Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums

Tauren

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    158

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tauren

  1. Posted · Report reply

    If you search the Power Saving perk in the encyclopedia, summarized, it mentions that it does not work with Power Hungry. However, the Wraith adds that it also doesn't work with "Can't get enough". Now after some scrounging it seems this perk does not exist in the encyclopedia, wraith, or any player's knowledge.

     

    Here is what the Wraith says:

    bugreportpowersavingjk6.th.png

     

    It should be removed and if it is a perk that has yet to be implemented, keep it out of the game until the perk actually is made available :angry:

  3. Posted · Report reply

    I also believe the success rate is based on an exponential function, but as Alberich has already stated, your proposed formula is too complicated for a simple and constantly repeated task such as mixing. It could quite possibly be parabolic in nature with an unreachable maximum of (100-x)%

    Of course this search for a formula is unnecessary as time is better spent analyzing approximate success rates through experience, rather than compiling enough data to make an appropriate guess through all the chaos of these variables (i.e. astrology etc.)

  10. Posted · Edited by Tauren · Report reply

    I agree too, stones are screwed up, and I don't want to get in there to be pwned instantly because of these bloody rocks that are nearly invincible...

    this is, or should be, a PK Server, where people PK each other, and not the summon stones.

    100% agree! :):icon13:

  13. Posted · Report reply

    I understand the reasons, but can you imagine how pissed the big guys will be? They did not get strong by finding a "make me pr0" stone in the coal mine, so why should they suddenly lose their advantage?

    he never implied that these armours should become a haven for low level players to win battles. The high level player will still always have an advantage because of the higher stats. Armour isn't the only factor that affects a dual :D

  14. Posted · Report reply

    Or perhaps, there could also be some bonus for wearing complete set (I know, I know, Diablo thingy) of armor...

    the sig set was da bomb! (at least I think it's called that, been a long time).

    I don't think sets will work very well as this forces players to wear an entire set of the top items and when one of those parts break they will go nuts trying to get it back :pirate:

  16. Posted · Report reply

    Yes but with many experiments repeated continuously, the overall amount of times a poisoning occurs should be around 5%.

    Not necessarily. Some could be a bit more unlucky than others and hit that 5% each time for 30 toads in a row out of 100. The guy sitting next to him could hit it once out of 100. First guy's result: 30% of eaten toads poisoned him. Second guy: 1%. But... Still only a 5% chance of being poisoned per toadstool. :)

    Yes these 2 guys' luck of toad poisonings are seperate experiments that are in the end combined...

    Also refer to -

    Eat more toadstool, and your average will in the end get closer to 5%. This is often termed "the weak law of large numbers", although I'm not sure if this is the name used in English.

     

     

     

     

     

    Just because there are 2 possible events does not mean the odds of being poisoned in the end are 50/50, 50%, 1/2, etc. There is some truth in this, but it is not the correct way to express it.

    "There is a 50/50 chance of me being poisoned on the next toad I eat, yet the chance of being poisoned is 5%"

    Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Say it whatever way you prefer. :)

     

    May I add once again... wtf :pirate:

    Maybe it's because you're thinking about it in a mathematical way. Try thinking about it in a philosophical way. Remember that odds are one thing, actuality is another. Odds are always predictive and therefore never 100% certain, so regardless of how confident one is in one's odds, one would be foolish to act on them without waiting to see what the actuality turns out to be. One would be reckless to eat lots and lots of toads all at once by fast clicking without looking to see if one is getting poisoned, because one expects based on odds that one will only get poisoned once out of the batch. It's the same thing as saying one would be foolish to place a bet on a horse, and then go and rack up debts in anticipation of the money, without waiting for the horse to finish running the race, no matter how good the odds on that horse were.

     

    Predictions contradict probabilities, this is still insufficient to assume the next outcome is going to be one or the other with a 50% chance.

    Ah, but that contradicts your own statement, i.e.: "There is a 50/50 chance of me being poisoned on the next toad I eat, yet the chance of being poisoned is 5%" Again, try looking at it philosophically.

