Engineer role selections

Just a thought, but if the Engineer role reduces the cost of charging a system, wouldn't it make more sense to assign those members with SMALLER EP pools to the Engineer role? That way, they could do more with limited resources. We are all still limited to the 10 charges per turn, so even with my 270, I could charge all 10 for less than three rounds. If we really get our act together, our battles should not last more than one or two rounds. For someone with only 170 EP, they can't do all 10 for even two rounds.

Am I understanding that wrong? Ill look forward to other thoughts on it. Thanks!

I have 99 ep because my cap is almost 400. that can and will be adjusted as my form changes but right now thats where i sit. Just as an fyi.

Now I do agree with Mike. Our battles even in the last LaW, win or lose, never lasted more than 2 rounds. I feel like as we get higher up the same will be true.

It depends on how long the battle goes. In a short battle, you are correct that the more efficient use would be to have low EP members as Engineers. In a long battle though Engineers will be increasingly efficient the more and more EP they have.

So how do we make a choice? Well there are a couple factors to bring in to bear. Right now our battles are only going one or two rounds because the matches are not even, either wildly in our favor or woefully disadvantageous. In such a battle, the impact of the increased efficiency on one of these battles will be minimal. Lets look at some numbers:

Dekeboy has 220 EP and Feigr has 100 EP, and lets say we have even the best Engineer slot available giving EP exchange cost of 7, and assume an average result of 10 to make the math easier.

Scenario 1 : Small Ep Engineer
Feigr as the engineer will get to exchange 10 times on the first round, producing 100 PC. On the second round he will get to exchange 5 times (5 minutes have passed so he has gained 5 ep added to the 30 left from last round) producing 50 PC. Third round he will manage to exchange only one more time (5 more ep from last round to this, +2 from waiting halfway through this round) for 10 more PC. This whole time Dekeboy will get to add 100 PC round 1, 100 PC round 2, and 30 PC round 3.

Scenario 2: Large Ep Engineer
With dekeboy as engineer he will produce 100 PC round 1, 100 PC round 2, 100 PC round 3. Feigr will produce 100 PC round 1, 0 PC round 2, and 10 PC round 3.

So in two rounds scenario one produces 350 PC and scenario 2 produces 300 PC. This leaves the favor in the hands of scenario 1 by a decent amount as that is half a charge on most systems. Yet if we even just extend it to round 3 the growth rate of efficiency on larger pools overtakes the small pool, with scenario 1 producing 390 PC and scenario 2 producing 410 PC.

Now, most of our battles last war only went 2 rounds, so we should focus on that short term efficiency right? But did we have the least problem actually charging everything we needed to for only 2 rounds of play as it was that this 50 PC would make a difference? Don't forget that these battles were either won handily or lost overwhelmingly. But if we even make it one more round to #3 we are now more efficient on a high pool given the example numbers.

This gap will get larger as the battle goes on longer (though with diminishing returns as the pools are expended). Over a 12 phase battle in scenario 1 feigr can exchange 154 EP (100 + 54 minutes of regen ep) for 220 PC + dekeboy's exchange of 270 EP (220 + 50 min of regen ep) for 270 PC = a total 490 PC. Over 12 phases in scenario 2 dekeboy exchanges 273 (220 +53 min of regen ep) for 390 PC + feigr exchanging 150 EP (100 + 50 min of regen ep) for 150 PC = a total 540 PC.

Now at the end of 12 rounds scenario 2 only managed to match the difference in efficiency found with  scenario 1 at round 2. However in scenario 1 that PC efficiency results in surplus that doesn't get used that round anyways, but in scenario 2 the PC efficiency is spread out over phases were it is actually needed, and on top of this starting in the very next round after the peak efficiency of scenario 1, scenario 2 becomes more efficient.

It is also worth noting that round 2 is the ONLY round where scenario 1 has a higher efficiency as both scenario 1 and 2 produced the same 200 PC in round 1. Also, as the use of crystals is far more efficient the larger one's ep pool, the use of crystals to recharge ep would throw it exponentially in the favor of large pools.

The math would of course vary with different example pools being used for the two subjects and using and actual measure of central tendency for the exchanged amount instead of just picking 10 for the ease of math (the average exchange would be lower, and the effects smaller as a result). However this should be sufficient to demonstrate that any benefit to efficiency by using smaller pools would have a relatively narrow window to have an impact, and that window would typically go unused. Leaving the potential for actual impact squarely in the hands of large pools.

Also ^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is why we need a forum. It would have taken 26 messages in the legion chat to just say this much in and good luck trying to keep any of it straight while other conversations are also being had during its submission. Not to mention the constant harass of the censor overlord.

^^^^^^ Best FUCKING point ever.