#633174
I wanted to share with everyone a new personnel rating system I've developed as part of an ongoing project. I hope it is of interest. Warning: this post is a bit long. I may try to find another format for posting these in the future.
Introduction
In the olden times, I was aware of two personnel rating systems. One of them, designed by Helge "Wesley Crusher" Blohmer, assigned a value to each skill based on the ratio between its "demand" (how many cards call for it) and "supply" (how many personnel have it). Rare skills counted for more, as did skills commonly appearing on dilemmas and missions. There wre other scaling and adjustment factors, but that's the general idea. You can view the most recent update here (from PAQ era): algorithm and results.
Kathy "Major Rakal" McCracken designed an alternate system. The two main changes in her system are (1) only "demand" counts for valuing skills, not supply, and (2) demands are accounted differently by affiliation, since some skills appear more frequently on some affiliations' missions than others. Here is her algorithm and results as of Rules of Acquisition.
When I read about these systems, I couldn't decide which made more sense. The Major's argument was that Christopher Hobson's Computer Skill doesn't make Data's any less valuable, so why should "supply" matter at all? Computer Skill is valuable because of how many cards require it, not because of his rarely it's found. Wesley's system made intuitive sense as well: if there's only one personnel in the game that can provide a needed skill, surely that personnel is more useful than the endless ranks of unremarkable Premiere DipHoLes
A few years ago, I reflected back on these questions, with the benefits of a bit more education and mathematical modeling experience. My motivating idea is that not all demands are created equal. Some skill demands you choose yourself; your mission requirements and skills to power your engines are examples of these. Other skill demands are imposed on you by your opponent, through dilemmas and other obstacles they throw in your way. The relative value of these has changed over time. In Premiere days both were important. Premiere dilemmas are generally terrible, as are Premiere personnel, so you very often can get through the dilemmas without having skills to solve the mission. (This still comes up in OTSD tournaments.) In Modern, the second kind of skill is the most important ones. Unless your crew has been massively thinned out, it's rare that you can fight your way through the dilemmas yet not have the skills to solve the mission.
I aim for my system to describe the Modern environment, so I will focus exclusively on skills required by dilemmas. (I will separately rate missions, to identify missions that give you the most bang-for-the-buck if you are focused on dilemma skills.) This is one way that not all demands are created equal. Another is that not all dilemmas are created equal. Strong dilemmas should count for more than weak dilemmas when it comes to deciding what skills are important. This means that I will be rating dilemmas alongside personnel.
The strength of dilemmas and personnel are mutually dependent on each other. A dilemma's strength is based both on its consequences (how bad if it hits) and the difficulty of its requirements (the probability that a randomly-selected crew or Away Team can meet them). But crews are not "randomly selected," rather stronger personnel are more likely to appear in your deck and in play. What makes a strong personnel? One who has skills that appear on dilemmas you are likely to face. And again, dilemmas are not "randomly selected," rather your opponent is choosing dilemmas aiming to cause you the maximum amount of pain. Both you and your opponent are acting strategically; the dilemmas you are likely to face affect the personnel you choose, and vice versa. This is the dilemma metagame, and this is what I want to model and solve.
If you're interested in more detail, I can share a longer writeup with equations and definitions. Mathematically, this is what's known as a fixed-point problem; economists would recognize this as a game-theoretic equilibrium. I also wanted to improve my Python skills, so I put together some scripts to do the calculations for me, and I hope to get these in a shareable state before long. Like most projects, this has become a much larger beast than I originally intended. The game has also grown much larger than in its past. To keep things manageable, I will be adding cards in one expansion at a time, so today's update just covers Premiere. I hope to add expansions at a rate of about one a week, but that's probably optimistic.
Without further ado, here are the ratings, again just Premiere for now. Happy to answer any questions or hear any thoughts you may have!
Personnel
Note: You'll find some non-Personnel in this list. I am counting other cards that can help nullify dilemmas as a "generalized Personnel," including equipment and even cards like The Devil (which can nullify Wind Dancer!). Again, this list shows the personnel most helpful in overcoming dilemmas.
Dilemmas
Note: You'll find some non-Dilemmas in here as well; I call a "generalized Dilemma" anything that your opponent can choose to make your life more difficult, that can be overcome with skills or other personnel features. I have omitted any dilemma that cannot be overcome with the right skills and features, so you won't see classics like Borg Ship and Cytherians appear. Cytherians is a great dilemma, but doesn't impact the personnel you choose to build a deck.
Skills
Here are the top 10 personnel skills that are most helpful to have to overcome dilemmas, considering the dilemma severity (listed above) and how many dilemmas require them.
Missions
I rate missions by dividing the number of points possible by the number of personnel you need to have in play before you have a 50% likelihood of meeting the mission requirements, assuming the probability a personnel is in play is proportional to the scores above. Top-rated missions give you a lot of points for their difficulty, assuming you are only selecting personnel based on helpfulness in overcoming dilemmas. Low-rated missions are the opposite; but if you are worried about mission stealing the missions at the bottom of the list are great choices! An opponent is unlikely to be able to solve them without specifically planning to do so.
