Jump to content

Underworld Trading: Biased-By-Design


finelinebob

Recommended Posts

For the TLDR crowd:

This is not an issue that relies on the sort of simple probability seen in RE. It depends in part on statistical hypothesis testing and it relies on exposing structural design flaws in BioWare's method of assigning specific missions. Dismiss it and demonstrate that you really do not know what you are talking about. If you are interested in the topic, try to read for comprehension, a skill for which Third Graders are tested. If you've passed Third Grade, there is some hope you may come away with something valuable from this.

 

Otherwise, my apologies in advance for the long post, but this is not a simple issue....

 

Let me begin with a phrase often blamed on Mark Twain, who in turn blamed it on Benjamin Disraeli (though there is no documented proof that he said it): "There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I prefer to say that there are liars, damned liars and statisticians because the numbers don't lie; it's the interpretation that does it. The reason I am bringing this up is because my stats are limited in this discussion. I could not find anyone capable and willing to help with the more complex testing that needed to be done, so what I have to say begins with some fairly certain, rigorous basic testing that identifies what must be a built-in, intentional, systematic bias for certain types of Underworld Trading (UWT) missions. The rest is simply an argument based on the logic of probability that relies on a "fair coin", an unbiased randomization method that we know from what I just said is not entirely true. Any interactions between the bias I can demonstrate and other random determinations within the system that would help or hurt matters more than they should are things I cannot measure with the tests I can conduct.

 

Still, if you know your stuff about Two-Way Analysis of Variance, maybe we can work together and clear this issue even further.

 

To put things plainly, there is a statistical bias in how UWT missions are assigned when you randomize your list. The bias may not fall along lines you would suspect, though. In UWT missions, there are "factional" and "neutral" missions. Factional missions are ones with story lines that would not make sense for the opposite faction. For instance, the Republic mission "Behind Imperial Lines" would not make sense for an Imperial player. Factional missions roughly mirror one another in terms of yields and products. Neutral missions, on the other hand, have story lines that have no factional basis and so can be offered to both sides. I imagine this is to provide a sense of "story" to Crew Skills, since BioWare values story so much, but as I will show shortly this intent on introducing story to Crew Skills alters the distribution of how Gifts, Fabrics and Metals missions are assigned and therefore disrupts any chance for an even distribution between the three.

 

Note: I'm not posting much hard data because SWTOR's forums do not allow for tables. It's available to anyone who wants to collaborate with me; otherwise, summaries of the most important statistics are given as clearly as they can be. Also, when there are any critical statistical terms or definitions I need to point out, I will hide them in Spoiler tags for the well-informed or the uninterested to ignore as they wish.

 

First, a word needs to be said about data collection. I used the same level 50 character with Skill 400 UWT and the same companion out, one who had no specials to UWT, to eliminate any possible sources of bias there. I randomized my lists by stepping out of my ship into the Carrick Station Fleet hanger, recorded what missions were available without taking any, then stepped back into my ship to randomize the list again. I did this a total of 100 times, which produce 500 randomly chosen missions per Grade or a total of 3000 data points. I kept tally of missions by keeping a list of all Moderate Yield to Rare Yield UWT missions for a Republic character (the ones you would normally expect to see without using Mission Discoveries) in separate columns for each set of ten randomizations. By keeping track in groups of ten, I was able to use some simple Excel formulas to add up the total number of missions recorded at any given time as a means of checking to see if I forgot one or added too many. By saving the document after recording each grade, it made it possible to backtrack quickly and fix whatever error the check sum counter indicated.

 

Now, on to what I can say with some certainty.

 

Perhaps the greatest problem in SWTOR's system for UWT missions is that while it maintains a general ratio of 2:1:1 Gifts to Fabrics to Metals missions, the missions are not spread evenly between the various Yields available and, possibly much worse, they are not distributed evenly between the factional and neutral types of missions. The actual number of available missions per Grade is just as erratic, with a variance of almost two times the amount of missions available for the most "populated" Grade as opposed to the least populated. Even given the 2:1:1 ratio BioWare tries to maintain, the actual availability -- from the perspective of at least one player with characters who rely on UWT missions -- seems haphazard at best and intentionally biased at the worst. But let's look at the statistics first.

