Difference between revisions of "Talk:Attraction Rate"
From MHWiki
(→More info needed: _ good / very good = @ 89%) |
(→Empircal attraction rates: reply) |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::::Just went through all the logs I ever saved and found this: I have two logs that state "very good" and are below 90% >> 135/151=89.4 and 99/111=89.189 ..... Plus: I also have a log which states "good" and has these figures >> 77/87=88.5 ..... This would mean that the switch from good to very good is @ 89% ..... Since I probably will try to gather tons of stale cheese I might find out about poor and very poor eventually ;] ____[[User:M.|_m.]] 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | :::::Just went through all the logs I ever saved and found this: I have two logs that state "very good" and are below 90% >> 135/151=89.4 and 99/111=89.189 ..... Plus: I also have a log which states "good" and has these figures >> 77/87=88.5 ..... This would mean that the switch from good to very good is @ 89% ..... Since I probably will try to gather tons of stale cheese I might find out about poor and very poor eventually ;] ____[[User:M.|_m.]] 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | == | + | ::::::Went through my own logs. Unfortunately I only started keeping the summary about halfway through my collection, but I was able to confirm the difference between decent and good. I had a hunt with 59/79 = 74.68% Decent, and another with 48/64 = 75.00% Good -- [[User:Grexx|Grexx]] 04:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
| − | + | ||
| + | ::::::Just saw someone with 135/138 = 97.83% Near Perfect, adjusting the table numbers. -- [[User:Grexx|Grexx]] 09:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::::::Just got Very Good 93.2% (68/73). [[User:Twentypence|Twentypence]] 09:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Great, we're almost done. Once we have confirmed the Very Good and Near Perfect gap (either 94% or 95%), I will put this up, and hopefully someone else will wander along and fill in the poor and very poor sections :) -- [[User:Grexx|Grexx]] 09:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | In order to shorten the data collection time frame, I've posted on the strategy forums [http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?xid=mousehunt_strategy&app_id=10337532241&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&sig=0936ad0f294126dec6eedd6539607b9b&topic=40108 here]. Hopefully it'll get a good response. -- [[User:Grexx|Grexx]] 09:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Just noticed if you go to google and put in "My attraction rate was" site:apps.facebook.com/mousehunt then it pulls up a list of hunter's profiles with recent results. Click on the cached button to see what they were, I've been through the ones up now and didn't find anything new, but it might pay off in the future. I don't know how often Google updates this. [[User:Twentypence|Twentypence]] 11:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Lol that was a brilliant idea. Unfortunately Google didn't have many cached results so didn't help much. Of the results that they had, I still couldn't close the gap between Very Good and Near Perfect, since they only had percentages below 94% and above 96%. And thanks for the bump too! -- [[User:Grexx|Grexx]] 12:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Found this from [http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=10337532241&topic=39901 here]... Near perfect, 44/46, 95.65%... | ||
| + | Cheese: | ||
| + | Brie: | ||
| + | Attracted a mouse 2 times out of 2 hunts. | ||
| + | 2 were eaten, 0 went stale and 0 were stolen. | ||
| + | Radioactive Blue: | ||
| + | Attracted a mouse 42 times out of 44 hunts. | ||
| + | 42 were eaten, 0 went stale and 0 were stolen. | ||
| + | My attraction rate was near perfect. | ||
| + | :::...and this from [http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=10337532241&topic=42851 here]. Very good, 90/95, 94.74%... | ||
| + | Cheese: | ||
| + | Radioactive Blue: | ||
| + | Attracted a mouse 90 times out of 95 hunts. | ||
| + | 90 were eaten, 0 went stale and 0 were stolen. | ||
| + | My attraction rate was very good. | ||
