routinely trounces Faction event bonus crew even when he himself doesn’t have a bonus, I just don’t see a case where Bones isn’t at M the top of a purely objective ranking system for Faction events and non-event shuttle use.

    Now, if you did weight skill combos, the low incidence rate of MED and MED/x seats in shuttle missions would actually hurt his rank. You could further correct by saying that McCoy events are less prevalent than Kirk/Picard/Janeway events (just a few examples). Although his overwhelming raw power makes it somewhat moot, perhaps there would be another correction if McCoy events tend to be Galaxy rather than Faction events (Kirk is a character notable for being featured heavily in Faction events, making his variants more useful than they might otherwise be) - I don’t know for sure one way or the other, so this could be a non-issue.


    I have one unrelated minor quibble - why not list their ship ability ranking as its own column rather than as a hidden fudge factor? There aren’t many crew whose sole utility is as an Arena/Skirmish crew (paging Captain Scott to the white courtesy phone) but there are a few that really stand out over the competition due to short initialize times or huge crit bonuses. Someone looking to soup up their ship battle ability that is aware of Captain Killy by reputation but doesn’t know about Garth of Izar, Fury Kes, or the Rura Penthe Commandant could be missing out on valuable information. You could make the math easy by assigning one point per 100% instant bonus damage, removing one point for every two seconds of initialize time (starting from a base value of, say, 5-10 points), remove a point or two for any required conditions like cloaking/boarding/position, and the like...I don’t know how rigorous your current system is but that should be a good start for helping identify excellent 4* crew as well as 5* crew for ship battle purposes.
  • ~peregrine~~peregrine~ ✭✭✭✭✭
    Been working on this tool for a little bit - a slightly different approach than the ones used by the BBoB and other tiering tools. So not a replacement - just a different way of looking at it.

    Purples will be added in the next couple of days.

    Thoughts?

    http://sttpowerratings.com/

    Thank you for making this. 🖖
    "In the short run, the game defines the players. But in the long run, it's us players who define the game." -- Nicky Case, The Evolution of Trust
  • Banjo1012Banjo1012 ✭✭✭✭✭
    RaraRacing wrote: »
    Plenty of comments/ thoughts and some might be a repeat of what has been discussed above:

    1. The score ranking system (not talking about the formula behind it) is unclear.
    So, how much more useful is a Voyage score 14 crew over a voyage score 13 crew? e.g. Kahless (14) over TO Neelix (13). Is the scaling liner or log or something else?
    Is there a (theoretical) limit to the maximum score? So can crew have a higher score than 14 for Voyages? Can score go negative (I can imagine a negative number is possible if say it turns out that a 5* crew is worse for voyages than certain 4* crew)?

    1b. For ranking based on stats, to really see how good/bad a crew is, it is good to somehow include standard deviation ... what is average and how much better than average is a specific crew ... anything above 2 standard deviations is exceptional.

    2. The Faction score baffles me a bit, some general comments:
    - For McCoy see what others have stated.
    - I had to look up who Admiral Patrick was ... with such a bland skill set he'd be near useless in most faction events when factoring other bonus crew ... any 4* crew with a small bonus would "only" need 619 CMD and 511 SCI to be a better choice ... factor in 3* skill boosts and Patrick gets left in the dust. For general, daily shuttles ... Tenavik who has the same skills and similar stats, but better bases ... is lower!?!
    - I like to look at certain crew and see how a rating system rates them ... RAF O'Brien is a favourite of mine to analyse ... how in the world is he, with double 1000+ (without bonuses) below Grilka, who just barely makes 1000 for DIP only, for Faction rating?

    3. Like others, I think you undervalue the 3rd skill score for voyages.
    Let me explain in brief here ...
    The way voyage mechanics work, getting a natural 12 hrs is currently impossible with the crew available, this means that the stats needed to get to 10 hrs should be the base case for voyage strength because reaching 10 hrs means a safety stage-gate is met (you won't lose your voyage, as it just stops) and you can't reach the next gate safely.
    This in turn means that while raw stats are great for voyages, there also needs to be a certain balance to those stats.
    So, once you've hit a specific number for the two main skills on a voyage there's not much use to add a lot more to those two skills. Hence, it becomes important to add to the other 4 skills, with an emphasis on one of those 4.
    What this implies is that ... if you have an average to good voyager ... the more stats they have in their THIRD skill the better ... because I'm assuming you're picking crew to meet the main skills anyway. Also, the more common the skill set the more useful it is to have a higher 3rd score.

