[Supreme]

Originally Posted by mmiles8 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What you're essentially proposing is a 24 hour spawn variance rather than a 48 hour spawn variance, based around 6 days rather than 7 (a 1 day shorter cycle than currently exists). This is the only reason that your proposal seems more favorable than the current system, a shorter spawn variance, over time, does not mean more kills than a longer spawn variance. Choosing one probable outcome over another equally probable outcome to present a conclusion is called cherry picking and is not statistically sound research. Excel comes with a handy random number generator. I don't mind running the statistics for you. The 10 tests run over the span of a year (52 weeks, not 365 days). There are 8736 hours in 52 weeks.

So here you have it. No matter what the spawn variance is, you're going to have the exact same probability of mobs over time. If you don't like my numbers, I set the entire thing up to run dynamically. You can recreate the entire experiment on the fly by editing the value of any blank cell on any test sheet, which will cause the random numbers to repopulate. The entire Excel Book is nothing but parameters, random numbers, and charts. The only thing you would have to manually do is run the descriptive statistics tool again on the new numbers, and set the output ranges to E2 and G2 on the Data Analysis sheet for 24 and 48 hours, respectively.

Here's the Spreadsheet

If you want to draw a conclusion, you've got to have some dataz.

I am suggesting that instead of 16 being the median or mean number of spawns in a month that 16 be the MINIMUM. This would parallel with live and classic Everquest. I am not disputing "probabilities" here. I know that the probabilities are the same no matter if it is 24 48 96 or 8736 hours. We should be seeing a mean number of 18-20 instead of 16.