| + | :::This might confirm that Very Good to Near Perfect switch at 95%. --[[User:Mikeyco|Mikeyco]] 12:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Great work, that's closed the gap for very good/near perfect. Now all we need is the lower end of the scale. -- [[User:Grexx|Grexx]] 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Just been staling cheese and got the following result for very poor: 3.26% (3/92). I'm going to the Acolyte Realm in the next week or so, I think it's one of the few places we can get a zero attraction rate. [[User:Twentypence|Twentypence]] 09:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Found a summary stating very poor with 15/70 = 21.43%. ____[[User:M.|_m.]] 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | So I just spent at least 48 hours staling cheese in the Acolyte Realm and never got a summary. I suspected that you don't get a summary unless you get at least one attraction. My public Hunter's Journal was completely empty since all 10 pages of logs were stales. Sure enough, as soon as I moved to the Catacombs I immediately got a summary after my first hunt (a catch). Either I am correct, or I have extremely bad timing. [edit: I received 2 summaries in a row, which makes me more confident that sufficient time had passed]. 1/167 (0.6%) is still "very poor" so I don't think there's anything lower than that. If anyone doubts, I'm not trying it again >_> --[[User:Hyperchao|Hyperchao]] 04:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Confirmed, I was also staling cheese in the Acolyte Realm and didn't get a summary, switched to a different area and got one as soon as I had my first catch, I failed to catch twice before that so it looks like you only get a summary if you have at least 1 catch after at least 36 hours. [[User:Twentypence|Twentypence]] 14:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | + | ::Ok so we'll put the floor as >0% and make a note that the summary does not appear unless you have at least 1 attract, even after 36 hours. So the last piece of the puzzle is the gap between poor and very poor. We'll need a 24% very poor and then we're done :) -- [[User:Grexx|Grexx]] 16:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | :::Well looks like the last bit of information is a little harder to gather than expected. Regardless, since it's the last piece of the puzzle, I'll be moving the table into the main page, and add a comment about it not being confirmed. -- [[User:Grexx|Grexx]] 12:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | {| width="300" cellpadding="5" border="1" style="text-align:left; border-collapse:collapse; margin | + | == Interim Attraction Rate Information == |
| + | A quick list of the possible ways to display the information. Note that the information has not been verified. I'm thinking there might even be a term for 0% attraction rate. | ||
| + | {| width="300" cellpadding="5" border="1" style="text-align:left; border-collapse:collapse; margin:0 20px 0 20px;" | ||
! Attraction Message !! Attraction Rate | ! Attraction Message !! Attraction Rate | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Very Poor | + | | Very Poor || >0% to <25% |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Poor || | + | | Poor || 25% to <55% |
|- | |- | ||
| Decent || 55% to <75% | | Decent || 55% to <75% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Good || 75% to < | + | | Good || 75% to <89% |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Very Good || | + | | Very Good || 89% to <95% |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Near Perfect || | + | | Near Perfect || 95% to <100% |
|- | |- | ||
| Perfect || 100% | | Perfect || 100% | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | What has been confirmed: | ||
| + | * Very Poor Floor > 0% Confirmed that no summary unless at least 1 attract. Current lowest (1/167) | ||
| + | * Very Poor Ceiling – 21.43% current highest (15/70) | ||
| + | * Poor Floor – 25% current lowest, require very poor ceiling to finalize figures, appears to be correct | ||
| + | * Poor Ceiling < 55% Confirmed | ||
| + | * Decent Floor = 55% Confirmed | ||
| + | * Decent Ceiling < 75% Confirmed | ||
| + | * Good Floor = 75% Confirmed | ||
| + | * Good Ceiling < 89% Confirmed | ||
| + | * Very Good Floor = 89% Confirmed | ||
| + | * Very Good Ceiling < 95% Confirmed | ||
| + | * Near Perfect Floor = 95% Confirmed | ||
| + | * Near Perfect Ceiling < 100% Not confirmed, but almost certainly so. | ||