    As an example ... if you have a voyager who has a total of 3350 with 715 in their third skill they should rate higher than a voyager, with the same skill combo and total, but with 600 in their third skill.
    That first crew will be used for a lot longer as a player betters their roster than crew #2 ... because as a player you'll find that, in general, it is harder to boost those 4 skills to decent levels than it is to get the two main skills to their required numbers.

    And so I look again at ol' fave RAF O'Brien (who has a massive score in his third skill) and see him listed alongside Grilka, Judge Q, (2 skillers) Elnor, Niners Worf ... for Voyage score ... and it is at this point I start scratching my head a bit. Something is off.

    4. It is really easy to factor in skill combo.
    Like the point says ... if you find a system to adequately break skill combos down you can come up with replacement factors. You don't need to know my crew make-up, I can use the general numbers adjusted to my crew build-up to see who would be most useful to me.
    I understand you just want to view raw numbers ... but then you get voyage rankings like you have, where better voyage stats = better voyage crew ... which on the face of it might seem self-evident, but is not always the case, especially when you start picking up more crew.

    Personally, I do it like this ... 1/2/x ... 1/x/3 ... x/2/3 ... where for CMD/DIP all crew with CMD and DIP in either of their primary and secondary skill get counted under the first category, no matter what their third skill is ... crew with CMD and DIP as primary and tertiary get counted in category 2 ... category 3 is secondary and tertiary of those skills ... it does not matter in which order they are, because I assume that you are trying to balance skills, so a CMD/DIP/x is just as useful as a DIP/CMD/x crew on a CMD/DIP voyage.

    Anyway ... have said enough, for now, am tired ... have tried to keep it short but could say so much more. I'm not saying that the way I've done it is the right way, but maybe it will provide you with a different view on things that will help improve your list. And hopefully, the post has given you food for thought.

    I couldn’t resist jumping in here to dispute one thing you said. A 12 hour voyage is not impossible. In running one million simulations on the best numbers I’ve had for a 12 hour voyage to date, 7 of those one million made it to 12 hours without a refresh. I’m going back under my rock now but I had to chime in because getting a 12 hour voyage is the only reason I have left for playing.

  • RaraRacingRaraRacing ✭✭✭✭✭
    Banjo1012 wrote: »
    I couldn’t resist jumping in here to dispute one thing you said. A 12 hour voyage is not impossible. In running one million simulations on the best numbers I’ve had for a 12 hour voyage to date, 7 of those one million made it to 12 hours without a refresh. I’m going back under my rock now but I had to chime in because getting a 12 hour voyage is the only reason I have left for playing.

    I stand corrected :)@Banjo1012 's saying I have a chance (though I don't have the crew quality ... currently) ... back to the drawing board, I go.
  • Just use the Chinpokomon approach and "collect zem all"....

    by7gqi2u6nfp.jpg
    rc3g35z37628.jpg

    Dear TP: Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated.
  • Dirk GundersonDirk Gunderson ✭✭✭✭✭
    Banjo1012 wrote: »
    RaraRacing wrote: »
    Plenty of comments/ thoughts and some might be a repeat of what has been discussed above:

    1. The score ranking system (not talking about the formula behind it) is unclear.
    So, how much more useful is a Voyage score 14 crew over a voyage score 13 crew? e.g. Kahless (14) over TO Neelix (13). Is the scaling liner or log or something else?
    Is there a (theoretical) limit to the maximum score? So can crew have a higher score than 14 for Voyages? Can score go negative (I can imagine a negative number is possible if say it turns out that a 5* crew is worse for voyages than certain 4* crew)?

    1b. For ranking based on stats, to really see how good/bad a crew is, it is good to somehow include standard deviation ... what is average and how much better than average is a specific crew ... anything above 2 standard deviations is exceptional.

