Talk:Adventurer Theories

From BattleMaster Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)


If you count it out, isn't it just easier to sleep (on a bedrol; but I guess it also could count for other types of sleeping) for 3 hours instead of 9 hours at once? I mean, with 9 at once you remove 14 fatigue, but with 3 times 3 hours you remove if you're lucky 18 hours and if you're not so lucky still 15, which is more than the 14 from 9 hours at once. This is also the case with other amounts of hours. Foreign Curs 14:41, 4 February 2007 (CET)


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) = 2.8837e0.1607x

Primitive Room

f(x) = 6.1564e0.1366x

Common Room

f(x) = 4.8468e0.2208x

-- 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)
pretty sure e means "Natural Log"... --Grancourt Family 14:02, 06 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 = ⌊αeβx + 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)
  • These obviously can't be the real formulas, since no sane programmer would come up with them. However, exp(.2208) == 1.247 ~= 1.25, so I think we're on the right track. My guess for the general formula is int(A + C*k^t + rand), where A, C, and K are rest-dependant factors and rand is a random perturbation. The randomness could also be multiplicative in the C. How does the correlation work out with that functional form? Majromax 07:03, 10 January 2007 (CET)
  • Two examples: 10 hours sleep in common room reduced fatigue by 32, 14 hours sleep in common room reduced fatigue by 42.

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)

Actually, why even bother? I mean we've got half of the table already written down, what use is it to find the function behind it? If we've got the numbers in front of us, I won't calculate the solution to that function to check again... Neither will I try to memorize all those diffrent functions for each type of sleeping. This is useless work actually, as we can just check the table for the answer in two seconds :D Foreign Curs 22:31, 9 January 2007 (CET)

If you really want to figure out the function, assuming it is a function and not a table, the easiest way would be to approximate it with a polynomial function by using a standard curve fitting technique like least squares. However, you would need a little more data to do it that way. It would really help to have more numbers, so the (probably normal) distribution would become apparent, and the random numbers could be mostly ignored. It would also help to have more than one significant figure for the data.

Or you could just graph it and see what it looks like, that is usually pretty helpful. I wonder what it would look like if the randomizer was embedded in the equation or if it depended on the amount of fatigue before resting.

Also, the supposed second order equation for a small tent, Hours^2-(Hours x [Hours-2])-1, is really this first order equation in disguise, 2*Hours-1. --Tj 11:20, 5 May 2007 (CEST)

I've verified that's correct and updated the note accordingly. No reason to have a more complex expression than necessary. Westgate 21:44, 28 May 2007 (CEST)

Perhaps the regression should be made for each set of "Nr. of hours resting", instead of for each type of sleeping place, as it is now. I'm not sure if it would produce any clean graphs though.

Why not a 'floored' table then?

It occurred to me reading through this that to improve readability we could move the data tracking to the discussion page and simplify the table to the lowest value seen for that sleeping choice and time. This table would give a quick look-up for most people who don't want to understand the math but instead allows them to say "oh, hey, I have 20 fatigue and if I get a bath and massage for 2 hours, I'll have a maximum of 6 fatigue left." So, we'd have:

Nr. of hours resting: On the Floor On a Bedroll In a small Tent In an old Tent Primitive Room Common Room Private Room
3 4+ 5+ 5+ 5+ 8+ 9+ 11+

As for tracking data, drop a table in here where we track it along the lines of:

All numbers made up: On the Floor On a Bedroll In a small Tent In an old Tent Primitive Room Common Room Private Room
3 4(x2), 5(x3) 5(x5), 6(x2) 5(x8), 6(x7) 5(x1) 8(x3), 9(x6) 9(x2), 10(x2), 11(x3) 11(x3), 12(x5), 13(x1)

...etc, etc. -Baatarsaikhan 22:07, 17 September 2008 (CEST)

A case for removing “+”

I'm not advocating removing all plus signs from the “Sleeping” table, only the extraneous ones. Each cell represents resting for a certain number of hours using a certain type of resting method. Let's say a cell is empty and someone tests that combination. Surely they'll come here to record it. If they have fatigue left, they can tell exactly what they're experience was, and they add the number to the table. If, on the other hand, they have no fatigue left, they have no idea how much fatigue was removed. This is dealt with by placing a “+” sign after the number, as if to say “it might have been higher then this”.