| + | * Perfect Rating = 100% Confirmed | ||
| + | Note: Floor = Minimum, Ceiling = Maximum. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Empircal attraction rates == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The following is a list of attraction rates (at 0% attraction bonus) when used at the correct locations, compiled by Paul here[http://www.mousehuntgame.com/forum/showthread.php?34613-Cheese-Attraction-Rates-for-the-curious&p=512379#post512379]. I was wondering whether it can be included in the wiki since these numbers are not directly visible in the game, but rather derived from the data of empirical sources like the horntracker. - [[User:YiKai|YiKai]] 15:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Checkmate 100% | ||
| + | *Gauntlet Tier 8 100% | ||
| + | *Nutmeg 100% | ||
| + | *SUPER|brie+ 99.99% | ||
| + | *Gauntlet Tier 6 99.5% | ||
| + | *Combat 99% | ||
| + | *Creamy Havarti 99% | ||
| + | *Crunchy 99% | ||
| + | *Crunchy Havarti 99% | ||
| + | *Glutter 99% | ||
| + | *Gumbo 99% | ||
| + | *Inferno Havarti 99% | ||
| + | *Magical Havarti 99% | ||
| + | *Maki 99% | ||
| + | *Marshmallow Monterey 99% | ||
| + | *Onyx Gorgonzola 99% | ||
| + | *Rumble 99% | ||
| + | *Shell 99% | ||
| + | *Spicy Havarti 99% | ||
| + | *Susheese 99% | ||
| + | *Sweet Havarti 99% | ||
| + | *Undead Emmental 99% | ||
| + | *Vengeful Vanilla Stilton 99% | ||
| + | *Wicked Gnarly 99% | ||
| + | *Gauntlet Tier 5 98.5% | ||
| + | *Gauntlet Tier 7 98.5% | ||
| + | *Pungent Havarti 98.5% | ||
| + | *Gauntlet Tier 4 98% | ||
| + | *Runic 97.5% | ||
| + | *Gauntlet Tier 2 97% | ||
| + | *Gauntlet Tier 3 97% | ||
| + | *Cupcake Colby 96% | ||
| + | *Moon 96% | ||
| + | *Ancient 95% | ||
| + | *Gnarled 95% | ||
| + | *Limelight 95% | ||
| + | *Radioactive Blue 95% | ||
| + | *Vanilla Stilton 95% | ||
| + | *Candy Corn 93% | ||
| + | *Ghoulgonzola 92.5% | ||
| + | *Seasoned Gouda 88% | ||
| + | *Cherry 87% | ||
| + | *Gouda 84% | ||
| + | *Gilded 83.5% | ||
| + | *Gingerbread 80.5% | ||
| + | *Brie 80% | ||
| + | *Rockforth 80% | ||
| + | *Swiss 73.5% | ||
| + | *Marble 65% | ||
| + | *Mozzarella 61.5% | ||
| + | *Cheddar 58.5% | ||
| + | *White Cheddar 55% | ||
| + | |||
| + | :For special cheese that is only used in one or two locations it would be useful to mention briefly an estimated attraction rate (maybe as simple as SB-like, ie ~99%, or standard). For general purpose cheese it is more difficult as attraction varies with location and may not be suitable for cheese/location pages. I am not able to check your source at the moment, but make sure that attraction bonuses from setup are accounted for in these numbers. Since this page is old (pre-v3), if someone is willing to re-write it, detailed attraction numbers could appear here, with more simple statements appearing elsewhere, as mentioned above. --[[User:Hyperchao|Hyperchao]] 06:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Since v3, the attraction rate of any cheese is the same for all regions where the cheese can be used [http://www.mousehuntgame.com/forum/showthread.php?34613-Cheese-Attraction-Rates-for-the-curious] (first post), when it doesn't show the "Good with Whine" effectiveness message. So for example Brie has the same attraction rate in Gnawnia and Tribal isles, while Gilded has the same attraction rate in the Bazaar and Zugzwang's Tower, but both will have 0% attraction rate in Dracano. In other words, there is only two attraction rates for a particular cheese - 0% and the numbers listed above. I also suggest listing the locations where the cheese can be used for better clarity. And yes, the effect of attraction bonus has already been appropriately accounted for. - [[User:YiKai|YiKai]] 06:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 07:05, 9 July 2011
More info needed
This page could use more info to justify it being a page of its own. -- B.Rossow talkcontr 19:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Did a proper writeup for the page. There's still a few things I haven't added though, which I'll get to when I next remember this page exists :D
- I'm also in need of Attraction Rate details, mainly what % returns what message, although for a start I'm fairly certain that Poor < 65%, Decent < 80%, Good < 90%, Very Good < 95-98%, Almost Perfect < 100%, Perfect = 100%.
