Per sarcasm detector (one of the highest DPS players in game and all around cool guy) .
This is the same guy that by time to time post DPS achievements in the OFFICIAL forums, making cryptic to raise even more the DPS race??? oh yeah... how smart he is... (or she) lool.
Actually no. Mostly he posts videos that are intended to break the false information people believe. Like people were saying t5u is obsolete, so he posts videos of t5u ships. Or fire at will is the only way, so he does a torpedo video. Or its all recluse nannies not the pilot, so he shows a t1 ship out damage two t5u ships in the same run that have the same recluse buffs/debuffs going. And so on and so forth.
Sarcasm also is famous for not flying scimitars or flavor of the month builds and instead finding ways to max the potential of off the wall ships.
The DPS race is all in the community's mind. The devs are repeatedly nerfing difficulty. There is nothing advanced or normal that requires above mark 12 gear. Except in players minds. If all you see is bragging and pushing the devs to raise the bar then that says more about the lenses you view the world through than any truth about the content you are judging.
There has been power creep left and right. Why retain the DPS minimum requirement in level 50 NPCs when you are fighting level 60 NPCs? Most importantly, the player isnt level 50 anymore but level 60 or above if you consider specializations an extra level.
Which is why that DPS needs to be dramatically reigned in, like 90%, get back to being like Star Trek again. Heck more often than not the shows, the solution to the threat of the week was to hold fire and find some way to communicate, or a scientific solution to diffuse a tense situation. Instead this game rewards whoever takes most advantage of the available exploits, is the most aggressive, and so so so much metagaming. People applaud 2-minute ISA runs or killing the CE so quickly that someone gets an AFK penalty when maybe they should be appalled that thats what the game has degenerated to. Helping newbies get their build together is one thing, but there comes a point where the community has to say 'no I'm not going to encourage this nonsense anymore,' or else thats all we're ever going to get.
Which is why that DPS needs to be dramatically reigned in, like 90%, get back to being like Star Trek again. Heck more often than not the shows, the solution to the threat of the week was to hold fire and find some way to communicate, or a scientific solution to diffuse a tense situation. Instead this game rewards whoever takes most advantage of the available exploits, is the most aggressive, and so so so much metagaming. People applaud 2-minute ISA runs or killing the CE so quickly that someone gets an AFK penalty when maybe they should be appalled that thats what the game has degenerated to. Helping newbies get their build together is one thing, but there comes a point where the community has to say 'no I'm not going to encourage this nonsense anymore,' or else thats all we're ever going to get.
It's not like all these have a very low minimum. The minimum requirement for advance STFs is like 2-5% damage potential. The AFK penalty is like 1% of a team of 5. The increase from pre-dr Elite vs advance now is roughly around 1-2k Dps. These are very small increase which is being bloated by players who don't understand the mechanics.
each player has a different view of what Star Trek should be. just because your personal view that Star Trek is such doesn't mean it holds true for everyone. If you really don't like Dps, one can remain RP comunity because I know casual players who don't care about Dps but still be able to captain a ship and do what they like doing.
However, if you want to complete stuff, there must be a minimum level of competency. The question would be if you want to be better or not. You can't have a game wherein a player does nothing to improve and expects to be better or as good as someone who continuously improve and adapts. It's not like Picard or Kirk were couch potatoes who just expected to win regardless of how small their effort would be.
I think that's an over simplification of the anti-powercreep position. It's not about gameplay its about game balance. For example, right now the top DPS players deal over 80x more damage that the bottom barrel puggers (100k+ vs 1.5k and less). Every time the game is balanced for one group the other suffers. Rewards that help pick up the bottom players boost the top even moremaking the problem more severe. Worse if they balance around the "average" then the bottom are hurt and the top are bored.
By altering gameplay rather than gear the two can be brought closer. Gear will always make the situation worse until mechanics aka formulas change.
And this doesn't matter if one person likes this playstyle and that person likes a different one. And that's not even touching how it hits the economy.
