Update raw loot % displays

Update raw loot % displays
  • Thread starter Thread starter rason
  • Start date Start date
  • Open Space 
This idea/suggestion is Open. You can respond to ask questions or discuss the idea and either vote it up or down if you believe it should or should not be implemented, respectively. Popular suggestions and ideas will be considered by the development team to become reality in-game.
Proposal
Update the %s listed on Raw space loot to more accurately reflect their use
Justification
Currently, the system is so close to helping, but instead often causes confusion and disappointment due to it's inaccuracy
Motivation
Helping new pilots more easily enter the RE market
The displayed %s on raw space parts was an incredible update, literally the reason I decided to play on Resto, however after a year of using them, their inaccuracy renders them almost without use. I suggest we take a second pass at them to clean it up. We could either change them to be client side and editable, like another server, or pass around the existing file and give spacers a week or two to weight in and update it before pushing that file on the server.
 
I think a color-coded tier list of space part percentages would add a lot of new player friendliness to the space RE system. I'm not sure what's possible in the code though.
 
I think a color-coded tier list of space part percentages would add a lot of new player friendliness to the space RE system. I'm not sure what's possible in the code though.
I'm not sure what you mean by tier list. Do you mean certification tier as you progress in the pilot tree or player-decided tiers? (Like S tier, A tier, B tier, etc)

As for the PV: there are many players coming to Discord asking for opinions and PC on parts only to discover they are worthless. Some parts can be epic at 98%, others can go up to 150%+. It doesn't make sense and leads to the majority of experienced players to tell a new pilot to read more 3rd party documents. I'd like to avoid using 3rd party information when possible, especially today when there is a lot of conflicting information coming from altered servers with their own twist on stats.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by tier list. Do you mean certification tier as you progress in the pilot tree or player-decided tiers? (Like S tier, A tier, B tier, etc)

As for the PV: there are many players coming to Discord asking for opinions and PC on parts only to discover they are worthless. Some parts can be epic at 98%, others can go up to 150%+. It doesn't make sense and leads to the majority of experienced players to tell a new pilot to read more 3rd party documents. I'd like to avoid using 3rd party information when possible, especially today when there is a lot of conflicting information coming from altered servers with their own twist on stats.
Player decided. Unicorn, S, A, whatever they're called/however they're labeled.
 
Sometimes ya just gotta be smarter than the tool you use. The true masters, of anything, are the ones who know when the tool is wrong.
 
Sometimes ya just gotta be smarter than the tool you use. The true masters, of anything, are the ones who know when the tool is wrong.
Not a lot of master carpenters keeping a level that doesn't work in their toolbox. When they realize it is inaccurate, they fix or replace it. We should too
 
Those are very subjective. Fixing the displayed % and matching them would amount to the same.
Pretty sure that's what I was advocating for? I'm not sure what is different between that and what I said. A color coded system based on percentages. There's nothing subjective about a part being at 90% of cap having a different color than a 100% capped part, or wherever the breakdown is. It's just that currently the cap varies from part to part.
 
Pretty sure that's what I was advocating for? I'm not sure what is different between that and what I said. A color coded system based on percentages. There's nothing subjective about a part being at 90% of cap having a different color than a 100% capped part, or wherever the breakdown is. It's just that currently the cap varies from part to part.
It's the tier list I'm not liking. We are advocating the same thing but you're going one step further than I'd like.
 
Respectfully, the 95% scaling is itself subjective.

If 95% meant 1:20 part, we wouldn’t have anything north of 100%.

I’m certainly open to revisiting our scoring, but I don’t know if older parts would update. That could create more confusion that it alleviates.

I’d have to ask our devs about how the system currently works.
 
When it came out we were told it was effectively an excel file with rough estimates put in for the ranges. A good example here is 8 guns, one of the most popular RE'd part anywhere else in JtL. Decent w8 masses are not being kept because the numbers used for w8 were picked from a higher tier than other parts. You can see this in action using the powerbi app what would normally be a keeper rarity is showing as 90% or so, and 95% is listed as 17xx RED and 23xxx rather than the more reasonable 18xx red and 25xxx. This has had an extreme impact on the RE market for 8 guns, and lead people to largely using the crafted borstels instead because getting into a starter 8 gun is so hard. The inverse is happening on a lot of other parts, where 95% was set far to low, and people think they have something really rare at 96, or 97%, when it's actually a fairly common drop, trade space is full of these, not to mention not having any indication to show if a part is reward or outclassed by crafted. The over 100% issue is caused by armors and armor stats having a huge range and the file not accounting for it, the mass on a 10 armor can reasonably drop anywhere from 50k to -2k. I estimate the actual range was set to something like 20k-10k

Give pilots a week with that excel file and we can get it to a much more usable state. Because it's just a read text file, backwards compatibility won't be a problem.

-Edit- I was not prepared for just how dry the market is for w8s, and I 100% blame the % system scarying people off of them, thinking it's only keepable at extremely rare masses.
 

Attachments

  • w8.png
    w8.png
    284.9 KB · Views: 16
Last edited:
it’s never going to be accurate because it’s a hard coded range and not dynamic, it was stupid when Sky added it and still is — there’s a whole discussion in Discord from NoStyleGuy where he explains why this isn’t accurate and can’t stay accurate
 
Not sure what you are referencing, but the space loot system is just a bell curve. Each named part has a mean and a standard deviation hard coded, eg Quantum Ion Drives have a Top Speed mean of 92, with a standard deviation of 4.6. This means that a QID with a top speed of 101.2 is 2 standard deviations away from the mean, with a 2.5% chance of occurring. Going out to 3 standard deviations puts you at 105.8, with a 0.15% chance of occurring or 1 in 667. Where things start to get near their limits of realism is 4 standard deviations, 110.6 top speed, or 0.006% chance of occurring aka 1 in 15,700.

By setting 50% to the mean, and 100% to 4 standard deviations, you would end up with a pretty accurate reflection of the rarity of parts. Where this becomes tricky, and what I assume you are referencing NSG brought up, was that the different named parts have different means and SDs. The way pilots have categorized this for as long as we've known about it is basing the rarity on the named parts with the best drop chance for that stat. When you talk about the rarity of 8 engine Top speeds, you dont factor in the non QIDs because they don't have a chance to drop good top speeds, and the market naturally corrects to top speeds being more valuable because QIDs are a quest reward rather than standard loot. Where it becomes subjective is deciding what rarity top speed to pair with say a 95% rarity mass. There's never going to be a perfect answer to that because its going to come down to how many QIDs are being generated on your server. Despite that, the tables are not dynamic and do not shift over time. 95th % is 95th % forever
 
I recognize that script, first thing I did when I met NSG was to ask him about it, and this was his response. He assured me that the script generates the same results every time and would not be able to cause the shift.

1757101516011.png
 
that’s correct for the original but we’ve modified them, I’m just referencing the script generally
 
No matter what Resto has done the old Space Tribe alias macro text file is 1000% more accurate than whatever Sky did. It seems it would be easy to just use the Space tribe text file to update Sky's database.
 
I worked with the Space Senator earlier this week and gave them the space evaluation cutoffs to see if any adjustments are needed.