Help us test fixes for our 7.2.0 client on Facebook, please see this thread, thank you! forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/14592/facebook-7-2-0-fixes-test

Help us test fixes for our 7.2.0 client on Facebook, please see this thread, thank you! forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/14592/facebook-7-2-0-fixes-test

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- 8.5K All Categories
- 1.2K Welcome to Starfleet!
- 690 Ready Room
- 503 Fleet Central
- 5.2K Starfleet Debriefing
- 3.8K The Bridge
- 349 Starfleet Communications
- 983 Make It So!
- 1.5K There will be tribbles
- 1.3K Engineering Room
- 176 Past Anomalies
- 602 Deutsche Foren
- 357 Ankündigungen
- 245 Allgemeine Diskussion
- 183 United Federation Of Planets
- 12 Universal Translator
- 118 Strange New Worlds
- 53 The Holodeck

## Comments

Yes, that's what I meant when I said "I do intend to enhance the chart a little further so that the tooltip/annotation on it will show the cumulative percent chance to reach that voyage length".

The vertical axis values are not helpful, so they're not shown, but the tooltip can be customized to be more meaningful.

Yes, that's true, if you want to calculate a specific figure that isn't already shown directly. I just feel that this use case is unlikely. What difference would it make to know the 75th percentile value?

If it's to alleviate confusion about why something seemed to differ from the estimate, there's already a 90%, a 99%, and the graph. If yours is within the 98% range, the first set of output would tell you that, otherwise you could look your time up in the graph using the horizontal axis.

Voyage Estimator Tool thread

Thanks.

Edit: And I suppose that it could be getting wider, just not in a way that is particularly human-visible.

Edit 2:

I suppose this input best illustrates my concern. Here, I have intentionally skewed my skill inputs pretty severely, which should significantly increase the variance. That increased variance is visible on the first hump (this is much flatter and wider than, say, a 8k/8k/4k distribution).

I would have expected the 2nd and 3rd hump to be at least as spread out as the first one. I can't really think of any reason the distribution should become more consolidated over time. If anything, each successive distribution should become more spread out over time.

Very interesting observation.

At first I too thought that this can't be right. It seems unintuitive. But, there is an explanation:

The refill shapes are affected

onlyby the variation in AM from passing or failing hazards that determines how many hazards you canfailbefore running out (because for those curves, you willalwaysfail hazards).The first shape is additionally influenced by the possibility of running out of AM while you are still capable of passing hazards. This is negligible if your chance of passing hazards when running out is low, but at a certain point, it starts to become noticeable (at around this point is when the script

warnsyou)The "wasted" skills neatly explain why the first curve is farther to the left.

The reason for the greater width is less obvious, but it's basically due to an increased number of possibilities - in addition for rolling for hazards, you kind of meta-roll for how much of your skills actually get used - that is, there is an additional risk of ending "early", which expands the graph leftward.

Edit: also to your suggestion that subsequent refills should have wider distributions - that's not true. After you get past the "might still pass hazards after running out of AM" point, the further curves simply inherit the shape of the previous curves because after that point, there is zero RNG.

Voyage Estimator Tool thread

I'm 100% OK with how the first hump looks. I would expect a wider distribution for a more uneven allocation of skills. Sometimes, you'll luck into more primary/secondary, sometimes less. The modeling there looks spot on.

I'm suspicious of the subsequent ones. I would expect the following characteristics of the 2nd/3rd hump:

2. Nope. For the reasons I explained above, but it really is unintuitive. Peaks 2 and 3 behave differently because they recoup the wasted AM from peak 1. You can think of them as waveforms that interfere destructively. The recouped AM cancels out the sides the raises the middle.

There's RNG in the script too since it actually simulates the voyage. The RNG is more obvious when you draw with finer increments. I can't tell from your screenshot, but if your increment isn't divisible by 3, then you're going to get additional artifacts because the increments won't align with the tick duration.

If you look at the chart in this case with default (or consistently ramped up) draw settings, they look very similar, as expected:

Voyage Estimator Tool thread

Essentially, voyages that fail earlier have more potential to "catch up". The fact that they failed early means they had an "unlucky" run of hazards. If they saw a bad distribution (like 30/20/12.5 across primary/secondary/other) then it is very unlikely that they would continue to see a bad distribution (at least, they are AS likely to have the unlikely distribution as they were the first time around, which is to say, not likely).