However, if you want to complete stuff, there must be a minimum level of competency. The question would be if you want to be better or not. You can't have a game wherein a player does nothing to improve and expects to be better or as good as someone who continuously improve and adapts. It's not like Picard or Kirk were couch potatoes who just expected to win regardless of how small their effort would be.
Except you appear to define 'better' and 'improving' in a very specific way, like its a binary choice between joining in the damage race or being a "couch potato." So long as everyone brings the 20% needed to do their part of any given mission (heck 25%, just to cover margin of error), then I don't really care how they got there. However if someone shows up with 200% solo and a full-sprint pace and annihilates half the map before the non-sprinting players even get to the combat area (maybe they accidentally blew up on the Cube's core breach at the start of ISA or something, sets them back 20 seconds), do you call the non-spinters AFKers or incompetent or something? If they brought their ~25% to the mission, but basically don't get to play the game because Mr 200% is duck-hunting with a howitzer and ignoring the rest of his team, then personally I don't think the 25% players are the problem or need to change.
I think you guys are underestimating the average player. Based on my experience in PUGging and the DPS League charts, the DPS of the average players is on the rise. While there may still be players doing 3k or below in ISA, they are getting rarer by the week. It used to be getting paired with 3 or even 4 people with sub 5k in ISA was the norm for me. Now 3-4 out of 5 are doing above 10k when I PUG.
The midpoint DPS level on the charts are also on the rise. A month or two ago it was just at 7k, now it is at 9k. To me this means that the average player is getting better, or the powercreep is helping them make their ships better. So whether or not they are actively chasing DPS, they are dealing higher DPS. If they nerf the powercreep now, I have a feeling it's these players that will get hurt more than the outlier top 10% of the game.
Except you appear to define 'better' and 'improving' in a very specific way, like its a binary choice between joining in the damage race or being a "couch potato." So long as everyone brings the 20% needed to do their part of any given mission (heck 25%, just to cover margin of error), then I don't really care how they got there. However if someone shows up with 200% solo and a full-sprint pace and annihilates half the map before the non-sprinting players even get to the combat area (maybe they accidentally blew up on the Cube's core breach at the start of ISA or something, sets them back 20 seconds), do you call the non-spinters AFKers or incompetent or something? If they brought their ~25% to the mission, but basically don't get to play the game because Mr 200% is duck-hunting with a howitzer and ignoring the rest of his team, then personally I don't think the 25% players are the problem or need to change.
You cannot get AFK with one player doing 100k DPS in ISA when the four other players are getting at least 5-9k DPS. This is wrong math in your part. One of the ways you get AFKed is one player totally underperforms to less than 3.5K DPS and 4 players parses 100k which put the time finish at exactly 2 mins.
That means the DPSers planned it to happen, grouping together, got lucky since they all got 100k DPS meaning the DPS cannablization didnt happen, while the the one doing 3.5k must be be underperforming. Do you even see parses in the DPS league in top DPS that 4 players get 100k DPS at the same parse to pull this off?
Absent of the DPS theory of having 4 "100k" parses, The sub par player must be totally abysmal be AFKed. Meaning if you got 4 players doing 9k DPS which would put the time around 15 mins, that player that would be AFKed should be doing 200 DPS or less.
I think you guys are underestimating the average player. Based on my experience in PUGging and the DPS League charts, the DPS of the average players is on the rise. While there may still be players doing 3k or below in ISA, they are getting rarer by the week. It used to be getting paired with 3 or even 4 people with sub 5k in ISA was the norm for me. Now 3-4 out of 5 are doing above 10k when I PUG.
The midpoint DPS level on the charts are also on the rise. A month or two ago it was just at 7k, now it is at 9k. To me this means that the average player is getting better, or the powercreep is helping them make their ships better. So whether or not they are actively chasing DPS, they are dealing higher DPS. If they nerf the powercreep now, I have a feeling it's these players that will get hurt more than the outlier top 10% of the game.
I'd be careful relying on those numbers, because there's a lot of players (myself included, because I've never been able to get it working on my machine) who don't parse, and I would speculate that a significant majority of those - not by any means all, but a significant majority - are below the 50th percentile of the DPS League's data.
Which would mean that "DPS League average" and "gamewide average" are NOT the same thing.