 

To keep the geek speak as brief as possible, I'll say what must be said in the open and toss the rest in Spoiler boxes. Selection of missions at each grade is independent with respect to each other, so the chance of reporting multiple T-Test statistics keeping these populations separate should minimize any increased chance for a Type I error for reporting multiple tests. Since the primary comparison being made here is a difference of means between two groups -- factional and neutral within a Grade -- a T-Test should be sufficient in examining whether the differences in distribution of missions to each category is sufficiently random or not.

 

 

Essentially, this is a Between-Subjects design, meaning that the results from one test should not affect those of any Grade due to their independence. Statistical testing essentially assumes that the variations in what you are testing are due to random fluctuations. Your "job", if you want to provide support for an idea, is to prove that supposition wrong, to show that things are most likely not random. For a T-Test, the variation in the means or average values of the two groups you are testing is the focus of figuring out whether the differences are random or not. Logically, the further the means are apart, the more likely there is a REASON for it other than random glitches. This is all within the realm of probability, so there is always a chance when you say "X occurred" that it was an extremely improbably fluctuation instead. Making such an error in judgment is called a "Type I Error", or essentially a "false positive" -- you thought something was there, but it isn't. More below:

 

 

In all six Grades, testing the difference between the mean frequency of selection for factional versus neutral missions was found to be significant at the p<0.001 level for Grades 2, 3 and 4 and at p<0.01 for all other Grades. In other words, it is extremely unlikely that these six tests' results occurred due to simultaneous highly improbably random fluctuations -- it makes more sense to assume the differences are due to some systematic cause built into the random assignment process of missions to a mission list, with an average bias of approximately two-to-one in favor of factional missions being chosen over neutral missions. Running these tests independently of each other means I cannot say that they are varying due to the same reason, but this appears to be a case of where logic prevails when statistical rigor cannot.

 

 

The chance of you making a Type I Error is given as the "p" statistic for the test or the probability that you made a false positive. In social science testing where human decision making is involved, such as arguably is the case here, a p<0.05 or less than 5% chance of being wrong is considered the maximum acceptable risk, by custom more than anything else. A p<0.01 or a less that 1% chance of being wrong is usually considered fairly stringent precision to demonstrate an effect. Going beyond a p<0.001 level is generally regarded as stroking your stats-peen and typically isn't done. Also, "statistical significance" does not mean something is "more true". That some effects were significant at the 1% or less level and other at the 0.1% chance or less does not make the second set more true. Scientifically, statistically and logically there is no such thing as "more true". (Arguably, scientifically there is no such thing as some theory being true at all.) Furthermore, our methods in science focus on "falsification", or proving that statements are false. A more stringent level of statistical significance means that it is less likely a highly-improbable result sneaked in and nothing more. If it is significant, it is simply significant.

 

 

So, basically, yes: if you thought UWT mission assignments were biased, you were correct, but maybe not for the reason you thought.

 

So much for what I can say definitively with statistical testing, unless someone with some expertise in Two-Way ANOVA wants to step up and share credit with some more in-depth analysis. What follows is just based on the logic of probability and what is expected when results converge to expected outcomes. I would like to stress here strongly, though, that the uneven allocation of factional missions between the different mission products (gifts, fabrics, metals) means that there may be "interaction affects" that could significantly influence the assigment of missions. Without knowing what these interactions are, or whether they are statistically significant, certainly calls into question any precise interpretation of what I have to say below if not the sum of what I say, if the interaction is large.

 

First and foremost, BioWare has designed a system for UWT missions where Gift missions occur basically twice as often as either Fabric missions or Metal missions. There are precisely 42 Companion Gift missions, 21 Luxury Fabric missions and 21 Underworld Metals missions available to a character with a Skill of 400 UWT, regardless of faction (there is a sight difference between factions in the number of Gift missions at Grades 5 and 6, but they essentially balance one another out). This number includes only missions that are normally available through your Crew Skills window, and does not include the Prosperous or Wealthy Yield one-time missions you can learn from Mission Discoveries. More specifically, there are 3 non-metals missions for every 1 metals mission thus indicating a bias-by-design of 3:1 against the resource that is most needed by users of UWT: both Cybertechs and ArmorMECHs require only Underworld Metals for their Prototype and Artifact quality items, and Synthweavers require Underworld Metals for approximately two-thirds of their schematics. If the number of missions were balanced at the 2:1:1 ratio for all grades, the item needed the most from UWT missions is by design more difficult to get and for no better apparent reason than to maintain some arbitrary ratio of mission types.

