The DPS-Channel Settings on CombatLogReader: Anti-Carrier Bias

leviathan99

I'm trying to enter that contest and, reviewing the logs and settings, I have an observation or two.

Why does DPS-Channel count ENTITY combat time rather than player combat time?

I see a few issues.

It hurts players who don't immediately run and gun. Faster ships will be favored over slower ships in combat encounters but the DPS of both will be dragged down if slower ships don't keep up.

Ships with poor turnrate may need more repositioning between encounters.

Carrier pets left lagging behind may increase combat time by engaging the gate.

All of this seems to create an anti-carrier and anti-dreadnought bias.

Also it may lead to UNDER-reporting of some powerful ships as well as ships where the captains have to fight to get DPS.

jerichoredoran

Well that combat time thingy is tricky anyway. Sadly the game doesnt log combat start/end to just pull these values so its always some guessing involved. But of cause its worth to take a look into...

xxxhellspawnyxxx

Strange, most of the top-dps values were done with dreadnoughts and carriers.

Try to improve your positioning and flight paths. And play with teams that understand "wfp".

leviathan99

xxxhellspawnyxxx wrote: »

Strange, most of the top-dps values were done with dreadnoughts and carriers.

Try to improve your positioning and flight paths. And play with teams that understand "wfp".

I am trying to improve my own work here. I am equally troubled if the top performers are being under-reported. If we're using this as a measuring stick and devs see it, they may nerf the wrong things, particularly if they replicate what we do.

woodwhity

stoleviathan99 wrote: »

Ships with poor turnrate may need more repositioning between encounters.

Carrier pets left lagging behind may increase combat time by engaging the gate.

The first only applies if you are less than good in piloting. This is where training (much training) comes into play. (and you can use the inertia quite nicely). But when you can effectively pilot a bortasque, you will be fine.

The second doesnt really apply, as your damage is divided by time= First mentioned in combatlog - last mentioned in combatlog.
And at the end of the combat, EVERYTHING should be dead. The time you (or your pets) attack will only be added in normal (not-dps-settings) mode, were only attack-time counts (which is different to the time mentioned above).​​

alfiedono

Actually this is an extremely good question. Using entity combat time is quite awkward, especially when your main purpose is to measure player DPS. This is exactly why when SCM (STO Combat Meter, the DPS Channel's new parser, available at www.stodps.com for anyone who's interested) was developed, we switched over to using player combat time instead. With the old basis we routinely had issues in maps like Hive Onslaught where the old version of the feedback pulse would hit players AFTER the queen died, extending combat time and distorting the measurement of DPS.

This is one of the main reasons why SCM reports higher DPS in some instances, vs CLR (aside from the fact that SCM calculates combat time to 1/10 of a second). This issue is even more important for high DPS runs where map completion time may only be in the order of 60s, every bit of inaccuracy in combat time measurement can have a substantial impact on the results.

e30ernest

alfiedono wrote: »

Actually this is an extremely good question. Using entity combat time is quite awkward, especially when your main purpose is to measure player DPS. This is exactly why when SCM (STO Combat Meter, the DPS Channel's new parser, available at www.stodps.com for anyone who's interested) was developed we switched over to using player combat time instead. With the old basis we routinely had issues in maps like Hive Onslaught where the old version of the feedback pulse would hit players AFTER the queen died, extending combat time and distorting the measurement of DPS.

This is one of the main reasons why SCM reports higher DPS in some stances, vs CLR (aside from the fact that SCM calculates combat time to 1/10 of a second). This issue is even more important for high DPS runs where map completion time may only be in the order of 60s, every bit of inaccuracy in combat time measurement can have a substantial impact on the results.

This is very informative. I have been wondering why SCM read different from CLR. I knew SCM took more samples per second, but I did not know the difference in calculating time.