I'm not only relying on those numbers, but with anecdotal personal experience as well PUGging and parsing that map several times a day. I can see a real improvement over the quality of the teams I am getting. Sure there are some bad ones but overall, the teams have been getting better in general for me.
Whenever someone posts here how bad the "average" STO player, I think it's demeaning for those players since I hold average players in a higher regard than some do here. To me, they are not as bad as they are portrayed in these forums.
Besides, a lot of the player numbers there were uploaded by someone else, meaning even if they do not have a parser, they could have a record there because someone who parsed the instance uploaded the run. Right now there are over 18k individual player records (unique @handles) on the table. I would hope that's a significant enough number to get an idea of the state of ISA.
I'd be careful relying on those numbers, because there's a lot of players (myself included, because I've never been able to get it working on my machine) who don't parse, and I would speculate that a significant majority of those - not by any means all, but a significant majority - are below the 50th percentile of the DPS League's data.
Which would mean that "DPS League average" and "gamewide average" are NOT the same thing.
We dont know that. Unless you have the gamewide average statistics which only Cryptic has vs a publicly available statistic. The problem with gamewide average is people in the forums tend to mask their personal concept of it to the point the "average" to them is their or their friend's experience.
For now, we got the ISA public DPS stat which parsed from private and PuGs ranging from 233k DPS to 100 to 0 DPS
I think that's an over simplification of the anti-powercreep position. It's not about gameplay its about game balance. For example, right now the top DPS players deal over 80x more damage that the bottom barrel puggers (100k+ vs 1.5k and less). Every time the game is balanced for one group the other suffers. Rewards that help pick up the bottom players boost the top even moremaking the problem more severe. Worse if they balance around the "average" then the bottom are hurt and the top are bored.
By altering gameplay rather than gear the two can be brought closer. Gear will always make the situation worse until mechanics aka formulas change.
And this doesn't matter if one person likes this playstyle and that person likes a different one. And that's not even touching how it hits the economy.
The difference is knowledge and the application and willingness to embrace that knowledge. Look at what you said. Performance to minimum requirement = increasing Gears. Which is not true. You have been in these forums for quite a long time is still spew that kind of information about gears.
With regards to your balance, there is normal. Higher difficulty for higher performing players. The problem has always been players who do not perform wanting what those higher difficulty get without any improvement or change from their abysmal techniques or playstyle. These advance nor elite where never catered for players who cannot perform in the first place. That is why it is called advance and elite not Casual difficulty. Why make advance elite when there is no difference from Normal, eh? Might as well have just one difficulty called normal.
True. But just speculating here... let's say the League average is 9k? A lot - not all (I'd name myself as one of the exceptions; as mentioned, I've tried and found it beyond my technical skills and/or my understanding of the instructions) - of the people who don't parse probably do so because they don't actually care what their DPS is, and aren't really doing anything to improve it. Let's say the average of those people is only 6k or 7k... which would drag the gamewide average down to something like 8k?
Maybe not a huge difference, but I feel rather confident in saying that League and gamewide averages are very likely NOT identical... and that the League one is probably higher.
Mathematically speaking, for me to be wrong, there'd have to be quite a lot more non-parsers whose DPS is above League-average (50%) than I personally think there are (probably more like 15-20%).
It depends which population sample are you getting. If you are getting players which includes players who never played an stf nor wants to play an stf. Then, population of the league won't be identitical since you have included players who never left ESD nor would even want to do Stf at all. Then you got an issue population disparity of public private matches. 0s in pugs which are heavily played in private matches.
Thats why I base myself on the Dps league since it is the only publicly available stat that has recorded both public, private matches. While those who say that an average player is this or that have no data to base it from.
I think that's an over simplification of the anti-powercreep position. It's not about gameplay its about game balance. For example, right now the top DPS players deal over 80x more damage that the bottom barrel puggers (100k+ vs 1.5k and less). Every time the game is balanced for one group the other suffers. Rewards that help pick up the bottom players boost the top even moremaking the problem more severe. Worse if they balance around the "average" then the bottom are hurt and the top are bored.