I contend that the plus sign is entirely superfluous in cells such as “25-28+”. Yeah, the range might have a higher bound, but it might with “25-28” just the same. The range might have a lower bound than 25 for that matter. All that these ranges are in the first place are observations. All of them are subject to change based on future observation. The plus sign is only really useful if the number in the cell might be smaller than the lower bound. If there is a range there, then the upper number must be higher than the lower bound, and the plus becomes obsolete.

Unless I hear a good reason not to, I'm going to go through and remove “+” from each range in the table. I will not touch ones attached to single numbers.

--Slaadslayer 11:02, 17 January 2009 (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)
The difference between Monsters and Undead I believe is simple. Undead require less skill to successfully hunt -- a lower Adv Skill and Sword Skill is required to successfully defeat them. Monsters apparently are tougher and require a higher skill set (and gear now). I've noticed that over the year and a bit I've played my Adv. Phellan 19:11, 1 July 2008 (CEST)

This section is still incomplete. I just added the "There can be no doubt... you can see signs of their presence yourself." text for monsters. I have also seen the "It's an invasion" quote for monsters. If I had the exact quote on hand I would have added it too.--Slaadslayer 02:43, 24 June 2008 (CEST)

Encounter Texts

I believe difficult group sizes may be lead by a champion undead or alpha monster. I do not believe the champion is "part of" the size description, but a separate description of the situation. The size of the group and the presence of a champion together determine the encounter difficulty. for example:

  • you finally encounter several groups of monsters.
  • you finally encounter several groups of monsters. You notice that they have a leader, an alpha monster, a really big and ugly one, whatever you want to call it.
  • you finally encounter a large horde of monsters. You notice that they have a leader, an alpha monster, a really big and ugly one, whatever you want to call it.

I just added the last one, and still have that battle open at the moment. Notice that the group size text for "several groups" is identical between the first two, and the "alpha monster" text is identical for the second two. Also important is the paragraph break between the group size and the champion text. The current structure does not show that at all. Here is the same encounter, this time showing true paragraph breaks.

After searching the area for 3 hours, following trails and noises, you finally encounter a large horde of monsters.
You notice that they have a leader, an alpha monster, a really big and ugly one, whatever you want to call it.
You fight with everything you've got - but the monsters turn out too strong or too many for you. And then things start to go badly.
Your final effort is a success and you manage to break free. You run for your life - and escape.

I've also come across an undead champion once, and I'm sure he wasn't leading an army (it was a "group number 3" I forwarded to another adventurer). In closing, I think we should record which group sizes may come with champions, but I think the texts should be listed separately. I do not think they should be listed together, as they are now.--Slaadslayer 21:02, 13 July 2008 (CEST)

Sage Items

I highly doubt the usefulness of listing the sage items. These are unique items - don't you think the offers are likewise unique? Once the sage moves on, it's gone. --Tom 13:26, 6 January 2007 (CET)

At the very least, though, won't they tell us the kind of items we should keep around if we want to have a chance at making a unique item? You probably won't need a bedroll, it looks like, but be sure to hold on to those rare woodland flowers and monster parts, and probably in general the rarer "common" items. -- Mcglynn 15:42, 6 January 2007 (CET)
Tom, dunno if this is usual, but I saw the same sage in Batesaor no less than 3 times. --The1exile 16:10, 6 January 2007 (CET)
I also have seen a sage many times in Cutnipaniel(?), and twice they asked me for items, but i'm in Prison atm so can't check. --Grancourt Family 17:09, 6 January 2007 (CET)
I've now encountered a sage who asked for the same recipe two times in Gemke. -- Mcglynn 01:03, 8 January 2007 (CET)
Idem here, and that was after a two week interval, so I'm pretty sure he stays for a very long time.
I have removed the item recipes from the main page. One, it's nonsense to list them there because they do and will change. Two, there are hundreds of them that can and will happen over time and in various regions. So even if it could make sense to list them despite their changing, it's just not feasable. --Tom 15:19, 12 January 2007 (CET)

