Talk:Barrrnacle (familiar)
From TheKolWiki
wrong Familiar equipment
the blundarrrbus is for the spooky pirate
March 28 update
Trivial Updates:
March 28 - Barrrnacles now suck twice as hard as they used to.
Any idea what this means?--BMoD 17:54, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
In the description, there is the word suck... --Thomadaneau 18:01, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
Well there's 2 possibilities I glena from the wording: It's either going to delevel twice as much, or perform twice the deleveling as before. Anyone got any numbers to support either?--Toffile 18:54, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
Or maybe, barrrnacles are deleveling even less than before. Maybe (weight/3) ? --Kpoyo 07:56, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
MaxVance Already edited it from /3 to /1.5, which i think is faulty. i agree that if the barrrnacle sucks twice as _hard_, it'd double the deleveling ie if it deleveled by x/3 it'd delevel now by x/6. --Cowzgomoo 09:13, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
- That's not double the delevelling, that's half the delevelling. Robotman 14:51, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
I think that if it deleveled twice as much, the update would say that barrrnacles would suck twice as often. /1.5 seems logical, but I guess it's worth testing. --MaxVance 19:46, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
Deleveling Stats
Introduction: I've been testing the Barrrnacle at the Orcish Frat House, undisguised (ML 40, +/- 1) as a Turtle Tamer at level 10 with 31 Moxie (Furry Suit). Here are my findings and conclusions. The average damage without the Barrnacle was 13.6667.
Data:
Level 13:
| Deleveled? | Average Damage
|
| Yes | 9.40
|
| Yes | 10.33
|
| Yes | 8.67
|
| Yes | 9.00
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 9.00
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 8.57
|
Average damage when deleveled: 9.0769
Proportion deleveled: 6/8
Level 14:
| Deleveled? | Average Damage
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 8.40
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 8.33
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 10.00
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 9.00
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 8.33
|
| Yes | 8.50
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 10.00
|
| Yes | 8.67
|
| No | ----
|
Average damage when deleveled: 8.3333
Proportion deleveled: 8/18
Level 15:
| Deleveled? | Average Damage
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 9.00
|
| Yes | 9.00
|
| Yes | 8.50
|
| Yes | 8.67
|
| Yes | 7.67
|
| Yes | 8.00
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 8.67
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 8.33
|
| Yes | 8.66
|
| Yes | 8.50
|
| Yes | 8.67
|
| Yes | 9.67
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
Average damage when deleveled: 8.6053
Proportion deleveled: 13/22
Level 16:
| Deleveled? | Average Damage
|
| Yes | 7.60
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 8.00
|
| Yes | 9.67
|
| Yes | 8.00
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 7.67
|
| Yes | 7.33
|
| Yes | 7.67
|
| Yes | 6.33
|
| Yes | 8.00
|
| Yes | 9.00
|
| Yes | 7.33
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 7.33
|
| Yes | 8.67
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 8.67
|
Average damage when deleveled: 7.9091
Proportion deleveled: 14/25
Level 17:
| Deleveled? | Average Damage
|
| Yes | 8.20
|
| Yes | 8.67
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 8.33
|
| Yes | 8.33
|
Average damage when deleveled: 8.2857
Proportion deleveled: 4/5
Level 18:
| Deleveled? | Average Damage
|
| Yes | 7.60
|
| No | ----
|
| Yes | 7.67
|
| Yes | *
|
| Yes | 8.00
|
Average damage when deleveled: 7.5789
Proportion deleveled: 6/8 *A Tofurky Chicken of the Feast of Boris attacked, thus invalidating the damage data by it's alternate Monster Level.
Conclusions: There are multiple ways to group these data to look for patterns. Here are a couple of well-fitting ones:
(weight / 3) rounded up:
Estimated 7.34 ML lost on average for levels 13, 14, and 15 together.
Estimated 8.44 ML lost on average for levels 16, 17, and 18 together.
These numbers could round, roughly, to 7 and 8, respectively. The formula for deleveling would then be (weight / 3) + 2, rounded up.
(weight / 3) rounded down:
Estimated 7.3 ML lost on average for levels 13 and 14 together. (Level 12 untested.)
Estimated 7.94 ML lost on average for levels 15, 16, and 17 together.