By altering gameplay rather than gear the two can be brought closer. Gear will always make the situation worse until mechanics aka formulas change.
And this doesn't matter if one person likes this playstyle and that person likes a different one. And that's not even touching how it hits the economy.
The difference is knowledge and the application and willingness to embrace that knowledge. Look at what you said. Performance to minimum requirement = increasing Gears. Which is not true. You have been in these forums for quite a long time is still spew that kind of information about gears.
With regards to your balance, there is normal. Higher difficulty for higher performing players. The problem has always been players who do not perform wanting what those higher difficulty get without any improvement or change from their abysmal techniques or playstyle. These advance nor elite where never catered for players who cannot perform in the first place. That is why it is called advance and elite not Casual difficulty. Why make advance elite when there is no difference from Normal, eh? Might as well have just one difficulty called normal.
Is English not your first language (not meaning it as an insult I just can't figure out how you came to the conclusion that you did based on the words I used)? Because that is the opposite of what I actually said. We actually are agreeing and saying the same thing here.
If gear = performance then changing the "bad" mods would bring the bottom closer to the top and thus make the situation better. A worst case scenario would be both top and bottom change equally. The only way for a gear change to make the top improve more than the bottom (as I said) is if the non-gear factors like distance, skills, time spent shooting, lack of time spent dead, etc are more important than gear.
And you are 100% correct willingness to change is the most important thing. The problem is bigger than sto the problem is that the gaming population is changing. We have more and more first time gamers. More and more mobile gamers. More and more fans of some movie or TV show that try a game with the same title. Lots of these people just want short amounts of mindless easy fun. They don't really want to get better. In mmos were sheltered from this change to a degree but the devs have repeatedly said sto has many players for whom it is their first and only video game. Geckos mentioned this in two priority one podcasts, for example.
Thos are the people who are jumping into advanced when they aren't ready. The question is how do we reach them and how do we help them?
That's exactly my point. As you said, "It depends which population sample are you getting." You're talking about a population sample where I'm talking about the whole population. I'm just saying that I do not think that sample is an accurate representation of the whole.
e30earnest's numbers are indicating something like a 20-30% increase of average DPS in the last couple months. I'm just saying, I don't think it's that big.
That's also the point as well. Paxdawn is referencing publicly available numbers that are not a guess, while number for the whole population of STO is merely a guess. There is no way to determine the percentage variable when discussing the entire STO population because it can be nothing more than a subjective guess since PWE does not make that information publicly available. The numbers Paxdawn references are publicly available numbers that represent a part of the population, but the numbers are "concrete."
I'd be careful relying on those numbers, because there's a lot of players (myself included, because I've never been able to get it working on my machine) who don't parse, and I would speculate that a significant majority of those - not by any means all, but a significant majority - are below the 50th percentile of the DPS League's data.
Which would mean that "DPS League average" and "gamewide average" are NOT the same thing.
I'm not only relying on those numbers, but with anecdotal personal experience as well PUGging and parsing that map several times a day. I can see a real improvement over the quality of the teams I am getting. Sure there are some bad ones but overall, the teams have been getting better in general for me.
Whenever someone posts here how bad the "average" STO player, I think it's demeaning for those players since I hold average players in a higher regard than some do here. To me, they are not as bad as they are portrayed in these forums.
Besides, a lot of the player numbers there were uploaded by someone else, meaning even if they do not have a parser, they could have a record there because someone who parsed the instance uploaded the run. Right now there are over 18k individual player records (unique @handles) on the table. I would hope that's a significant enough number to get an idea of the state of ISA.
I think the problem is average is the wrong statistic to use. What is the mean damage?
For those 18k to be a viable sample ALL of the following MUST be true:
1. People of each damage range queue for Isa in the same quantity as they exist in the total population of the game
2. People of each damage range queue for Isa the same number of times (so a few players or a subgroup don't drown the others)
3. Statistically similar buffs and debuffs present in teams with DPS league parsing players are present in teams without them
I find these highly unlikely. Thus the mean value will really tell us because none of those factors are relevant to the median.
To give an example, lets say we have 22 unique handles running 8 different isa instances.
