Talk:Attraction Rate

More info needed

This page could use more info to justify it being a page of its own. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 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)

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.