Adventurers and Infiltrators

Recently, an Adventurer in Watto was attacked by what I am assuming is an infiltrator. This strikes me as odd. Adventurers would be a fertile training ground for Infiltrators because they have no guards, making them easy to attack, and also cannot do Scouting or anything else to find a hidden Infiltrator. It sounds like no-risk training for infils. Am I way off the mark here? --Habap 16:29, 12 January 2007 (CET)

  • No, you are right, infiltrators can attack adventurers at will. It's the risk of being a commoner, we have no real security of men who swore alleigance to us, we are always in danger. I think though that adventurers, just like 'travelling nobles' are harder to track down. --Foreign Curs 20:28, 12 January 2007 (CET)


(redirected texts from the article)

After trying out different methods of gathering i have found out that usign less hours results in a bigger find. For example, 4 x 2hours of searching will get you more items than 1 x 8 hours.

Ive tried this several times and it seems to work. This is with the standard boring option (cant think of the name) option. Has anyone else found this out? ScottSabin 18:22, 14 January 2007 (CET)

How much evidence is this based on? Gathering results seem to be calculated individually for each hour you spend, so why should it matter how much you spend total (unless maybe fatigue accumulates and prevents you from concentrating on the later hours)? -- Mcglynn 13:19, 15 January 2007 (CET)
Look, it has something to do with 'probability'. Each time you gather there is a chance of finding something. Now, probability doesn't have a memory. You'll find 1 item each four hours, at 25% rate of chance for each hour. At 3 hours you'll not have that 100% chance of finding something, because 3 hours x 25% is only 75%. As probability has no memory, it won't add 75% + 75% the next time you gather. SO each time you'll only have 75% chances at finding something. Resulting in multiple events when you find nothing (there is 25% you'll find nothing remember). The average is 20%. That's a loss. I can give you the full details about 5 hours too, and 6 and 7 and ... Foreign Curs 16:33, 16 January 2007 (CET)
Actually, that's not quite the way probability works. You are correct that probability has no memory, but you failed to apply that the hour-by-hour chances. If you have a 25% chance of finding something every hour, that doesn't mean you have a 75% chance of finding something every 3 hours. Assuming it was a fixed number, which we know from Tom's comments it is not, you would have 75% chance of finding nothing every hour, regardless of the previous hours' chances. --Habap 20:42, 28 March 2007 (CEST)

Based on feedback Tom left on the page, I have removed Foreign Curs' gathering theories from the page and turned it into a more descriptive and basic guidelines approach. Basically, he said that the theory was simply wrong. (Quote: The above speaks with so much authority and yet, after just looking into the code to make sure, it isn't so. ) --Indirik 16:09, 17 January 2007 (CET)

There's still a lot of... well, guesswork in that section, and much of it is wrong. Maybe the difference between "I _know_" and "I _think_" should be made more obvious? I don't mind guesswork on the Wiki, I just prefer it clearly marked. --Tom 19:57, 17 January 2007 (CET)


The "research" on gathering is very simplified. Among other things, there's no fixed 25% chance. The actual chances of finding stuff and what you find depend on various factors, none of them the amount of hours you invest. But region type, for example, is a factor. There's a reason for it having different "you find nothing" texts. It is a difference if you find nothing or are disturbed by militia, for example, and the chances for each are different in different region types. --Tom 22:41, 16 January 2007 (CET)

  • My personal bet, based on how I'd design it, is that there's a flat 50% chance of finding nothing for an hour ("You find nothing.") There's also a chance to be disturbed, based on troop amounts and peasant population, possibly modified by adventuring skill (unknown how to test this; we can't get adventuring skill estimates). Then, there's a random roll based on hidden region statistics (how fertile it is for items) and adventuring skill as to whether or not your search finds anything ("You find nothing of value" versus "You find a foo!"). Majromax 07:30, 26 January 2007 (CET)
I wonder if the number of recent searches plays a role in it. An adventurer suggested aloud that Creasur seemed to have been cleaned out. Now, it may simply be the power of suggestion coupled with coincidence, but thereafter it seemed true. --Habap 20:36, 28 March 2007 (CEST)