Al, Bob, Chad, Donna, ed, Frank, Greg, hal, Ione, Jan... All the way to Tom.
Al ran in 8 of 8 and always did 52k.
Bob was in 6 runs and did 24k
Chad was in 4 runs and did 18k
Donna was also in 4 runs and did 22k
Ed through Tom were each in one run and did 2k each
Average looks like 18.9k if you count every handle in every run. Looks like 6.9k if each handle is counted once only. Median is 2k.
So, what formula was used for your statistic?
Ifmthe median is rising, then good, you are correct the average player is probably getting better. But if you're just counting the top players more often then not so good.
Is English not your first language (not meaning it as an insult I just can't figure out how you came to the conclusion that you did based on the words I used)? Because that is the opposite of what I actually said. We actually are agreeing and saying the same thing here.
Thos are the people who are jumping into advanced when they aren't ready. The question is how do we reach them and how do we help them?
Actually that is not the question. The question would be if that player who would jump in advance is willing to helped in the first place. Because knowledgeable players have always offered help.
Ifmthe mean is rising, then good, you are correct the average player is probably getting better. But if you're just counting the top players more often then not so good.
The DPS table parses 233k DPS to 0 DPS. Public and private. If you are doing 0 DPS, 3DPS or 35 DPS in space, you hardly qualify for top DPS when the TOP 15 ranges 100kish-200kish DPS.
Everything you are doing is speculation including speculating that DPS league shows the top DPSers only which I pointed isnt true.
Ifmthe median is rising, then good, you are correct the average player is probably getting better. But if you're just counting the top players more often then not so good.
Edit: brain fail mean =/= median bah.
Nothing fancy, I was just referencing the midpoint of the table. The table represents the best recorded DPS of all those unique @handles. So I would assume that is their current maximum potential. The mid point of the table used to be at around 7k 1-2 months ago (maybe 3) with 15k recorded handles. It is now at 9k I believe with 18k recorded handles. Roughly the same number of players scored higher or lower.
Forgive me if I approached that the wrong way, but it has been decades since I touched on the subject of statistics.
On another note, I may have jinxed myself with consecutive failed ISAs. None of them were DPS related though since my parses show everyone doing above 8k and we had a grav well to buy time too. In one run, we had a collective 74k DPS before it failed.
Comments
Actually no. Mostly he posts videos that are intended to break the false information people believe. Like people were saying t5u is obsolete, so he posts videos of t5u ships. Or fire at will is the only way, so he does a torpedo video. Or its all recluse nannies not the pilot, so he shows a t1 ship out damage two t5u ships in the same run that have the same recluse buffs/debuffs going. And so on and so forth.
Sarcasm also is famous for not flying scimitars or flavor of the month builds and instead finding ways to max the potential of off the wall ships.
The DPS race is all in the community's mind. The devs are repeatedly nerfing difficulty. There is nothing advanced or normal that requires above mark 12 gear. Except in players minds. If all you see is bragging and pushing the devs to raise the bar then that says more about the lenses you view the world through than any truth about the content you are judging.
Which is why that DPS needs to be dramatically reigned in, like 90%, get back to being like Star Trek again. Heck more often than not the shows, the solution to the threat of the week was to hold fire and find some way to communicate, or a scientific solution to diffuse a tense situation. Instead this game rewards whoever takes most advantage of the available exploits, is the most aggressive, and so so so much metagaming. People applaud 2-minute ISA runs or killing the CE so quickly that someone gets an AFK penalty when maybe they should be appalled that thats what the game has degenerated to. Helping newbies get their build together is one thing, but there comes a point where the community has to say 'no I'm not going to encourage this nonsense anymore,' or else thats all we're ever going to get.
/10 chars
It's not like all these have a very low minimum. The minimum requirement for advance STFs is like 2-5% damage potential. The AFK penalty is like 1% of a team of 5. The increase from pre-dr Elite vs advance now is roughly around 1-2k Dps. These are very small increase which is being bloated by players who don't understand the mechanics.
each player has a different view of what Star Trek should be. just because your personal view that Star Trek is such doesn't mean it holds true for everyone. If you really don't like Dps, one can remain RP comunity because I know casual players who don't care about Dps but still be able to captain a ship and do what they like doing.
