Talk:Drop rate/Trick-or-Treat Bag

Is there an automated way to update the percentages? Jimbowe 04:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's all manual work. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * and it's painful :) --Gwain 15:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Percentages
Just by looking at the percentages and my own tests, it looks like the percentages are roughly 20% for the Apples, Corns, and Cookies, 10% for the Serums, Absinthes, and Brews, and 5% for the Ghosts and Tonics.


 * And a lot of that was contributed by Unindal, his data alone pretty much agrees with yours. 1500 bags... jeez --Gimmethegepgun 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of numbers, in future it may be better for contributors to hold onto their bags until a reasonable number can be opened and recorded. While variances are put back in line due by adding up the data, opening 30 or 40 bags will produce more useful data than opening 10. Since we are measuring probability, higher numbers of bags opened at one time will produce more consistent results. We don't need to open 1500 at once (thanks Unindal :) ), but 20 or more seems like a reasonable measure. --[[Image:Rapid Fire.jpg|19px]]  Scottie_theNerd  (argue)  09:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Statistically, there's no difference in opening 1000 bags at once or 10 bags 100 times. Would the chance of getting '2' on a dice be different if you roll it two times in a rapid succession, or one right now and one after 1 hour?--Gwain 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have another 550 I need to put in the table, will try to do when I get home. They follow suit as far as the percentages are concerned too.  And actually, the percentage post that started this was by me, forgot to sign. >< Unindal 16:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * The die example is invalid because we already know the probability is 1/6 for any value. Here, we are trying to establish the drop probabilities using raw data. If we use the die example, this is comparable to people rolling the die several times compared to several hundred times. One person who rolls the die twice might record 100% for one value, or 50% for two values. In contrast, the person rolling a thousand times is likely to more accurately reflect the 1/6 probability.
 * Adding all the test samples together will alleviate variances due to irregular sample numbers, so it's not a real problem as far as our record-keeping is concerned. I am simply pointing out the weakness in experimenting with low numbers of bags. There are 8 possible outcomes (i.e. items), so opening only 10 bags will not likely result in a mathematically useful number of results. For example, Bob the Hick's results from 11 samples go against the data obtained from Unindal. In fact, Unindal's extraordinary effort alone can establish reasonably accurate drop rates.
 * The point here is not to challenge the laws of probability; I am addressing consistency in the research method. True, 100 users opening 10 bags each will most likely show the same rate as one person opening 1000 bags. However, we don't have 100 users contributing their data to the table. So far, it is the large sample testers that are providing the bulk of the statistics, and for the most part they are canceling out the results obtained from the small-scale testers. This is not to discourage contributors, but a small point to use a reasonably proportionate amount of samples in relation to the number of possible outcomes. --[[Image:Rapid Fire.jpg|19px]]  Scottie_theNerd  (argue)  16:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)