Estimated 8.95 ML lost on average for level 18. (Levels 19 and 20 untested.)
These numbers could round, more nicely, to 7, 8, and 9, respectively. The formula for deleveling would then be (weight / 3 ) + 3, rounded down. These numbers fit much better with the equation than the above one. Furthermore, Jick seems to like rounding down more than up.
Rate of deleveling:
Generally, only one thing changes based on weight, especially in combat familiars, being either effectiveness or frequency. In this case, it is obvious that effectiveness is increased, so it is probably safe to assume that the chance of deleveling is independent of the familiar's level. I got a total of 52 delevels out of 87 battles. This suggests a deleveling rate of about 60%, if one rounds to three significant figures.
Experimental Sources of Error: This being my first KoL data mine, it is of course not nearly perfect. Somethings that could affect the results:
- Low number of data for levels 13, 17, and 18. The averages for these levels could therefore be off.
- Low number of levels tested. There are too few levels tested to support my hypothesized results well.
- I gained 1 Moxie somewhere during my testing, but I forgot to record where. Even slight differences in damage could have large effects on the resulting equations.
- (Not really experimental, but still a very possible source of error:) My estimations for Monster Level based on Damage could be off, throwing my equations off as well.
Continuation: I will try to get more data for levels 17-30, though I won't have much time on my hands for a while. If anyone else could supplement my data with their own, that would definately help speed things along. In fact, the most helpful set of data would be for levels 1-4.
action rate
a flat 60% action rate is clearly wrong. (edit: posted my full data set)
Barrrnacle action rate:
weight turns actions ratio ratio/wgt
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 200 6 0.0300 0.0100
4 100 13 0.1300 0.0325
5 100 11 0.1100 0.0220
6 104 24 0.2308 0.0385
7 105 29 0.2762 0.0395
8 7 2 0.2857 0.0357
9 109 40 0.3670 0.0408
10 11 9 0.8182 0.0818
11 113 51 0.4513 0.0410
12 15 7 0.4667 0.0389
13 17 8 0.4706 0.0362
14 119 79 0.6639 0.0474
15 21 15 0.7143 0.0476
16 123 86 0.6992 0.0437
17 125 91 0.7280 0.0428
18 127 109 0.8583 0.0477
19 229 195 0.8515 0.0448
20 31 28 0.9032 0.0452
21 33 32 0.9697 0.0462
22 135 127 0.9407 0.0428
23 37 37 1.0000 0.0435
24 39 37 0.9487 0.0395
25 1 1 1.0000 0.0400
27 100 98 0.9800 0.0363
30 100 97 0.9700 0.0323
35 100 93 0.9300 0.0266
40 100 93 0.9300 0.0233
45 100 95 0.9500 0.0211
actions/lb, up to 22 lb: 0.0448
--Hellion 00:00, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
- I agree that this work does show a graduated deleveling rate. The provided slope does seem very accurate for some of the most tested levels, and the percentage 4.5 has been used before (fumble rate). Perhaps it was originally determined by the proportion 1 out of 22 (4.4545...%). This would definately coincide with your "up to 22" data. As you pointed out, it does seem to be capped fairly well at 95%, or perhaps 1/22 chance of failure. (Of course, that could be 1/20, too, but 1/22 is closer to your estimate.) Ilikerps
Stat gain?
Does the de-leveling affect the stat gain at the end of combat or just what happens during the combat? Gront 23:16, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
- it only affects what happens during combat; none of the delevelers reduce the amount of stats you get at the end of combat. --Hellion 23:53, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
- Gotcha. Time for me to go buy a bad penguin egg then :) Gront 00:45, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
Deleveling
First, I'm using the standard deleveling technique, except using the Worm Wood monsters. Because they scale, and max at 125, they make pretty good test subjects.
My only equipment was a Can-Can skirt and Slow Talkin' Eliots dogtags...only to boost muscle up over 500...needed in order to cause damage to the Worm Wood monsters.
- Weight 16,17: deleveled 8
- Weight 21: deleveled 10
- Weight 28, 29: deleveled 14
- Weight 33: deleveled 16
- Weight 34: deleveled 17
On the surface, this resembles (up to 21 pounds) the formula from before, but at higher weights, it definitely differs.--Foggy 08:28, 20 December 2007 (CST)
|