However, if you want to complete stuff, there must be a minimum level of competency. The question would be if you want to be better or not. You can't have a game wherein a player does nothing to improve and expects to be better or as good as someone who continuously improve and adapts. It's not like Picard or Kirk were couch potatoes who just expected to win regardless of how small their effort would be.
By altering gameplay rather than gear the two can be brought closer. Gear will always make the situation worse until mechanics aka formulas change.
And this doesn't matter if one person likes this playstyle and that person likes a different one. And that's not even touching how it hits the economy.
Except you appear to define 'better' and 'improving' in a very specific way, like its a binary choice between joining in the damage race or being a "couch potato." So long as everyone brings the 20% needed to do their part of any given mission (heck 25%, just to cover margin of error), then I don't really care how they got there. However if someone shows up with 200% solo and a full-sprint pace and annihilates half the map before the non-sprinting players even get to the combat area (maybe they accidentally blew up on the Cube's core breach at the start of ISA or something, sets them back 20 seconds), do you call the non-spinters AFKers or incompetent or something? If they brought their ~25% to the mission, but basically don't get to play the game because Mr 200% is duck-hunting with a howitzer and ignoring the rest of his team, then personally I don't think the 25% players are the problem or need to change.
The midpoint DPS level on the charts are also on the rise. A month or two ago it was just at 7k, now it is at 9k. To me this means that the average player is getting better, or the powercreep is helping them make their ships better. So whether or not they are actively chasing DPS, they are dealing higher DPS. If they nerf the powercreep now, I have a feeling it's these players that will get hurt more than the outlier top 10% of the game.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
You cannot get AFK with one player doing 100k DPS in ISA when the four other players are getting at least 5-9k DPS. This is wrong math in your part. One of the ways you get AFKed is one player totally underperforms to less than 3.5K DPS and 4 players parses 100k which put the time finish at exactly 2 mins.
That means the DPSers planned it to happen, grouping together, got lucky since they all got 100k DPS meaning the DPS cannablization didnt happen, while the the one doing 3.5k must be be underperforming. Do you even see parses in the DPS league in top DPS that 4 players get 100k DPS at the same parse to pull this off?
Absent of the DPS theory of having 4 "100k" parses, The sub par player must be totally abysmal be AFKed. Meaning if you got 4 players doing 9k DPS which would put the time around 15 mins, that player that would be AFKed should be doing 200 DPS or less.
I'm not only relying on those numbers, but with anecdotal personal experience as well PUGging and parsing that map several times a day. I can see a real improvement over the quality of the teams I am getting. Sure there are some bad ones but overall, the teams have been getting better in general for me.
Whenever someone posts here how bad the "average" STO player, I think it's demeaning for those players since I hold average players in a higher regard than some do here. To me, they are not as bad as they are portrayed in these forums.
Besides, a lot of the player numbers there were uploaded by someone else, meaning even if they do not have a parser, they could have a record there because someone who parsed the instance uploaded the run. Right now there are over 18k individual player records (unique @handles) on the table. I would hope that's a significant enough number to get an idea of the state of ISA.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
We dont know that. Unless you have the gamewide average statistics which only Cryptic has vs a publicly available statistic. The problem with gamewide average is people in the forums tend to mask their personal concept of it to the point the "average" to them is their or their friend's experience.
For now, we got the ISA public DPS stat which parsed from private and PuGs ranging from 233k DPS to 100 to 0 DPS
The difference is knowledge and the application and willingness to embrace that knowledge. Look at what you said. Performance to minimum requirement = increasing Gears. Which is not true. You have been in these forums for quite a long time is still spew that kind of information about gears.
With regards to your balance, there is normal. Higher difficulty for higher performing players. The problem has always been players who do not perform wanting what those higher difficulty get without any improvement or change from their abysmal techniques or playstyle. These advance nor elite where never catered for players who cannot perform in the first place. That is why it is called advance and elite not Casual difficulty. Why make advance elite when there is no difference from Normal, eh? Might as well have just one difficulty called normal.