 

However, we have not begun to discuss the distribution of missions which looks, to the best of my ability to discern any pattern, haphazard if unintentional and vindictive, perhaps, if by intentional design because I can see no meaningful positive distribution of the total number of missions available and any Grade nor the Yields associated with the missions at each grade. Below is a list of the total number of missions available per grade and a breakdown of how many of those are Underworld Metals are available and at what Yield:

  • Grade 1 -- 9 total missions -- 1 Moderate Yield Metals mission, 1 Abundant Yield Metals mission
  • Grade 2 -- 13 total missions -- 1 Moderate, 1 Abundant and 1 Rare Yield mission
  • Grade 3 -- 14 total missions -- 1 Moderate, 1 Abundant and 1 Bountiful Yield mission
  • Grade 4 -- 16 total missions -- 1 Moderate, 1 Abundant, 1 Bountiful and 1 Rare Yield mission
  • Grade 5 -- 17 total missions -- 1 Moderate, 3 Bountiful and 1 Rare Yield mission

I am leaving Grade 6 out because missions are limited to Grade 6 Moderate or Abundant Fabrics or Metals missions and Grade 5 Rare Gifts missions, making it difficult to compare this Grade to the others on equal footing. I would also like to note that there are 15 Grade 6 missions for the Republic, while there are 16 Grade 5 and 16 Grade 6 missions for Imperials. That slight difference in 1 mission at each level comes in terms of Companion Gift mission differences.

 

As you can see from the list above, there seems to be no rhyme or reason to the assignment of Yield level to the missions that are available and that the number of Metals missions available at Grade 3 and lower is less than the overall 2:1:1 ratio established for overall distribution ratios. There also appears to be no rhyme or reason why there are inconsistent numbers of missions overall at each grade when BioWare has taken pains to maintain a strict 2:1:1 ration of missions overall. Worst of all, if you really needed one particular grade of metals for what you are crafting, only Grade 5 presents 5 metals missions for you to send your entire crew out on. What seems inconceivable is that the lowest level missions -- taking "story" into account, the metals that should be easiest to obtain because they are more common, less valuable than higher grades, and your crew should arguably have been able to establish suppliers for these -- are the ones that are statistically and actually more difficult to obtain. There are fewer of them available and they are weighted towards low Yield missions. Shouldn't your crew, as it gains expertise, actually improve its ability to obtain these sorts of metals?

 

As I mentioned above, this whole scheme seems to be haphazard: not methodical, not balanced, not systematic. If it was done intentionally, I cannot for the life of me imagine what reasoning went into the distribution of missions by Yield or by Grade. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the bias of 3 missions to 1 against the possibility of seeing a metals mission is a slap in the face to ArmorMECHs, Cybertechs, and even Synthweavers as your chance of getting an Underworld Metals missions are weighted to approximately the same level of failure as your chance to learn a new schematic from RE or in your chance to crit on a mission and get those materials needed to craft artifact-level items. The odds are stacked largely against you by design, if not by intent.

 

When it comes to design decisions, if the 2:1:1 ration of Gifts to Fabrics to Metals missions was so sacrosanct, then why are there not 16 missions per Grade with a distribution of 2 to 1 to 1 Gifts to Fabrics to Metals at each possible Yield level?

 

Again, I wish to point out that possible interaction effects may tilt the score in favor of metals missions or against them, but until I can find a partner to do some more advanced statistical testing to determine this, absolutely nothing can be said for or against this issue.

 

So, what's an ArmorMECH, Cybertech or Synthweaver to do?

 

It seems most of the community knows about stepping into then out of your ship to force a load screen which randomizes your mission availability. Two questions remain, however: (1) If you do not find missions that you want, should you take any missions anyway, and (2) Does it matter which missions you take. The answer to both is Yes.

 

Taking Grade 3 as an example and assuming that you had drawn no metals missions when you first check: by assigning 5 unwanted missions (since they were all that were available) to your crew (for a combat level 48 toon and higher) from the total of 14 possible missions, you have narrowed it down to 9 missions that can be selected for repopulating your list. Furthermore, it removes the missions you do not want to see again, thereby increasing the odds that a mission you need will appear in the newly randomized list. You chose a companion, you click on the choice of the mission it is running, and you get your list of 5 newly randomized different missions. Should you see a mission that you want, you can then abandon the mission the comp already has WITHOUT AFFECTING the list that is there. You will then be able to select the mission you really want.