Statistics
For each affiliation, I computed the mean and standard deviation of personnel scores. I've counted these two ways -- the affiliation by itself, and the affiliation with non-aligned support. It's very clear that Decipher intended to use non-aligned personnel to even out imbalances among the affiliations, so it's only fair to count them accordingly. I've also computed a weighted mean which I think is more representative than the pure mean. There are a lot of crappy Premiere personnel, but most of them never see play for that reason. The weighted mean is computed as the expected value of the personnel that would appear in play, if the probability of stocking a personnel is proportional to their score. The weighted mean is at least as large as the unweighted mean.
I've also included a histogram showing the distribution of personnel scores by affiliation. Each "bin" corresponds to a range of personnel scores.
Discussion
The really valuable "skills" to have are the big dilemma-busting classifications: ENGINEER, MEDICAL, SCIENCE, and SECURITY, and any personnel that has two of these is going to be really handy to have. Diplomacy is also helpful even though it's demanded on only two generalized dilemmas (Shaka and Q-Net) -- either one of these can wreck your day if you aren't prepared.
You may be surprised that many of the bridge crew don't rank all that high. The highest are Data (5) and Worf (6), with Geordi in 8th and the infamous six-skilled Picard only coming up 9th! Remember, this system is only looking at dilemma requirements, so for the earlier sets it will be less accurate for assessing value. Picard's double Diplomacy is invaluable for Shaka and Q-Net, but he's otherwise unremarkable as a dilemma buster. His six skills certainly help with missions, but we aren't accounting for those in these ratings.
Instead, top billing goes to three non-aligned personnel: Vekor, Roga Danar, and Dr. Reyga, all of them dual-classification (and both classifications critical for dilemmas). Perhaps the infamous early Federation bias wasn't quite as bad as it was made out to be! Conventional wisdom also has that Romulans were terrible, although according to the scores above they're much better at getting through dilemmas than Klingons! Of course, Klingons had battle as an alternate strategy.
The top dilemmas are what you would expect, again keeping in mind that Cytherians are left off, along with anything else without requirements for overcoming. Shaka, Q-Net, Radioactive Garbage Scow, Alien Parasites, and Ancient Computer are exactly what you needed to be prepared for in the Premiere days.
The most point-efficient missions (assuming you're picking personnel only with dilemmas in mind) are Pegasus Search, Investigate Massacre, and Explore Black Cluster; the least are Investigate Time Continuum, First Contact, and New Contact.
Again, happy to hear any thoughts you might have, and to answer any questions! I hope to add in Alternate Universe in another week or so.
Introduction
In the olden times, I was aware of two personnel rating systems. One of them, designed by Helge "Wesley Crusher" Blohmer, assigned a value to each skill based on the ratio between its "demand" (how many cards call for it) and "supply" (how many personnel have it). Rare skills counted for more, as did skills commonly appearing on dilemmas and missions. There wre other scaling and adjustment factors, but that's the general idea. You can view the most recent update here (from PAQ era): algorithm and results.
Kathy "Major Rakal" McCracken designed an alternate system. The two main changes in her system are (1) only "demand" counts for valuing skills, not supply, and (2) demands are accounted differently by affiliation, since some skills appear more frequently on some affiliations' missions than others. Here is her algorithm and results as of Rules of Acquisition.
When I read about these systems, I couldn't decide which made more sense. The Major's argument was that Christopher Hobson's Computer Skill doesn't make Data's any less valuable, so why should "supply" matter at all? Computer Skill is valuable because of how many cards require it, not because of his rarely it's found. Wesley's system made intuitive sense as well: if there's only one personnel in the game that can provide a needed skill, surely that personnel is more useful than the endless ranks of unremarkable Premiere DipHoLes
personnel.
A few years ago, I reflected back on these questions, with the benefits of a bit more education and mathematical modeling experience. My motivating idea is that not all demands are created equal. Some skill demands you choose yourself; your mission requirements and skills to power your engines are examples of these. Other skill demands are imposed on you by your opponent, through dilemmas and other obstacles they throw in your way. The relative value of these has changed over time. In Premiere days both were important. Premiere dilemmas are generally terrible, as are Premiere personnel, so you very often can get through the dilemmas without having skills to solve the mission. (This still comes up in OTSD tournaments.) In Modern, the second kind of skill is the most important ones. Unless your crew has been massively thinned out, it's rare that you can fight your way through the dilemmas yet not have the skills to solve the mission.
I aim for my system to describe the Modern environment, so I will focus exclusively on skills required by dilemmas. (I will separately rate missions, to identify missions that give you the most bang-for-the-buck if you are focused on dilemma skills.) This is one way that not all demands are created equal. Another is that not all dilemmas are created equal. Strong dilemmas should count for more than weak dilemmas when it comes to deciding what skills are important. This means that I will be rating dilemmas alongside personnel.