- I think poor <60%, but I'm not sure. Need lots of logs to verify that, though. Shinnok 11:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- From my log, the highest attraction rate I had that was still poor was 54.7%, and the lowest decent was 59.2%, so my guess is that it changes from poor to decent at around 55%. The lowest good I had was 77.6% and the highest was 88.7%, and I didn't have any very good yet - so I don't think I can come to any conclusions based on this data. Except that 77.6% is still good, not decent. Camomiletea 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information, but Shinnok is right, a lot of logs are needed. I might just trawl through a couple of hundred or thousand player profiles to complete the information, or maybe start a thread asking for it. I'm pretty sure there's a "Very Poor" rating, possibly even worse. Will be quite tied up over the next few weeks though, so if someone else is willing to help compile the data I'll be more than happy :) If anyone does get to collecting the data, toss it into a text file and give a download link here so that others can double check the data. -- Grexx 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- From my Logs I have a lowest rate for Decent at 56.1% (46/82) and a highest rate for Poor at 54.9% (39/71). The lowest I have for Poor is 47.1% (33/70), but nothing recorded at lower than that.Twentypence 18:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just went through all the logs I ever saved and found this: I have two logs that state "very good" and are below 90% >> 135/151=89.4 and 99/111=89.189 ..... Plus: I also have a log which states "good" and has these figures >> 77/87=88.5 ..... This would mean that the switch from good to very good is @ 89% ..... Since I probably will try to gather tons of stale cheese I might find out about poor and very poor eventually ;] _____m. 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Went through my own logs. Unfortunately I only started keeping the summary about halfway through my collection, but I was able to confirm the difference between decent and good. I had a hunt with 59/79 = 74.68% Decent, and another with 48/64 = 75.00% Good -- Grexx 04:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just saw someone with 135/138 = 97.83% Near Perfect, adjusting the table numbers. -- Grexx 09:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just got Very Good 93.2% (68/73). Twentypence 09:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Great, we're almost done. Once we have confirmed the Very Good and Near Perfect gap (either 94% or 95%), I will put this up, and hopefully someone else will wander along and fill in the poor and very poor sections :) -- Grexx 09:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
In order to shorten the data collection time frame, I've posted on the strategy forums here. Hopefully it'll get a good response. -- Grexx 09:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just noticed if you go to google and put in "My attraction rate was" site:apps.facebook.com/mousehunt then it pulls up a list of hunter's profiles with recent results. Click on the cached button to see what they were, I've been through the ones up now and didn't find anything new, but it might pay off in the future. I don't know how often Google updates this. Twentypence 11:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Lol that was a brilliant idea. Unfortunately Google didn't have many cached results so didn't help much. Of the results that they had, I still couldn't close the gap between Very Good and Near Perfect, since they only had percentages below 94% and above 96%. And thanks for the bump too! -- Grexx 12:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Found this from here... Near perfect, 44/46, 95.65%...
Cheese: Brie: Attracted a mouse 2 times out of 2 hunts. 2 were eaten, 0 went stale and 0 were stolen. Radioactive Blue: Attracted a mouse 42 times out of 44 hunts. 42 were eaten, 0 went stale and 0 were stolen. My attraction rate was near perfect.
- ...and this from here. Very good, 90/95, 94.74%...
Cheese: Radioactive Blue: Attracted a mouse 90 times out of 95 hunts. 90 were eaten, 0 went stale and 0 were stolen. My attraction rate was very good.
- This might confirm that Very Good to Near Perfect switch at 95%. --Mikeyco 12:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Great work, that's closed the gap for very good/near perfect. Now all we need is the lower end of the scale. -- Grexx 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just been staling cheese and got the following result for very poor: 3.26% (3/92). I'm going to the Acolyte Realm in the next week or so, I think it's one of the few places we can get a zero attraction rate. Twentypence 09:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Found a summary stating very poor with 15/70 = 21.43%. _____m. 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
So I just spent at least 48 hours staling cheese in the Acolyte Realm and never got a summary. I suspected that you don't get a summary unless you get at least one attraction. My public Hunter's Journal was completely empty since all 10 pages of logs were stales. Sure enough, as soon as I moved to the Catacombs I immediately got a summary after my first hunt (a catch). Either I am correct, or I have extremely bad timing. [edit: I received 2 summaries in a row, which makes me more confident that sufficient time had passed]. 1/167 (0.6%) is still "very poor" so I don't think there's anything lower than that. If anyone doubts, I'm not trying it again >_> --Hyperchao 04:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Confirmed, I was also staling cheese in the Acolyte Realm and didn't get a summary, switched to a different area and got one as soon as I had my first catch, I failed to catch twice before that so it looks like you only get a summary if you have at least 1 catch after at least 36 hours. Twentypence 14:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok so we'll put the floor as >0% and make a note that the summary does not appear unless you have at least 1 attract, even after 36 hours. So the last piece of the puzzle is the gap between poor and very poor. We'll need a 24% very poor and then we're done :) -- Grexx 16:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well looks like the last bit of information is a little harder to gather than expected. Regardless, since it's the last piece of the puzzle, I'll be moving the table into the main page, and add a comment about it not being confirmed. -- Grexx 12:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Interim Attraction Rate Information
A quick list of the possible ways to display the information. Note that the information has not been verified. I'm thinking there might even be a term for 0% attraction rate.
