Posts
Comments
The "Mild Boar and Jungle Mammoth are just what the person from the Harsh Survivalist Ice Village calls pigs and elephants" speculation is hilarious and I wish I'd done that on purpose; I hereby retroactively declare it canon.
One roll for all universes.
Actual results.
Regarding PCs & NPCs: My plan for handling the NPCs is pretty much as you said; if I end up needing multiple worlds, I'll make sure the human players are distributed as close to evenly as possible.
Regarding the premise: Being better at interdimensional travel than at regular teleportation produces some weird incentives. Also, magic-users are generally understood to be crazy; "that mage is doing something unusual!" is about as concerning as "that fire is hot!"
Yes.
Thanks, yes, you're completely right; I wrote this for an older version of the scenario and forgot to change it. Edited now.
Your theory is correct. I had some sort of clever justification for why that made sense in-universe but I forget what it was; the Doylist reason was that I wanted the red herring in this puzzle to be as simple as possible.
The original generation code is up here if you want to take a look.
72%
(Good question, by the way; I added a note to the main post to clarify this.)
Yes to the first question.
To the second: you can aim to reduce repair costs with your interventions, but since they won't come out of your budget that's more of an optional extra for further impressing the brass.
That's exactly right.
All your assumptions are correct, with the debatable exception of the last one: you have a record for every voyage
- made along the same route you're taking
- by a supply ship
- working for the same Navy as you
- in the span 1396-1405.
Your interpretation is exactly correct.
I can confirm it's not a mistake on my part. Beyond that, I leave it to you to decide what's going on here and whether it's relevant.
Good catch, edited now, tyvm.
I'm glad you got what I was going for. However, you should probably spoiler that meta-point, so people trying this challenge in the future can look for clarifications in the comments without being spoiled.
From your knowledge of wizardly adherence to habit, the way he never suggested getting items anywhere but the caravans, your knowledge of local markets, and the fact that everyone selling seems to recognize the Owle owl following you, you can be pretty sure that Wakalix bought all 836 of the items on his list from the same source(s) you're currently considering.
(Regarding the other implications of your question, I neither confirm nor deny anything.)
Nope.
Fun thought, but no. In fact, none of the available magic items can help you in that way.
Somehow forgot to link to dataset in OP, fixed now.
I generated the dataset. The rules I used to do so will be provided on Saturday, so everyone can see how close they got to the truth.
Your interpretation is correct: there are no character classes in this world.
I've added some guidelines to the main post. Thanks for asking, I'm embarrassed to admit that angle didn't occur to me.
Your paranoia does you credit, but I'm not doing anything close to that subtle; what you're seeing is Pandas putting the columns in alphabetical order when saving the dataset as csv. (I had to manually edit it to make 'results' be the last row instead of third-to-last)
Sorry, yes, good catch. Edited now.
Responses to your differences:
.I hear you, but R has enough fully-automated testing tools that it's much simpler for me to just run the appropriate test and see what pops out the other end. (Also, THANK YOU for mentioning Chebyshev, I can't believe I'd never heard of that inequality before and it's EXACTLY my kind of thing)
.I think (?) you're operating on the wrong level of meta here. A t-test uses both the mean and the variance of the distribution(s) you feed it, and that's true whether or not it's being used to test a correlation. The CLT will not save us, because the single (admittedly gaussian-distributed) datapoint representing the mean has a variance of zero. (Something I could have done - in fact, something I remember doing much earlier in my career, back when I was better at identifying problems than finding expedient solutions - was to group not-necessarily-normal datapoints together into batches of about twenty, take the averages per-batch, and then t-test the lists of those: it was a ridiculous waste of statistical power, but it was valid!)
.That's an excellent idea. My excuse for not doing that is that I was prioritising pointedly-not-getting-things-wrong over actually-getting-things-right; my reason is that I just didn't think of it and I'm too lazy (and data-purist) to go back and try that now.
The dataset is, at time of writing, still up at https://gist.github.com/ncase/74ae97cb74893a0c540274b44f550503. I'd love to see what you throw at it.
Thanks for the detailed feedback! You should be pleased to know the next iteration will make the utility of captured mines a lot more obvious, and do so a lot earlier (this is a pretty common complaint). Also, if you liked keeping track of decoys in your head, I should probably make sure you know you can turn the autocalc off in the Options menu & get the same sort of experience with the Bayesian levels.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but: if you liked it, why did you stop playing?
I ask because this is a recurring theme I've noticed: people saying it's fun & well-put-together (and appearing to mean it), but that they're not motivated to keep going. Or, in other words, that it's engaging but not compelling.
I'm pretty sure it comes down to the absence of story, context and overarching goals. But if the cause of this effect is something different, I really want to know.
Good catch! I have a bunch of minor tweaks I want to make to this version of the game before moving on, I'll add that to it.