    2. The Faction score baffles me a bit, some general comments:
    - For McCoy see what others have stated.
    - I had to look up who Admiral Patrick was ... with such a bland skill set he'd be near useless in most faction events when factoring other bonus crew ... any 4* crew with a small bonus would "only" need 619 CMD and 511 SCI to be a better choice ... factor in 3* skill boosts and Patrick gets left in the dust. For general, daily shuttles ... Tenavik who has the same skills and similar stats, but better bases ... is lower!?!
    - I like to look at certain crew and see how a rating system rates them ... RAF O'Brien is a favourite of mine to analyse ... how in the world is he, with double 1000+ (without bonuses) below Grilka, who just barely makes 1000 for DIP only, for Faction rating?

    3. Like others, I think you undervalue the 3rd skill score for voyages.
    Let me explain in brief here ...
    The way voyage mechanics work, getting a natural 12 hrs is currently impossible with the crew available, this means that the stats needed to get to 10 hrs should be the base case for voyage strength because reaching 10 hrs means a safety stage-gate is met (you won't lose your voyage, as it just stops) and you can't reach the next gate safely.
    This in turn means that while raw stats are great for voyages, there also needs to be a certain balance to those stats.
    So, once you've hit a specific number for the two main skills on a voyage there's not much use to add a lot more to those two skills. Hence, it becomes important to add to the other 4 skills, with an emphasis on one of those 4.
    What this implies is that ... if you have an average to good voyager ... the more stats they have in their THIRD skill the better ... because I'm assuming you're picking crew to meet the main skills anyway. Also, the more common the skill set the more useful it is to have a higher 3rd score.

    As an example ... if you have a voyager who has a total of 3350 with 715 in their third skill they should rate higher than a voyager, with the same skill combo and total, but with 600 in their third skill.
    That first crew will be used for a lot longer as a player betters their roster than crew #2 ... because as a player you'll find that, in general, it is harder to boost those 4 skills to decent levels than it is to get the two main skills to their required numbers.

    And so I look again at ol' fave RAF O'Brien (who has a massive score in his third skill) and see him listed alongside Grilka, Judge Q, (2 skillers) Elnor, Niners Worf ... for Voyage score ... and it is at this point I start scratching my head a bit. Something is off.

    4. It is really easy to factor in skill combo.
    Like the point says ... if you find a system to adequately break skill combos down you can come up with replacement factors. You don't need to know my crew make-up, I can use the general numbers adjusted to my crew build-up to see who would be most useful to me.
    I understand you just want to view raw numbers ... but then you get voyage rankings like you have, where better voyage stats = better voyage crew ... which on the face of it might seem self-evident, but is not always the case, especially when you start picking up more crew.

    Personally, I do it like this ... 1/2/x ... 1/x/3 ... x/2/3 ... where for CMD/DIP all crew with CMD and DIP in either of their primary and secondary skill get counted under the first category, no matter what their third skill is ... crew with CMD and DIP as primary and tertiary get counted in category 2 ... category 3 is secondary and tertiary of those skills ... it does not matter in which order they are, because I assume that you are trying to balance skills, so a CMD/DIP/x is just as useful as a DIP/CMD/x crew on a CMD/DIP voyage.

    Anyway ... have said enough, for now, am tired ... have tried to keep it short but could say so much more. I'm not saying that the way I've done it is the right way, but maybe it will provide you with a different view on things that will help improve your list. And hopefully, the post has given you food for thought.

    I couldn’t resist jumping in here to dispute one thing you said. A 12 hour voyage is not impossible. In running one million simulations on the best numbers I’ve had for a 12 hour voyage to date, 7 of those one million made it to 12 hours without a refresh. I’m going back under my rock now but I had to chime in because getting a 12 hour voyage is the only reason I have left for playing.

    1) You are missed here, my friend.
    2) Not impossible...just highly improbable. If you hit 12 hours, please first buy a lottery ticket to see if your luck hasn’t run out yet and then tell us all about how you finally reached the top of the mountain.
  • Excelent tool.
    My first thoughts is that this is especially useful to newer players who do not have big rosters full with immortalised 5stars.

    As a newer player the rarity of skillsets is not reflected in my current roster because of the meddisance. Also factionwork and events are currently much less important then voyage and gauntlet.

    So this is a nice startingpoint to use in conjuction with the big book and evo guide.


Sign In or Register to comment.