Talk:Adventurer Theories

Thoughts on layout, readability, ease of use or just general comments go here... Any observations should be made on the page itself. --The1exile 23:23, 21 December 2006 (CET)

I'll fill it up once I start resting again... Damn champion seriously wounded me... and I wanted a unique :( -Chénier 23:29, 21 December 2006 (CET)

Actually, I haven't insisted that it's non-linear. I did, however, wonder why you think it is. Not many things in BM are linear... --Tom 00:08, 22 December 2006 (CET)

Hmm.. This reminds me of my university time. True, you can approximate an unknown function, and often within a limited range the easiest approximation is a linear function. Very interesting. I'm surprised nobody has applied higher math yet, there should be enough geeks in the game. --Tom 15:27, 26 December 2006 (CET)

Yeah, there is one here. -- Gsklee 16:08, 26 December 2006 (CET)

I hadn't crossed out the idea, but liniar functions with a minute random factor seems to fit nicely. Also, for most games, server speed is an issue, I guessed that expodential functions weren't likely. --Ambeco 01:56, 27 December 2006 (CET)

CPU power is one of the least problems I have. I/O and memory are the main issues of the database. Calculations for the PHP code are small compared to that. --Tom 18:46, 27 December 2006 (CET)

Math

Seems like to be exponential functions; correlation coefficients are high when the data are approximated this way. Also fit into my experience with the game.

On the Floor

f(x) = 2.8837e^0.1607x

Primitive Room

f(x) = 6.1564e^0.1366x

Common Room

f(x) = 4.8468e^0.2208x

-- Gsklee 16:54, 26 December 2006 (CET)

You guys are impressive. Very impressive. I love this game. :) --Calvin November ^t/_c on 04:09, 27 December 2006 (CET)

If those are the correct formulas, what are the restrictions on the value of e (unless you mean Euler's (big chance of spelling mistake)), we could, and should, simply make the calculations to see the maximum and minimum possibility for every value of x and we'd be able to fill out the chart accuratly. -Chénier 21:13, 31 December 2006 (CET)

Euler's value doesn't work out. I even wonder how he got to those strange numbers, it doesn't seem logical to me that Tom just filled in random numbers, not when you try to imitate a real sleeping process. Foreign Curs 10:15, 1 January 2007 (CET)

I'm thinking e is not Euler's, but a random number between x and y, seing as how sleeping the same ammount of time the same way have removed different ammounts of fatigue. But I'm not sure, I didn't come up with them... -Chénier 18:51, 1 January 2007 (CET)

Didn't I say these are approximated results? If you want a universal function it could be represented in the following way:
η = ⌊αe^βx + r⌋
With x being the hours spent, α and β are constants that vary in each resting method, r a randomize factor, η the fatigue restored, and ⌊⌋ for a floor function to obtain an integer result. -- Gsklee 21:49, 1 January 2007 (CET)

Ha! Now you lost me! That's alright, I'll let you handle those things... -Chénier 21:58, 1 January 2007 (CET)

why functions ?

Why do you all assume it's a simple function at all? There are only 16 possible values, it could be a table. Or it could be a more complex or multiple overlapping functions - I quite like those. There are several places in the game where the function is y = sqrt(x)+x/10 or something like that. There are also various places where it's like y = min(a(x), b(x)).

Then again, I might just be having fun with you and it actually is 2*x + rand(1,3)... :-)

--Tom 16:08, 2 January 2007 (CET)

One day a physicist was bragging to his friend about the Almightiness of The Physics, claiming it being The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything... The friend snorted, asking the physicist to describe the motion of a chicken.

"Of course!" The physicist replied in excitement. "Assuming the chicken is a perfect spherical rigid body..."

You see, that's the spirit! ;) -- Gsklee 20:45, 2 January 2007 (CET)

Investigation Texts

Whoever thought it was a bright idea to combine undead and monster investigation texts - it wasn't. Do you have any proof whatsoever that the same texts are used for both? There is exactly one investigation text that is identical for both, and a few who are similar. So whoever did it, you acted based on either baseless assumptions or one data point each, or on not looking close enough ("you hear many rumours" and "there are many rumours" is not the same text...).

And you others: You accepted it without questioning.

It's always interesting to see how things work out, and how people go about finding hidden information.

--Tom 16:02, 2 January 2007 (CET)

Oops, that was me. At that point we had one text for monsters and two for undead, and the one monster text was one of the two undead texts (a 100% success rate!). We've got to make assumptions at some point. For example, do we have *proof* that an infiltrator assaulting a soldier has the same chance of success as an infiltrator assaulting a cavalier, all other things being equal? We don't, and the chances might not be equal, but we've got nothing that tells us they aren't and it makes sense for them to be the same. The texts all seemed like they could be used for either type, and you investigate monsters and undead at the same time with the same link, so it seemed reasonable to assume that the same texts were used for both. Clearly that was wrong though. And looking in the history, the two I thought were the same had a slight difference: "There are some rumors *of* monsters" vs. "There are some rumours *about* undead." That would seem to indicate that different code handles each. I guess we've got to be more careful. The fact that the monster and undead code are not the same might mean that there are some more important differences between them too. Any ideas? -- Mcglynn 18:56, 2 January 2007 (CET)