It depends which population sample are you getting. If you are getting players which includes players who never played an stf nor wants to play an stf. Then, population of the league won't be identitical since you have included players who never left ESD nor would even want to do Stf at all. Then you got an issue population disparity of public private matches. 0s in pugs which are heavily played in private matches.
Thats why I base myself on the Dps league since it is the only publicly available stat that has recorded both public, private matches. While those who say that an average player is this or that have no data to base it from.
Is English not your first language (not meaning it as an insult I just can't figure out how you came to the conclusion that you did based on the words I used)? Because that is the opposite of what I actually said. We actually are agreeing and saying the same thing here.
If gear = performance then changing the "bad" mods would bring the bottom closer to the top and thus make the situation better. A worst case scenario would be both top and bottom change equally. The only way for a gear change to make the top improve more than the bottom (as I said) is if the non-gear factors like distance, skills, time spent shooting, lack of time spent dead, etc are more important than gear.
And you are 100% correct willingness to change is the most important thing. The problem is bigger than sto the problem is that the gaming population is changing. We have more and more first time gamers. More and more mobile gamers. More and more fans of some movie or TV show that try a game with the same title. Lots of these people just want short amounts of mindless easy fun. They don't really want to get better. In mmos were sheltered from this change to a degree but the devs have repeatedly said sto has many players for whom it is their first and only video game. Geckos mentioned this in two priority one podcasts, for example.
Thos are the people who are jumping into advanced when they aren't ready. The question is how do we reach them and how do we help them?
That's also the point as well. Paxdawn is referencing publicly available numbers that are not a guess, while number for the whole population of STO is merely a guess. There is no way to determine the percentage variable when discussing the entire STO population because it can be nothing more than a subjective guess since PWE does not make that information publicly available. The numbers Paxdawn references are publicly available numbers that represent a part of the population, but the numbers are "concrete."
I think the problem is average is the wrong statistic to use. What is the mean damage?
For those 18k to be a viable sample ALL of the following MUST be true:
1. People of each damage range queue for Isa in the same quantity as they exist in the total population of the game
2. People of each damage range queue for Isa the same number of times (so a few players or a subgroup don't drown the others)
3. Statistically similar buffs and debuffs present in teams with DPS league parsing players are present in teams without them
I find these highly unlikely. Thus the mean value will really tell us because none of those factors are relevant to the median.
To give an example, lets say we have 22 unique handles running 8 different isa instances.
Al, Bob, Chad, Donna, ed, Frank, Greg, hal, Ione, Jan... All the way to Tom.
Al ran in 8 of 8 and always did 52k.
Bob was in 6 runs and did 24k
Chad was in 4 runs and did 18k
Donna was also in 4 runs and did 22k
Ed through Tom were each in one run and did 2k each
Average looks like 18.9k if you count every handle in every run. Looks like 6.9k if each handle is counted once only. Median is 2k.
So, what formula was used for your statistic?
Ifmthe median is rising, then good, you are correct the average player is probably getting better. But if you're just counting the top players more often then not so good.
Edit: brain fail mean =/= median bah.
Actually that is not the question. The question would be if that player who would jump in advance is willing to helped in the first place. Because knowledgeable players have always offered help.
The DPS table parses 233k DPS to 0 DPS. Public and private. If you are doing 0 DPS, 3DPS or 35 DPS in space, you hardly qualify for top DPS when the TOP 15 ranges 100kish-200kish DPS.
Everything you are doing is speculation including speculating that DPS league shows the top DPSers only which I pointed isnt true.
Nothing fancy, I was just referencing the midpoint of the table. The table represents the best recorded DPS of all those unique @handles. So I would assume that is their current maximum potential. The mid point of the table used to be at around 7k 1-2 months ago (maybe 3) with 15k recorded handles. It is now at 9k I believe with 18k recorded handles. Roughly the same number of players scored higher or lower.
Forgive me if I approached that the wrong way, but it has been decades since I touched on the subject of statistics.
On another note, I may have jinxed myself with consecutive failed ISAs.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!