Variable Bonus?
It looks like the +% weaken is variable (or Jick is screwing with the Wiki again). --BagatelleT/C 02:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
| Real Date
|
KoL Date
|
Moons
|
Observed Bonus %
|
| 2008-06-18
|
Bill 5
|
|
50%
|
| 2008-11-18
|
Jarlsuary 6
|
|
100%
|
| 2008-11-23
|
Frankuary 3
|
|
100%
|
| 2008-11-25
|
Frankuary 5
|
|
150%
|
| 2008-11-26
|
Frankuary 6
|
|
100%
|
| 2008-11-27
|
Frankuary 7
|
|
200%
|
| 2008-11-28
|
Frankuary 8
|
|
150%
|
| 2008-11-29
|
Starch 1
|
|
250%
|
| 2008-11-30
|
Starch 2
|
|
200%
|
- What is this table referring to, and how were these results obtained?-QuantumNightmare 03:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you page through the article history, you'll see that the "Disco Bandit Combat Skills weaken enemies by an additional +X%" enchantment was bumped from 50% last week to 100%. I merely observed that it changed yet again when I posted the table, and now it's back to 100% after rollover. The percentages were lifted from the in-game pop-up. Since I'm not powerlevelling, the likely varying mechanism would be moonlight. The moon positions were linked back using Full Moon Table's history, using the dates of the edit history on this article. One shudders to think that other Hobo items might vary randomly... --BagatelleT/C 04:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can establish the following at least: the formula is not multilinear in the number of light ronald segments, dark grimace segements, and dark minimoon. For, suppose light ronald segments give +n%, dark grimace segments give +m%, and a dark minimoon gives +p%. Then by the table we must have 2n+p+m=100, 4n+p+2m=150, and 4n+2m=50. Subtracting the first from the 2nd, we must also have 2n+m=50, which contradicts 4n+2m=50. But I'm going to return to my attempts at spading the cuddlefish/potato/whelp now. --Flargen 05:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Huh, if we just ignore the first data point, it looks exactly like 50% per Grimace darkness. I suppose it's possible the first day is a bit wrong as Hobopolis just came out and no-one had the time to patrol everything (or, Jick is screwing with the Wiki...). Luckily we've got a bunch of 0-5 darkness days coming up in a couple of weeks, and the June 18th pattern is repeating on December 11, so it shouldn't take to long to confirm or deny this. --BagatelleT/C 04:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems highly likely that the first data point is erroneous. Unless there's a particularly bizarre interaction involving the precise position of the minimoon. --Flargen 12:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think we can pretty safely say that the first data point isn't correct at this point. --Flargen 06:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh wee, another Grimace darkness mechanic. --BagatelleT/C 16:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not seeing that working, look at the grimace for Starch it doesn't follow the rule. As far as Ronald goes it also doesn't follow any certain rule. --Chunky_boo 22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't quite get what you're trying to say. But, the minimoon also contributes to the Grimace darkness equation. Hence the differences in the first two days of Starch. --Flargen 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I forgot about the minimoon, it matches when the minimoon is taken into account. --Chunky_boo 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No longer variable?
Today and yesterday the bonus was 50%, which doesn't seem to adhere to the formual anymore. There was a trivial update that said it fixed a display issue with this item. Is the formula back to being fixed at one percentage? --Flargen 04:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I guess my alternative hypothesis--Jick screwing with the Wiki--was correct after all. --BagatelleT/C 16:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