     

    Also, I have to admit that my statement is only partially applicable to EL probablities and predictions, because the 5% is not...how do I want to say this?...a natural probability. It is an imposed probability, deliberately chosen. If this were RL, and we were discussing toadstool eating, the 5% chance of being poisoned would be a predictive calculation based on observations of the past. We use the past to predict what will happen in the future, and base our choices on those predictions, but there are many ways those predictions can be wrong because so many factors affect what happens, and our data about the past may not be complete. That cannot be said of EL toadstools. The 5% is not a statistical estimate based on what has usually happened before. It is a set standard upon which we can rely. We know that there is no time when the likelihood of poisoning will not be 5% (unless Entropy changes it on purpose). But that still does not change the fact that, at the moment you are about to click on a toadstool, you cannot know whether it will be the one to poison you or not.

     

    I guess what I'm saying is, basically, that because of the built-in randomness of toad poisonings, a player might decide that 5% is a reasonable risk to take, but should still take care to watch for those little green droplets. I said before that I'm a toad-eater, and I only have 90 hp. Right now, it is too expensive for me to keep a constant stock of antidotes. So I can't afford to let poisonings stack up on me. So even though I've had many days where I've eaten 100+ toads without one poisoning, I still watch for the green drop on every single toad I click, so I can switch to fruit until it wears off.

    Aha! No wonder why everyone had approached this differently to me :D

    Thanks for explaining this clearly.

     

     

    lim_{n->infinity} P( | avg(X_n)-mu | < epsilon ) = 1

    ftw :)

  21. Posted · Report reply

    Lol, the point is that when it comes down to individual cases at the moment of decision, the odds come down to 50/50. The horse you bet on either will win or it won't. The toad you clicked on either will poison you or it won't. The chances, odds, rates of occurrence, whatever you call them, is just how we hedge our bets, what we base our decisions on ahead of the fact (since you're not allowed to bet on yesterday's horse race). A 5% rate of poisoning ensures that toads will be safe often enough to be useful. But the random number generator ensures that the uncertainty remains for each individual toad you click. 50/50 -- poisonous or not.

    Just because there are 2 possible events does not mean the odds of being poisoned in the end are 50/50, 50%, 1/2, etc. There is some truth in this, but it is not the correct way to express it.

    "There is a 50/50 chance of me being poisoned on the next toad I eat, yet the chance of being poisoned is 5%"

     

    May I add once again... wtf :pickaxe:

    EDIT: You know, so you can't predict with any accuracy how many toads you can eat before getting poisoned -- i.e. you can't avoid the risk..

    Predictions contradict probabilities, this is still insufficient to assume the next outcome is going to be one or the other with a 50% chance.

     

    Just to toss it out (basically agreeing with what I quote above): It's a 5% chance of being poisoned per toad you eat, not 5% of how many toads you eat. Each time you consume a toadstool, you have a 5% chance that you're gonna get poisoned. Bummer if you happen to hit the jackpot each time you eat a toad 15 toads in a row. ;)

     

    It doesn't care if you've made 1000 of something or 10 of something, each time you eat one, there's a chance of poison, it's not looking at how many you've made or gonna make, eh? :)

     

    Yes but with many experiments repeated continuously, the overall amount of times a poisoning occurs should be around 5%.

  22. Posted · Report reply

    This is EXACTLY why I only buy 1 ticket with each drawing. Whether it's virtual or not.

    I'm confused by your way of explaining probabilities. You're telling me that there is a 50% chance of being poisoned simply because there are 2 possible events? being poisoned and not being poisoned?

    The chance of winning the lottery is a 50% chance because once again there are only 2 possible outcomes? wtf... i hope you realise if you bought a 2nd lottery ticket, no matter what the chance was of winning with one, your chances will be nearly doubled...

     

    If the formula says 5% chance of being poisoned, the chance is 5%. You will be lucky to land right on the 5% chance mark, let alone anywhere near it. While you are being hit 20% of the time, somewhere else another player could be getting hit 1% of the time :)

    Live with it :pickaxe:

  24. Posted · Report reply

    I got the same message during the all out pk. I went to grab some neg perks (mainly antisocial and hellspawn), it says they don't cost anything but it told me I need to pay 15kgc. The thing is, I think it's saying you need at least 15k in storage (correct me if I'm wrong) because just before that I gave away all my cash for fun.

×