 

So, again, you are facing a list of 5 missions you do not want. Does it make a difference which ones to choose? It certainly does. The only thing I've been able to state as a result of statistical hypothesis testing, not just the logic of how probability works, is that FACTIONAL missions appear about twice as frequently as NEUTRAL missions. This can only be explained by a bias within the mission selection system that favors factional missions. So, don't just pick any mission on the list; be aware of which missions are factional missions regardless of their product and choose those before choosing any neutral missions. If you are on the hunt for metals missions and you see a factional companion gifts and a factional luxury fabrics mission among the five available, choose those two to remove them from the possible replacements. I should note that the design bias that makes gift missions twice as common really has no effect here since, ignoring faction for the moment, they probably have an equal probability of the other types of missions for being chosen so after picking out the unwanted factional missions, any other unwanted mission will do. One category being twice as common does not equate to those missions individually occurring twice as frequently.

 

You should also note, for those of you hunting down metals missions, that only Grade 5 actually offers 5 metals missions. Know what limits you face, and know when you have selected all for the grade you want. Send any free companions off on other chores, such as running metals missions of different Grades.

 

Given all this, it sure would be handy to have a list of what the factional missions are and what they produce, wouldn't it? Anything not on the list would be a neutral mission and so of lower priority with respect to knowing what to look for. To make your lives easier, here is that list. Republic mission names are blue, Imperial names are red, and yields/products are white:

 

Grade 1

  • Overthrowing The Tyrants - Dangerous Pastimes - Bountiful Companion Gifts
  • Disruptive Behavior - Fueling Dissent - Bountiful Luxury Fabrics
  • Shady Deal - Organ Transplant - Rare Companion Gifts

 

Grade 2

  • Sord Trunnel - New Deal - Rare Companion Gifts
  • Double-Cross - Pirate Queen - Rare Luxury Fabrics
  • Forging Alliances - Mandalorian Mercenaries - Rare Underworld Metals

 

Grade 3

  • Neimoidian Cowardice - Major Straken - Moderate Companion Gifts
  • Supplying the Resistance - Rodian Greed - Moderate Underworld Metals
  • Undercutting The Empire - Quashing the Rebels - Rare Companion Gifts
  • Taking Down A Rival - Think Again - Rare Luxury Fabrics

 

Grade 4

  • Banned Beasts - A Winning Hand - Moderate Companion Gifts
  • Access Allowed - A Simple Job - Moderate Underworld Metals
  • Rebel Ordnance - Ransom Demands - Abundant Companion Gifts
  • An Unhealthy Loan - Sith Fodder - Rare Companion Gifts
  • Tribute - Stolen Plans - Rare Companion Gifts
  • Double Exposure - Unauthorized R & R - Rare Luxury Fabrics

 

Grade 5

  • Imperial Joyride - Silencing the Snitch - Moderate Luxury Fabrics
  • A New Home - Military Takeover - Moderate Underworld Metals
  • Behind Imperial Lines - A Convincing Argument - Rare Companion Gifts
  • Incriminating Footage - Special Delivery - Rare Companion Gifts
  • Secret Vices - (No Competition: Appears in Grade 6 Imperial) - Rare Companion Gifts
  • For The Troops - Shakedown - Rare Luxury Fabrics
  • Blockade Run - Cherished Memento - Rare Underworld Metals

 

Grade 6

  • Meds For Vets - The Sinews of War - Abundant Luxury Fabrics
  • Well-Earned Rest - A Volatile Gift - Abundant Underworld Metals
  • A Better Life - Discreet Exit - Rare Companion Gifts
  • Shattering Their Chains - Exchange Envy - Rare Companion Gifts
  • Vital Intel - Gaining Favor - Rare Companion Gifts
  • (Secret Vices: Appears in Grade 5 Republic) - No Competition - Rare Companion Gifts

 

 

[Note: Without the resources of Darth Hater and the Darth Hater Database for Underworld Trading Missions, I would not have been able to fill in the Imperial counterparts to the Republic Missions. Thank you very much, folks!]