What is the % of time in combat required for a parse to be valid? It is very difficult now to get a valid parse in groups that don't WFP (like PUGs or even in the DPS channels) or when someone forgets to put his pets on recall at the start.

alfiedono

e30ernest wrote: »

alfiedono wrote: »

Actually this is an extremely good question. Using entity combat time is quite awkward, especially when your main purpose is to measure player DPS. This is exactly why when SCM (STO Combat Meter, the DPS Channel's new parser, available at www.stodps.com for anyone who's interested) was developed we switched over to using player combat time instead. With the old basis we routinely had issues in maps like Hive Onslaught where the old version of the feedback pulse would hit players AFTER the queen died, extending combat time and distorting the measurement of DPS.

This is one of the main reasons why SCM reports higher DPS in some stances, vs CLR (aside from the fact that SCM calculates combat time to 1/10 of a second). This issue is even more important for high DPS runs where map completion time may only be in the order of 60s, every bit of inaccuracy in combat time measurement can have a substantial impact on the results.

This is very informative. I have been wondering why SCM read different from CLR. I knew SCM took more samples per second, but I did not know the difference in calculating time.

What is the % of time in combat required for a parse to be valid? It is very difficult now to get a valid parse in groups that don't WFP (like PUGs or even in the DPS channels) or when someone forgets to put his pets on recall at the start.

95% of team (player) combat time for ISA, varies for other maps, - should not be materially different in terms of acceptance/rejection rates - but we're still monitoring this aspect.

leviathan99

alfiedono wrote: »

Actually this is an extremely good question. Using entity combat time is quite awkward, especially when your main purpose is to measure player DPS. This is exactly why when SCM (STO Combat Meter, the DPS Channel's new parser, available at www.stodps.com for anyone who's interested) was developed, we switched over to using player combat time instead. With the old basis we routinely had issues in maps like Hive Onslaught where the old version of the feedback pulse would hit players AFTER the queen died, extending combat time and distorting the measurement of DPS.

This is one of the main reasons why SCM reports higher DPS in some instances, vs CLR (aside from the fact that SCM calculates combat time to 1/10 of a second). This issue is even more important for high DPS runs where map completion time may only be in the order of 60s, every bit of inaccuracy in combat time measurement can have a substantial impact on the results.

I'm also going to add that I gather the old settings were to combat DPS inflation but in my experience, over 80% of players never crack 20k with the old parser... and that, if anything, a difference of a few k will overstate the disparity between high and low end players, particularly when you group them in 10k blocks like we tend to. Which has the tendency of overstating inequality.

For example, if I state that less than 20% break 20k and 30% are in the 10k club, it makes disparity sound astronomically worse than if I use a parser that allows for a more people to break 20k who are on the cusp.

The more exclusionary tactic, particularly when expressed in 10k club units, is going to lead developers to nerf 20k+ performance as the "nail that is sticking up in the floor" whereas a more generous parser is probably going to focus the devs on nerfing 50k+ performance and buffing sub 10k performance.

woodwhity

10k and 20k players are pretty much the same though. Lower middle tier.

SCM wont make much difference here, only in high end play, meaning >50k.

leviathan99

woodwhity wrote: »

10k and 20k players are pretty much the same though. Lower middle tier.

SCM wont make much difference here, only in high end play, meaning >50k.

I could be wrong. Last I looked, particularly on the low end, it seemed like people tend to cluster more in the 7-9k side of a bracket, probably because they're doing their best to crack the next bracket if they're DPS conscious at all.

So you'll see more parses at 7-9k than 1-6, more at 17-19k than 10-16k, etc. among people who actually care enough to parse.

tyriniusss

Hmm are you sure about that? The parses of all players in the team are uploaded, so doesn't that also cover the 1-6 and 10-16k players?

leviathan99

tyriniusss wrote: »

Hmm are you sure about that? The parses of all players in the team are uploaded, so doesn't that also cover the 1-6 and 10-16k players?

I thought about that but even so, if AT LEAST one in five of the players care enough to run a parser, you've already got a sampling bias. (And if one in five don't, how did you get the parse? Incidentally, I wish this game had an exhibition option.)

tyriniusss

I see, good point.