Since they failed earlier (Say, 5 hours), they get 3 hours of Primary/Secondary hazards passing where a voyage that lasted until 7 hours only gets 1 hour of Primary/Secondary hazards passing. That would make the first refill last significantly longer for the "earlier failing" voyage and significantly less for the "over performing" voyage, consolidating the distribution by some measure.

So, while there might be SOME trials that would deviate more (they were un/lucky and continued to be un/lucky), it is MORE likely that the outliers would see some regression towards the mean.

I kind of love the subtle complexities of this.

The "potential to catch up" is important to remember if you're willing to refill AM. The tool will tell you quite accurately at that point how far it will get, though with some RNG left if you had some high skills.

Btw, at first glance, it almost sounds like you are making a gambler's fallacy (or, fittingly, Monte Carlo fallacy): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

But, you're not - your parenthetical saves you

Voyage Estimator Tool thread

Voyage Estimator Tool thread

I've written a voyage crew optimization algorithm for this tool:

https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/4964/tool-crew-management-desktop-tool-and-google-sheets-add-on

This will automatically recommend a crew assignment that will produce the longest (or very close to it) voyage.

Voyage Estimator Tool thread

Maybe I don't understand what you're asking, but you can already specify your remaining AM to get an estimate taking that into account. The accuracy is the same regardless. You can increase the number of simulations to make it slightly more accurate.

If you're on PC, you can use this desktop tool that will compute the best voyage crew out of the crew you have for you: https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/4964/tool-crew-management-desktop-tool-and-google-sheets-add-on/p1

Voyage Estimator Tool thread

Also, I'm trying to understand the significance of this 21 number you all keep talking about. Do I divide my total skills by 21? Do I divide each skill by 21?

Is 21 the new 42?

Since you're running 5-6 hour voyages, the 21 number people are talking about is after your 4 hour dilemma, take note of the remaining antimatter on your voyage after the 4 hour mark, then divide this number by 21.

This will give you quite an accurate estimate of the remaining number of minutes on your voyage before you run out of antimatter, and you can set an alarm for yourself to make sure to recall your voyage before it runs out of antimatter to maximize the time.

Note that this estimate is based on an assumption that you'll fail almost every remaining hazard, while if you're almost able to reach 6 hour dilemma you probably won't be failing all hazards shortly after 4 hours. So, it'll probably be a bit conservative (a good thing).

According to this I'm 8 minutes shy of getting a 6 hour voyage! So close!

That's because you get double hazard check very frequently (2 hazard check in 1 minutes). You can check that every 3rd or 4th hazard check followed by an other hazard check (only 3 or 4 filling event with -1 antimatter between them and no rewards at all)

Also there are hazard checks that are more harder than have to be. Usually skill divided by 1200 shows that how far in hours you can get with that skill, but sometimes even this is not enough and you fail the hazard.

old value? in my final voyage tier (50/50 6 or 8 hours now for me), I divide by 21 every single day, and it's never been wrong for me yet. dividing by 30 would be very conservative, but would probably leave 10 minutes on the table at least every time.

I recently tested it and 21 came out almost exactly correct.

As an example, if my primary and secondary traits are around 10k and the other traits are 2-4k and starting antimatter is around 2700 the calculator says I will hit 8 hours no problem. In reality my voyages barely hit 6 hours and one I had to recall before 6 hours it was doing so poorly.

Anyone else experiencing a change in the math?

Make sure you're entering your starting AM correctly and don't accidentally choose a different ship, but occasionally you'll get a voyage that just hits your low stat skills a bunch against the odds.

Also, you'd be surprised how often 3-400 AM can just keep going and going if you start getting lucky RNG.

If the tool's only estimating 8 hours, then you don't have reliable 8 hours yet. I did not start getting almost 100% 8 hour voyages until it was estimating 8.5-9 hours, and I still (VERY rarely) get one that fails to reach 8 hours from time to time when I have a lot of voyage crew busy during faction events for something like MED CMD where I'm heavily dependent on a few key crew.