Talk:No Whammies
Thanks to that "Your adventurer senses tingle -- one of them is certainly trapped. But your meat radar is way louder than your adventurer senses." line, I find myself wondering if removing all active +meat modifiers and adding in, say, Peeled Eyeballs and Big Veiny Brain or even Mayor Ghost's sash for negative meat modifiers would help here. I'll have to try it next run though. --Sparksol (t|c) 06:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- No good, as it turns out. Used all three, and no noticeable difference. --Sparksol (t|c) 23:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Results:
With a creeeaaaak of ancient hinges, the lid of the treasure chest opens...
...revealing 400 meat! Sweet!
With a creeeaaaak of ancient hinges, the lid of the treasure chest opens...
...revealing 800 meat! Oh boy!
That makes 1200 meat you've found in here so far! Sweet!
With a creeeaaaak of ancient hinges, the lid of the treasure chest opens...
...revealing 1200 meat! Heck yeah!
That makes 2400 meat you've found in here so far! Nice!
With a creeeaaaak of ancient hinges, the lid of the treasure chest opens...
...revealing the sharp white teeth of a mimic!
It clamps down over your head and shoulders, shaking you like a terrier shakes a rat. You quickly pass out from a combination of pain and the fetid stench of the creature's breath, a horrible combination of rotten meat and mothballs.
Some time later, you wake up, battered and bruised, at the entrance to the cave. The 2400 meat you'd found in the treasure chests is gone.
Crap.
Beaten Up You acquire an effect: Beaten Up (duration: 3 Adventures)
--Text provided by User:MolotovH.
Word bucket things:
Sizes:
- tiny
- little
- small
- average-sized
- normal-sized
- medium-sized
- big
- large
- huge
Materials:
- birch
- cardboard
- cedar
- ebony
- ironwood
- ivory
- mahogany
- maple
- oak
- pine
- plywood
- sandalwood
- walnut
Fittings modifier
- ancient
- antique
- burnished
- dented
- dingy
- engraved
- glittering
- glossy
- polished
- shiny
- tarnished
- varnished
- vintage
- weathered
Metals:
- aluminum
- brass
- bronze
- copper
- electrum
- gold
- iron
- lead
- mithril
- nickel
- platinum
- silver
- steel
- tin
- titanium
- zinc
Exclamations:
- Awesome
- Excellent
- Heck yeah
- Hot damn
- Nice
- Oh boy
- Schweet
- Sweet
- Yahoo
- Yippee
--AstronautGuy (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Grammar, AGAIN
Seriously, "there's so many" is ok. Just relax. --Johnny Treehugger (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am perfectly relaxed. "There's so many" is not ok.__Blargh (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Google Books has about 650,000 results for "there's so many". If enough people consider "there's so many" to be valid English that over half a million books have been written that use it, then it has become valid English, albeit informal/colloquial English. (Just like, if you'll pardon my pointing it out, an uncapitalized "OK".) --Vorzer (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- At the risk of coming off as stubborn and pedantic, I'd like to offer a last attempt at persuasion before letting this case rest (as there do not seem to be anyone agreeing with me); reply to it or disregard it as a childish need for symbolic resistance, whatever you like.
Your implied argument that a certain amount of usage over a certain length of time renders something formerly incorrect correct is probably not fruitful to debate, but I simply do not think enough misapplication has occurred to make the error right. I do believe most English teachers, and for that matter, most who care about grammatics, would consider "is", when attributed to anything but singular third person, a mistake. Is there no distinction between "common error" and "modern English"? Perhaps not. I am also not sure that I am impreßed by half a million books, considering the size of the Internet.
But then, I'm probably a bit of a hypocrite, with my ß. Also, observing the wall of text I just wrote, I do feel pedantic and stubborn, so I'll halt myself. Have your errors and write them, too.__Blargh (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)- My issue is that sic is best used for things that are really, genuinely wrong - actual misspellings, completely missing words, PHP variables that didn't replace, stuff like that. If you go after every common colloquialism, you end up spending a bunch of time pointing out commas inside or outside of quotations, and missing or present Oxford commas, and sentences ending with prepositions where the whole joke is that sentences don't end with prepositions except when they do, and the whole thing becomes pointless, especially because the writers of the game have said that their grammar won't be 100% perfect and they're not always going to fix it. And seriously... what's the deal with the ßs? I don't get it. --Johnny Treehugger (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- At the risk of coming off as stubborn and pedantic, I'd like to offer a last attempt at persuasion before letting this case rest (as there do not seem to be anyone agreeing with me); reply to it or disregard it as a childish need for symbolic resistance, whatever you like.
- Google Books has about 650,000 results for "there's so many". If enough people consider "there's so many" to be valid English that over half a million books have been written that use it, then it has become valid English, albeit informal/colloquial English. (Just like, if you'll pardon my pointing it out, an uncapitalized "OK".) --Vorzer (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Optimal EV
Just did some quick calculations on the EV of attempting to open N chests and then leaving, assuming the first chest is always a success and each subsequent choice is an independent 1/3 chance (which still needs spading). Once the success rate is actually properly spaded, we can put this on the main page:
| Chests | Total | Success Rate | Average Meat Per Attempt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 400 | 100.0% | 400.00 |
| 2 | 1200 | 66.7% | 800.00 |
| 3 | 2400 | 44.4% | 1066.67 |
| 4 | 4000 | 29.6% | 1185.19 |
| 5 | 6000 | 19.8% | 1185.19 |
| 6 | 8400 | 13.2% | 1106.17 |
| 7 | 11200 | 8.8% | 983.26 |
| 8 | 14400 | 5.9% | 842.80 |
| 9 | 18000 | 3.9% | 702.33 |
| 10 | 22000 | 2.6% | 572.27 |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Poochy (talk • contribs) on 21 November 2014
To expand on the above, the formula for total meat gain for N attempts is: 400*N*(N+1)/2
the formula for the probability to succeed opening N chests is: (2/3)^(N-1)
so the average meat expected from N attempts is: ((2/3)^(N-1))*(400*N*(N+1)/2)
-Darkcodelagsniper (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"So I started out a new day with an optimal dog. No help there. I tried a dozen variations of which one does not fit, which ones does, do not click on the bronze hinges etc... and what I finally figured out is that you simply can not use any patterns. I simply never clicked the button that made sense or the one that fell into a pattern. I walked away with 26,400 meat. grin. I could have kept going but eventually it would have been a pattern of 1, 2, and 3.
So basically what you want to do is click any of them. Then click any following combination that is not the likely one to click. It worked when nothing else did." --User:Amortis, on the main page for some reason
- "It worked once" does not a pattern make. It's quite possible that you simply got lucky. "Click the one that doesn't form a pattern of any kind" is also very unclear, and if there was a reliable way to determine which one was "not forming any pattern", that, uh, kind of would be a pattern. Certainly it's worth trying, but as it stands, "results are totally random" is still the winning hypothesis. --billybobfred (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