The strength of dilemmas and personnel are mutually dependent on each other. A dilemma's strength is based both on its consequences (how bad if it hits) and the difficulty of its requirements (the probability that a randomly-selected crew or Away Team can meet them). But crews are not "randomly selected," rather stronger personnel are more likely to appear in your deck and in play. What makes a strong personnel? One who has skills that appear on dilemmas you are likely to face. And again, dilemmas are not "randomly selected," rather your opponent is choosing dilemmas aiming to cause you the maximum amount of pain. Both you and your opponent are acting strategically; the dilemmas you are likely to face affect the personnel you choose, and vice versa. This is the dilemma metagame, and this is what I want to model and solve.
If you're interested in more detail, I can share a longer writeup with equations and definitions. Mathematically, this is what's known as a fixed-point problem; economists would recognize this as a game-theoretic equilibrium. I also wanted to improve my Python skills, so I put together some scripts to do the calculations for me, and I hope to get these in a shareable state before long. Like most projects, this has become a much larger beast than I originally intended. The game has also grown much larger than in its past. To keep things manageable, I will be adding cards in one expansion at a time, so today's update just covers Premiere. I hope to add expansions at a rate of about one a week, but that's probably optimistic.
Without further ado, here are the ratings, again just Premiere for now. Happy to answer any questions or hear any thoughts you may have!
Personnel
Note: You'll find some non-Personnel in this list. I am counting other cards that can help nullify dilemmas as a "generalized Personnel," including equipment and even cards like The Devil (which can nullify Wind Dancer!). Again, this list shows the personnel most helpful in overcoming dilemmas.
Dilemmas
Note: You'll find some non-Dilemmas in here as well; I call a "generalized Dilemma" anything that your opponent can choose to make your life more difficult, that can be overcome with skills or other personnel features. I have omitted any dilemma that cannot be overcome with the right skills and features, so you won't see classics like Borg Ship and Cytherians appear. Cytherians is a great dilemma, but doesn't impact the personnel you choose to build a deck.
Skills
Here are the top 10 personnel skills that are most helpful to have to overcome dilemmas, considering the dilemma severity (listed above) and how many dilemmas require them.
Missions
I rate missions by dividing the number of points possible by the number of personnel you need to have in play before you have a 50% likelihood of meeting the mission requirements, assuming the probability a personnel is in play is proportional to the scores above. Top-rated missions give you a lot of points for their difficulty, assuming you are only selecting personnel based on helpfulness in overcoming dilemmas. Low-rated missions are the opposite; but if you are worried about mission stealing the missions at the bottom of the list are great choices! An opponent is unlikely to be able to solve them without specifically planning to do so.
Statistics
For each affiliation, I computed the mean and standard deviation of personnel scores. I've counted these two ways -- the affiliation by itself, and the affiliation with non-aligned support. It's very clear that Decipher intended to use non-aligned personnel to even out imbalances among the affiliations, so it's only fair to count them accordingly. I've also computed a weighted mean which I think is more representative than the pure mean. There are a lot of crappy Premiere personnel, but most of them never see play for that reason. The weighted mean is computed as the expected value of the personnel that would appear in play, if the probability of stocking a personnel is proportional to their score. The weighted mean is at least as large as the unweighted mean.
I've also included a histogram showing the distribution of personnel scores by affiliation. Each "bin" corresponds to a range of personnel scores.
Discussion
The really valuable "skills" to have are the big dilemma-busting classifications: ENGINEER, MEDICAL, SCIENCE, and SECURITY, and any personnel that has two of these is going to be really handy to have. Diplomacy is also helpful even though it's demanded on only two generalized dilemmas (Shaka and Q-Net) -- either one of these can wreck your day if you aren't prepared.
You may be surprised that many of the bridge crew don't rank all that high. The highest are Data (5) and Worf (6), with Geordi in 8th and the infamous six-skilled Picard only coming up 9th! Remember, this system is only looking at dilemma requirements, so for the earlier sets it will be less accurate for assessing value. Picard's double Diplomacy is invaluable for Shaka and Q-Net, but he's otherwise unremarkable as a dilemma buster. His six skills certainly help with missions, but we aren't accounting for those in these ratings.
Instead, top billing goes to three non-aligned personnel: Vekor, Roga Danar, and Dr. Reyga, all of them dual-classification (and both classifications critical for dilemmas). Perhaps the infamous early Federation bias wasn't quite as bad as it was made out to be! Conventional wisdom also has that Romulans were terrible, although according to the scores above they're much better at getting through dilemmas than Klingons! Of course, Klingons had battle as an alternate strategy.
The top dilemmas are what you would expect, again keeping in mind that Cytherians are left off, along with anything else without requirements for overcoming. Shaka, Q-Net, Radioactive Garbage Scow, Alien Parasites, and Ancient Computer are exactly what you needed to be prepared for in the Premiere days.
The most point-efficient missions (assuming you're picking personnel only with dilemmas in mind) are Pegasus Search, Investigate Massacre, and Explore Black Cluster; the least are Investigate Time Continuum, First Contact, and New Contact.
Again, happy to hear any thoughts you might have, and to answer any questions! I hope to add in Alternate Universe in another week or so.