About Spawn variance....

[Ingrum]

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

its not exactly less competition but less time waste imo.

This.

[mmiles8]

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.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[Humerox]

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

The idea of +/- 48 hours seems sound *cough* but has anyone considered that it really could decrease the number of times in a 30 day span that the boss mob would spawn?

I don't think there's a whole lot of interest in that at the current time, with the current state of affairs.

[Extunarian]

Thanks miles for whipping out the spreadsheet. I really didn't understand how the OP was trying to prove here, and his dismissal of fastboy's post as 'simple' really illustrated that he (the OP) is on shaky ground.

I think this has more to do with wanting to cut down the max camping time from 96 to 48 hours.

[Supreme]

Originally Posted by fastboy21 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i actually laughed out loud irl when the guy who doesn't understand simple probability called me simple minded.

You asked for feedback:
Your idea isn't good. Close the thread.

Now, before you post again to call me another name why don't you scroll through the responses to your brilliant idea and count the number of folks who posted anything to the effect of "this is a good idea...lets do it."

I will make this response as simple as i can.

It is not about probability. It is about 16 spawns in a 30 day cycle being the MINIMUM number of boss mobs that spawn instead of 12. The current system has 16 boss mobs as the MEDIAN of 12 (lowest number) and 20 (highest number).Which is much more in line with classic than the current system.

[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.

[Supreme]

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

Thanks miles for whipping out the spreadsheet. I really didn't understand how the OP was trying to prove here, and his dismissal of fastboy's post as 'simple' really illustrated that he (the OP) is on shaky ground.

I think this has more to do with wanting to cut down the max camping time from 96 to 48 hours.

I am pretty sure on every post i have said the same thing. In either a 30 day or 365 day time frame using the current +/- 48 hour spawn variance we are losing spawns on a server that is stuffed full of guilds capable of doing the content.

By making the average spawns 18 with 20 being the HIGHEST and 16 being the LOWEST that will increase the rate of spawns to be more in line with CLASSIC EVERQUEST. Right now the lowest is 12 with 20 being the highest making the mean 16. 16 should be the minimum not the mean.

[Humerox]

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

...we are losing spawns on a server that is stuffed full of guilds capable of doing the content.

I had a good chuckle at that. I think you know why. I'm not going to turn this into an R&F, but don't use that argument. Please.

You rock the boat for more boss spawns and it may backfire.

[Sorkin]

Are you considering how many days after your 30 day window it could be before the next spawn? You are looking at only a 30 day window and seem to be assuming that after 30 days, it all resets. Unless they always patch every 30 days, that's not the case. Messing around with spawn variance while keeping average spawn time the same isn't going to affect total mob spawn over a large timeframe.

[Supreme]

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

Are you considering how many days after your 30 day window it could be before the next spawn? You are looking at only a 30 day window and seem to be assuming that after 30 days, it all resets. Unless they always patch every 30 days, that's not the case. Messing around with spawn variance while keeping average spawn time the same isn't going to affect total mob spawn over a large timeframe.

You can run the same parallel over 365 days or 730 days. There will always be a comparative relation to how many spawns were happening on live compared to here. The +/- 48 hours is reducing the total number of spawns that should be happening based on the idea that this is "Classic Everquest".