 

 

Remember the whole "liars, damned liars and statisticians" bit? Don't try to be a statistician and make inferences from how many factional missions are available at each Grade and what sorts of results they yield. This is precisely the statistical interaction effect I said was stopping me from saying more without a more sophisticated method of statistical hypothesis testing. It's situations like these that encourage our brains to make connections where there aren't any, and miss the ones that are really there. Just don't do it.

 

 

You might want to ask, after seeing all of this: What about Treasure Hunting? Slicing? Diplomacy? Investigation, etc. etc.? Well, if the same design process was used, then I would lay heavy odds that those systems are biased by design as well. Just off the top of my head, I can say with certainty that there are no Rare Yield Lockbox missions for Grade 4 Slicing. What it means practically would vary by the Crew Skill. What it means in sum is that the system of mission assignment in SWTOR Crew Skills is biased-by-design, if not actually biased-by-intent against success, and that it needs to be fixed to the extent that anyone out there believes it is wrong to have an unmodified chance for getting a mission for what you want that is 3 to 1 against, and that in 5 cases out of 6 you will not be able to send all your companions out to get the materials you need, even though you and your crew are as skilled as the game allows.

 

Yes, as usual, I have some ideas on how to fix all this. That will have to wait for another thread coming in a few days. For those who know me, that may mean ignoring me, TLDRing me, or maybe taking what I have to say seriously and having a chuckle along the way. I can say that this new thread is going to incorporate proposals and suggestions for improving the RE and Crew Skills games without replacing it completely (or at all in some cases) and these ideas will be from many people, not just my own. The case against the atrocious mechanics behind reverse engineering have been made elsewhere; I'm just taking a shot at pointing out that Crew Skill Missions are just as flawed, but in much more complex ways. Just as with the problems inherent in the Reverse Engineering process, Crew Skill mission distribution gives all the signs of having a design/development team that grasps the fundamentals of statistics and probability but takes no care whatsoever as to the larger implications their choices in what to randomize and how to randomize it affect the player community in both the short and long term. I'd like to think of that as several large instances of oversights, and not a lack of understanding of the higher statistical issues involved. The only other assumption available -- that the design/development team understood how the statistics of their minigame would scale to a system designed for failure en masse for the player population -- is one I would not prefer to suggest or entertain.

 

 

I have been known to be wrong, by my own admission, in the past. When it comes to the biases built into the Underworld Trading mission selection process, though, BioWare is going to have to tell me how I am wrong here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I commend all your hard work to prove what we already knew. The mission list is helpful, but I gave up on the log in and out game a long time ago. I only use UT if I can buy a cheap mission off the GTN. Edited by Frostbyt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting, and having recently taken a statistics course, impressively methodical as well. I commend you, sir.

 

And I'll agree with the poster above - the list is handy. I'll keep this bookmarked as a reference even if I won't hold my breath for any changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might read that if you mentioned what you are actually trying to show. Biased towards what?

 

Well, I tried really hard to get someone who could do some more advanced statistical testing to work with me on this, but unfortunately all the sites I checked with showed no interest. It would have been much shorter if I could have done that.

 

Executive summary? About a 2 to 1 bias in favor of factional missions over neutral missions. That much I can clearly show with the data I collected. That means that we're dealing with "weighted dice" whenever we try to get missions, and it means that without the advanced stats I cannot say a number of things that would make matters worse, such as:

  • I cannot say that 75% of the time you will get something other than a metals mission even though there is a 3 to 1 bias against metals missions in just the variety of missions that are available;
  • I cannot say that the amount of metal that you get is lower on average than gifts or fabrics because the yields of metals missions, by what is available, appears to be weighted towards lower yield missions; and
  • I cannot say that matters are made worse, that there is an interaction effect against metals, given the types and yields of factional missions versus neutral missions.

I cannot say anything about any of those points because of the presence of the weighting of factional missions over neutral missions making assignment of missions a non-random event. If matters were purely random, I could say those things with certainty. Well, the first two anyway. The third is where the problem lies.

Edited by finelinebob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agere with what the OP is stating. Basically, it's a PITA to run Underworld Trading missions for metals.

I've relogged 3 times and had none available for Tier 3.

 

The ratios that have been outlined seem correct to me and honestly seem totally backwards when considering

what actual players need (which is MAINLY metal missions).

 

Frankly, the mission system is frustrating from the point of view of the crafter who needs metals.

We shouldn't have to jump through 3 hoops just to send a couple companions on 2-3 Tier 1 metal missions.