Adventuring Skill Deterioration, and other Taboos

My adventurer lost the ability to "skip" easier undead/monster levels and to go "maximum risk". Assuming that these depend on adventuring (which is reasonable) and knowing that I noticed this after being stabbed by an infiltrator, I think I can very unsafely conclude that there is causation. So beware, infiltrators playing stabby with youmay cause real painful damage in terms of skills.

I am also curious to know if anyone has information about (God forbids!) aging adventurers. What happens to the skills? Does anyone have evidence of age related effects? - Brainwave

I would imagine ageing adventurers suffer the same ill effects as any normal char - quicker skill deterioration etc. --The1exile 17:27, 28 March 2007 (CEST)


I had a good idea(witch i dont know if has been ever posted before) in the out-house (where usualy the brightest ideas are born).

-To give adventurers an option to assault other people, steal theyr money and items.
Rob caravans, and do other unlawul things. Berhaps eaven be able to form a bands of thiefs.
In return if theyr swordsmanship is to weak and they choose a difficult target(a village is easyer to maraud than a stronghold/city) they get captured and theyr prison sentence is depending on the seriousness and amount of theyr crimes, for a steathy theft 3 days prison, for a violent robery 7 days, but when a sly bandit has awoided law long time and has accumulated several murders, violent robeys, assaulting caravans ... he could be put to death.
Pluss they could be hunted by headhunters.
If theyr evil deeds are famous he could not stay in a vilage either -> meaning no sleeping in houses, no baths and massages, no lisening to rumors or gathering info on monsters/undead (they could still hunt monsters and undead though, just cause your in the bad list of the law dosnt mean you cant kill undead and monsters).
-Witch brings me to the other idea, an normal adventurer can hunt bandits (witch can berhaps spawn like undead and monsters in some part) and those unlawfull adventurerd mentioned above.
-And berhaps adventurers could have a meager chance to escape a proson witch would result in them being declared a rogue. That is if they weren't imprisoned by another realm and ofcoure theyr list of crimes wouldnt be shaved of of them.
But this way it would be vital for those have an option to hide out in the wilderness so they wont be capturesd so easely.

-And one other thing, berhaps it would be nice to have an option to travel and avoid toll boths, travel through forrests and unconventional ways, -> meaning longer time to get to the plase but then one woudnt need to pay toll. (dependant on adventuring skill). Metsamees 07:25, 5 July 2007 (CEST)


I cannot find any conclusive source to tell me why my character is an outlaw. In Eston:Atamara the only thing the outlaws have in common is that they are less than 73 days in realm, while the freemen are all 78 days or more in realm. I therefore theorize that there is a 75 day limit after which an adventurer is no longer an outlaw.

My own adventurer has 3 Honor, and 2 prestige. That seems awful high if those numbers were being used as a metric. That's a numerical third away from nobility.--Slaadslayer 07:40, 1 July 2008 (CEST)

It has nothing to do with time in realm. An Outlaw, in BattleMaster, is defined as anyone having less than 5 honor. (This applies to nobles as well as adventurers.) Also: "...a numerical third away from nobility..." is incorrect. Getting 10 honor will not make an advy a noble. It is merely one of three conditions that must be fulfilled. --Indirik 14:52, 1 July 2008 (CEST)

Adventure Gear and Execution

When you're buying Adventure gear, the text says "Is all the stuff that you need for adventuring, and includes stuff like lamps, ropes, pack mules, or (at high values) maps. It relates to your Adventuring skill." What does the "(at high values) maps" part mean? Do you get more detailed maps when you have a big enough %?

Also, I was captured in Netherworld the other day, and although I was a Freeman and had 6 honour, the Judge there was still able to order my execution without banishing me first. Perhaps the Outlaw section should be modified, as it claims otherwise.