Pheryll
Set Designer
There are 9 relic recipes, but only 4 pet food recipes. This does not mean that all the recipes have the same probability, so a 9 to 4 ratio is probably inexact.
-
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
Click here to register for a forum account!
If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.
Your Elvenar Team
Not enough Pet food
- Thread starter StarLoad
- Start date
There are 9 relic recipes, but only 4 pet food recipes. This does not mean that all the recipes have the same probability, so a 9 to 4 ratio is probably inexact.
StarLoad
Well-Known Member
I am aware and was going for simplicty and to keep the concept simple.
Even if they have removed some recipes, then adding more pet food enabled bldgs will just make it worse.
Also, the overnight rotation just started and a Petfood showed up, woohoo
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Yup, and that's precisely what I don't want in a game like this. Too much of my results being dependant on events I can't control isn't fun.
At least at one end of the curve.
Deleted User - 1178646
Guest
Bell/gauss curves work to a certain extrend.
They only work where there is a clear beginning and a clear end.
For example a concert.
You define your ticket price on the gauss curve.
You look at each price what the turnup is of people and calculate at which price the profict is maximum.
At a price of 0 you sell out 10 times (10 concerts) but there id no profit, at 10 dollar you sell out 6 times at 20 dollars you sell out 5 times ect
But at a certain price lets say 2000 dollars you wont's sell a single ticket, at 10K or 10m the same.
Now when we look at odds or RNG the curve works on small numbers and only on half the curve
For example after 10 rolls 1000 people have 0 petfood, 2000 have 1 petfood, 3000 people have 2 petfood and 2000 people have 3 perfood, 1000 people have 4 petfood ect.
But when we look at 1000 rolls the chance of getting 0 is so atronomically slim that it's more likely you get hit by a meteor or a random object falling from a plane. same with 1000 petfood in 1000 rolls.
So what happens is that both ends of the gauss curve creep up to the middle, when you have more dicerolls claiming that you get 0 or 100% does no longer make a realistic sense. and the more rolls you make the bigger the offset will become of "possibilities" that make no sense anymore.
There might be a theoretical possibility, just like in theory the world could be destroyed tomorrow. theoretically possible but if you claimed that we would call you insane as it does not make sense.
An example of this are these 2 curves, in the first curve we see a RNG with a small sample size. in the second curve we see another curve based on a bigger sample size, lets say 1 year for a player. and whe you look at inno-games level with a sample size in hundreds of millions the line becomes as flat as a pancake.
Therefore looking at a day or a week for the results is not effective. and off cource as a normal user it will never be as flat as a pancake as we don't get millions of rolls, but we do get thousands of rolls.
The first figure is like a single event, your options are limited and therefore the curve will turn out to e the one like figurere 1.
But when we look at petfood, we het thousands of dice rolls, and with those numbers it becomes more like figure 2.
Flat as a pancake is more for inno-games internal. as they literally look and hundreds of millions of rolls.
Maybe someone likes to calculate what the minimum "reasonable" difference is between players with a 22% possibility (5.6 a week)
What would after 1 year (1460 iterations) with 276.000 players (as innogames announced yesterday?)
What would be the difference between player with the lowest amount of petfood and the highest amount of pet food.
Maybe that person can reuse the script fasdfTTT once made on this forum to run a simulation that shows how random the random really is when you look on a year basis.
https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/snow-flurry-probabilities-gps-and-bldgs.5380/
https://pastebin.com/amAREij0
No offense but I still remember all the complaints on the forums when we had 9 recipes.
the reduction from 9 to 3 (and later to 4) was something many players asked for.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
The thing is I remember telling people to hoard them and make as many as possible.
To me, the fact that they called them "pet food" and not "phoenix food" meant very clearly that we would need more in the future. Just one more pet could increase consumption by 100%!
Almost no one listened at the time. To be fair, many started after the drop, and not everyone has a hoarder mentality.
I've never finished a game with fewer than a ridiculous number of health potions "just in case"
ekarat
Well-Known Member
While I see that there are various pet food management strategies, I feel like the simple fact that these are necessary to avoid shortages means that there isn't enough pet food. I really don't want to have to level my timewarp to 30 or adjust my schedule to get all 4 crafting options each day.
In short, while it is possible to manage pet food supply, it's pretty scarce, which takes away some of the benefits of some of these pet buildings. I don't think that's a good thing.
In short, while it is possible to manage pet food supply, it's pretty scarce, which takes away some of the benefits of some of these pet buildings. I don't think that's a good thing.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
I like that.
Note on Soggy bias: Absolutely any new prizes are fine in the spire if I get my one godamn endless scroll before they remove the set. I will probably drop a deuce on every suggestion in the future if that doesn't happen.
Sir Squirrel
Artist EXTRAORDINAIRE and Buddy Fan Club member
I remember when there was to many pet food, but that was before there were so many pets. I think they should find a way to add more in other places. Like they did in one of the previous events. They don't have to put them back in the crafting rotation, but should put them in a few more other places so they are a little easier to get.
Silver Lady
Well-Known Member
I second that but Note on bias: ... if I get my one ******* Moonstone Gate before they remove the set.
Iyapo1
Well-Known Member
Deleted User - 3932582
Guest
Not quite sure what exactly you are plotting on those charts, but generally speaking this is the opposite of how it really works. The higher the number of samples, the higher probability that you're converging to the expected value. If you flip unbiased coin 1K times or 100K times your expected value of 0.5 per flip is the same, but your standard deviation (e.g. how far are you expected to be from the mean, on average) is going to be significantly smaller in the second case - by a factor of 10 in this particular case. This is the law of large numbers. So with more samples, your normalized probability distribution will converge to a single peak at expected value rather than will get smeared all over the place.
ekarat
Well-Known Member
The absolute deviation (number of heads minus tails) goes up (square root of N -- the number of trials), but the fractional deviation (percent heads minus 50%) goes down (square root of N divided by N).
People have used this essential fact of probability to claim it either way, depending on how they present it -- as absolute or fractional deviation.
It's one of the classic ways of getting statistics to say what you want them to say, and one of the tricks to keep in mind when debunking such claims.
Deleted User - 3932582
Guest
This is correct, but the context was how relevant expected values are to any individual experiment (player). And in 10 vs 1000 case your expected values would be 5 and 500, and actually getting 3 or less and 485 or less has about the same probability (~17%). And yeah, the delta in the second case is higher than in the first case in absolute terms (-15 vs -2), but most people would be a lot more disappointed in getting 3 out of expected 5 rather than 485 out of expected 500. Precisely because in the first case you're getting 40% less than expected, and in the second you're only getting 3% less than expected.