Instead, it's a total cluster puck to get some Tier 1 metal mats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any data in your post? Did I miss it?

 

Also I'm not sure I understand why it matters so much that the mats you get aren't in a perfect 2:1:1 ratio. Very little in-game or IRL is ideal.

 

I did say early on that since these forums don't support tables, there was no simple way for me to post the data in a way that was understandable.

 

And part of the point I am making is that the 2:1:1 ratio is a bias-by-design against the three crafting classes that need Underworld Metals. It's not that I want there to be a 2:1:1 ratio, I am saying that anything close to that ratio is BioWare designing a system that forces failure on players. I am also suggesting that for players who need underworld metal missions, a 2:1:1 ratio, bad as that is, would be an improvement over how things are right now.

 

Your skill level does nothing to improve the chances of getting what you need. If I were to move to a new area in which to live, I'd be able to figure out fairly quickly where to buy what I needed. If I went into a business manufacturing things I would have to learn pretty damn fast where to get not only the materials I need, but good materials at a reasonable price. That's how things work IRL. IRL, we don't accept a 75% chance of failing to find a grocery store when we run out of food and are hungry. Companies don't accept a 75% failure to find the materials they need to make what they make, and decide to settle on meager returns because someone has apparently stacked the deck against them.

 

So don't compare how the Crew Skills system works with how things work IRL. If real life worked the way the SWTOR Crew Skills system worked, we'd all be out of jobs and starving. BioWare has, in every way, stacked the deck so that we fail 75% to 90% of the time when anything with Crew Skills is involved.

 

Would you accept a 75% failure rate in combat?

 

Both combat and Crew Skills are based on RNG in this game (and in most games). It does not matter what class you are, what advanced class you are, what equipment you have, or what skill tree you picked out of what is available to you: every time you attack an enemy or try to heal an ally, it all begins with a randomly generated number.

 

So, again, would you accept a 75% failure rate in combat, particularly if you are a level 50 character with the best end-game gear you could get? BioWare gives you no choice when it comes to Crew Skills: a success rate of about 25% is the best you will ever manage, regardless of your "skill" level, regardless of your companion's affection level, regardless of the Grade of the mission or the Rating of the item you may want to craft and RE.

 

With the current system, what we have is this: you send a companion out to get a new weapon, but he returns with flowers and greeting cards because florists and Hallmark stores are all he could find.

 

Maybe BioWare could do us all a favor and include in the next Cartel Pack a gun that, when you activate an ability to use it, has a flag pop out of the barrel with the word "BANG!" on it. That would put combat on par with the crafting system we have. Then again, maybe BioWare should do the opposite and put crafting on par with the combat system we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, again, would you accept a 75% failure rate in combat, particularly if you are a level 50 character with the best end-game gear you could get? BioWare gives you no choice when it comes to Crew Skills: a success rate of about 25% is the best you will ever manage, regardless of your "skill" level, regardless of your companion's affection level, regardless of the Grade of the mission or the Rating of the item you may want to craft and RE.

 

There is another way to look at the system though: that the (original) intent was for most crafting to be prototype quality; that artifact quality schematics and materials were intended to be a luxury - if you got them great, if not no big deal. And when you think about it, up to level 50 this is in fact the case; you can level from 1-50 with nothing but quest reward and random drops, even prototype quality crafted gear is somewhat of a luxury.

 

Artifact quality materials and schematics were intended to be a bonus, not the desired goal. And will translate here what I said on the WOW forums for years regarding that game's alchemy/herbalism profession combination: treat the artifact quality materials as a bonus rather than the desired goal and you will be much happier with the results. Actively seeking a rare result only leads to disappointment.

 

Personally, I run missions just because I have the credits to do so. I do not care what the results are because I will use them all (eventually) regardless. With this mentality in mind, in my experience, I am getting plenty of artifact quality materials and schematics to use them in.

 

as to the OP, Finelinebob, I usually read your posts with great interest but I lost interest less than half way through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've already found that the system factors in your previous missions to influence the new missions available. The more you run metal missions the more rare they will become.

 

Do your tests again but only run fabric missions for a week and the see how rare your metal missions are then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've already found that the system factors in your previous missions to influence the new missions available. The more you run metal missions the more rare they will become.

 

Do your tests again but only run fabric missions for a week and the see how rare your metal missions are then.