| Attraction Message | Attraction Rate |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | >0% to <25% |
| Poor | 25% to <55% |
| Decent | 55% to <75% |
| Good | 75% to <89% |
| Very Good | 89% to <95% |
| Near Perfect | 95% to <100% |
| Perfect | 100% |
What has been confirmed:
- Very Poor Floor > 0% Confirmed that no summary unless at least 1 attract. Current lowest (1/167)
- Very Poor Ceiling – 21.43% current highest (15/70)
- Poor Floor – 25% current lowest, require very poor ceiling to finalize figures, appears to be correct
- Poor Ceiling < 55% Confirmed
- Decent Floor = 55% Confirmed
- Decent Ceiling < 75% Confirmed
- Good Floor = 75% Confirmed
- Good Ceiling < 89% Confirmed
- Very Good Floor = 89% Confirmed
- Very Good Ceiling < 95% Confirmed
- Near Perfect Floor = 95% Confirmed
- Near Perfect Ceiling < 100% Not confirmed, but almost certainly so.
- Perfect Rating = 100% Confirmed
Note: Floor = Minimum, Ceiling = Maximum.
Empircal attraction rates
The following is a list of attraction rates (at 0% attraction bonus) when used at the correct locations, compiled by Paul here[1]. I was wondering whether it can be included in the wiki since these numbers are not directly visible in the game, but rather derived from the data of empirical sources like the horntracker. - YiKai 15:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Checkmate 100%
- Gauntlet Tier 8 100%
- Nutmeg 100%
- SUPER|brie+ 99.99%
- Gauntlet Tier 6 99.5%
- Combat 99%
- Creamy Havarti 99%
- Crunchy 99%
- Crunchy Havarti 99%
- Glutter 99%
- Gumbo 99%
- Inferno Havarti 99%
- Magical Havarti 99%
- Maki 99%
- Marshmallow Monterey 99%
- Onyx Gorgonzola 99%
- Rumble 99%
- Shell 99%
- Spicy Havarti 99%
- Susheese 99%
- Sweet Havarti 99%
- Undead Emmental 99%
- Vengeful Vanilla Stilton 99%
- Wicked Gnarly 99%
- Gauntlet Tier 5 98.5%
- Gauntlet Tier 7 98.5%
- Pungent Havarti 98.5%
- Gauntlet Tier 4 98%
- Runic 97.5%
- Gauntlet Tier 2 97%
- Gauntlet Tier 3 97%
- Cupcake Colby 96%
- Moon 96%
- Ancient 95%
- Gnarled 95%
- Limelight 95%
- Radioactive Blue 95%
- Vanilla Stilton 95%
- Candy Corn 93%
- Ghoulgonzola 92.5%
- Seasoned Gouda 88%
- Cherry 87%
- Gouda 84%
- Gilded 83.5%
- Gingerbread 80.5%
- Brie 80%
- Rockforth 80%
- Swiss 73.5%
- Marble 65%
- Mozzarella 61.5%
- Cheddar 58.5%
- White Cheddar 55%
- For special cheese that is only used in one or two locations it would be useful to mention briefly an estimated attraction rate (maybe as simple as SB-like, ie ~99%, or standard). For general purpose cheese it is more difficult as attraction varies with location and may not be suitable for cheese/location pages. I am not able to check your source at the moment, but make sure that attraction bonuses from setup are accounted for in these numbers. Since this page is old (pre-v3), if someone is willing to re-write it, detailed attraction numbers could appear here, with more simple statements appearing elsewhere, as mentioned above. --Hyperchao 06:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since v3, the attraction rate of any cheese is the same for all regions where the cheese can be used [2] (first post), when it doesn't show the "Good with Whine" effectiveness message. So for example Brie has the same attraction rate in Gnawnia and Tribal isles, while Gilded has the same attraction rate in the Bazaar and Zugzwang's Tower, but both will have 0% attraction rate in Dracano. In other words, there is only two attraction rates for a particular cheese - 0% and the numbers listed above. I also suggest listing the locations where the cheese can be used for better clarity. And yes, the effect of attraction bonus has already been appropriately accounted for. - YiKai 06:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
