Difference between revisions of "Talk:Formicid (monster)"

From CrawlWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Very instructive information, thanks!)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
::Good to know.  I definitely agree the stochastically determined values make more sense, I was just curious as to what was happening. -[[User:Ion frigate|Ion frigate]] ([[User talk:Ion frigate|talk]]) 00:40, 17 December 2013 (CET)
 
::Good to know.  I definitely agree the stochastically determined values make more sense, I was just curious as to what was happening. -[[User:Ion frigate|Ion frigate]] ([[User talk:Ion frigate|talk]]) 00:40, 17 December 2013 (CET)
 +
 +
:::Very instructive information! We should ask the overall maintainer to introduce the 'thank you' procedure, just like big wikipedia recently (this autumn) did. It provides some positive feedback /spirit. I'd surely use it often to thank e.g. CommandeC for this creative approach of stochastical implementations. -- 18:54, 17 December 2013 (CET)

Revision as of 18:54, 17 December 2013

Just a question: I've noticed that the knowledge bots and similar sources seem to "clip" HP ranges: for instance, formicid drones have 4 "base" HP and 6 "extra" HP per HD. With 4HD, this gave 16-40 HP, as one would expect, but with 6HD, it gives 26-58, instead of the expected 24-60. Is it just clipping the extreme improbability (total chance is something like 1/3500 for 25, 26, 59, or 60 HP), or is there actually something subtle in the code that prevents the extreme values from occurring? -Ion frigate (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2013 (CET)

Those extreme cases can occur, but they are uncommon. The hp ranges reported by the knowledge bots (and my program which is just a fork of them) are the minimum and maximum hp values observed in a sample of 1000 monsters of the specified type. When I wrote the program which updates our pages, I decided to keep this algorithm, because the information it provides is more useful than showing the theoretical hp ranges. --CommanderC (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2013 (CET)
Good to know. I definitely agree the stochastically determined values make more sense, I was just curious as to what was happening. -Ion frigate (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2013 (CET)
Very instructive information! We should ask the overall maintainer to introduce the 'thank you' procedure, just like big wikipedia recently (this autumn) did. It provides some positive feedback /spirit. I'd surely use it often to thank e.g. CommandeC for this creative approach of stochastical implementations. -- 18:54, 17 December 2013 (CET)