 

You missed where I said that I did not run any missions. I recorded what was available, stepped onto my ship, recorded what was available, stepped off my ship ... and repeated that cycle. I didn't actually run one of the 3000 missions I recorded, so if this effect you claim has been demonstrated exists, it had no influence over my results.

 

Given how few missions there are to run, I can see how it would seem that "less" metal missions are appearing. The fact is that there are a set list of missions. All but one grade have fewer metals missions than you can send your full crew out on. If you manage to send out 3 companions on the only 3 Grade 3 metals missions that there are, then of course you are not going to see any more metal missions until any of them have finished. But given how little the devs care to track anything beyond the variables they are now tracking, it just does not make sense that the act of running ANY sort of mission means it will appear less frequently in the future and that, furthermore, if you stop running a certain type of mission it will increase the odds of those missions appearing. What you are suggesting would require that the game tracks 96 separate variables (there are that many UWT missions per faction, including the Mission Discovery ones) and constantly compare the ratios of Gift to Fabric to Metal missions to determine how to skew the results the next time you randomize your mission list.

 

Now, do you really think the developers of this game would put so much nuance into a mission selection system when they haven't bothered to manage a simple two-variable system that could track how many consecutive fails you have REing a particular item and curving your chance of learning a new schematic? Track 96 variables per character when they won't even track 2? Does that really make any sense? Or does it make more sense that there is a fixed probability for any given mission in a list of a fixed size and that they altered the odds to favor one type over another? They can alter the odds without having to track a single variable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've already found that the system factors in your previous missions to influence the new missions available. The more you run metal missions the more rare they will become.

 

Do your tests again but only run fabric missions for a week and the see how rare your metal missions are then.

 

I can prove this right now. There was a point when all I wanted was companion gifts (I was trying to raise affection on an alt). I ran grade 5 and 6 gift missions with all my companions over and over and over again, and then there was a point where all the grade 6 missions were fabrics and metals (both abundant and three moderate). I took full advantage of the situation of course :D.

 

From that point on, I have run a healthy mix of missions and never fail to get the abundant metals mission at least once a night. The way I figure it is if I do not use the materials or gifts someone else will (guildie, friend, or off the GTM).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to say thank you for putting the work into this research.

 

Fantastic level of detail and thoughtfulness in studying the game mechanics. I have had a cybertech/UWT toon since launch and I honestly had my own method for getting the missions I wanted, but it was not based on any actual testing. I think you confirmed a number of things I thought were likely true (particularly that there seems to be no rhyme/reason to yield availability). I wish there were a thousand more of you to study other aspects of the game. Let me know if you ever post on Reverse Engineering. That is a total mystery to me still (20% never seemed so rare and improbable until I started playing this game).

 

Thanks again! Keep up the good work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did say early on that since these forums don't support tables, there was no simple way for me to post the data in a way that was understandable.

 

Then post it somewhere else and link it.

Edited by Telanis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I commend you on the work you have done here, but ...you made a crucial statistician mistake.

 

Your data collection process is flawed. I don't have the data to prove it, but I think it is pretty clear (as someone has already mentioned) that interaction does play a part in the design mission availability - i.e. what missions you are running/ran in the current cycle determines what missions are made available to you the next cycle. Since you didn't run any missions, it is improbable that your data is conclusive to prove your hypothesis.

 

Chances are really very very good that the decision matrix limits the number of missions for resources you "need" (based on popular choice) by triggering missions for resources you don't 'need' (your unpopular choice) beyond a simple ratio matrix. There are a few reasons why they would do this, all are pretty much a factor of limiting the resources any particular crafter has available to him'/her. This, effectually ...

 

...facilitates interaction with others. By limiting resources, a crafter can't (theoretically) be self-reliant past a certain point. This forces him/her to go to others/GTN to get the resources they need.

...slows the process. If a crafter has unlimited access to resources, it would make that craft skill trivial by design.

...makes those resources (and the items that can be made with them) have a value. This is more-so true with recipes, but affects raw resources as well.

 

And, to be clear, every mmo in existence with a crafting option has some facet of these implemented.

 

In the end, I think - at best - you may be able to conclude that the decision matrix re-initializes on instance reset - logging out/in, changing instances, etc - if you had a significant enough variation in your lists to prove it ...because that is essentially all you tested for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...