Talk:Slimeling

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Just for reference, I got no special message with the little guy as my active familiar while fighting the mother on a larva run. --Vegan 09:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, giving my slimeling a chamoisole gave no special message.GrArG

  • Shame. Would have been a nice touch. "Your feed the slimeling your chamoisole. The slimeling implodes. --Laparapa 06:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

May I just throw something in here? My gosh, you people are amazing! Oh, and this: "Also.. your math is goofily over-complicated." Hilarious. Thank you to everyone who touched this article. I hope to get to know my new pet well. --StorellaDeville 16:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


Item drops

No contacts

20 POUNDS


Item failed to drop at +45%: Yes (Took 23 adventures)
Item failed to drop at +50%: No (400 adventures)

Looks like a 1x fairy, at least at 20 pounds. --GoldS 05:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

10 POUNDS


Item failed to drop at +68%: Yes (Took 198 adventures)
Item failed to drop at +70%: No (250 adventures)

1 and 4 POUNDS


Testing at the Digital Realm with highly negative +items establishes that the slimeling is at least a 1x fairy and less than a 1.25 fairy at 1 pound and 4 pounds. --Flargen 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Disgorging

The disgorging seems to be pickpocket-like in nature. When running -175% items in the castle with a 30 pound slimeling (not enough for a 1x fairy to give me any item drops), I was able to get items to drop. Only equipment dropped, and it was only acquired through the disgorging message. It does this both with and without the contact lenses. Running the same bonus in the 8-bit realm demonstrates that the contact lenses do NOT make the slimeling into a superfairy, nor do they increase the amount of MP it restores. Using the lenses in the castle under the same situation also netted me no items, except disgorged equipment. Presumably the contact lenses increase the success rate of this pickpockety ability. --Flargen 17:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • And just to be really sure: it still disgorges at -175% items when the slimeling is only 10 pounds. --Flargen 17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Lenseless disgorging
Source Monster Encountered Disgorged item counts
Flargen Furry Giant 307 63 disturbing fanfic
21 wolf mask
Raver Giant 56 11 giant needle
2 rave whistle
cubist bull 421 7 broken sword
15 4-dimensional guitar
empty suit of armor 699 25 antique greaves
24 antique helmet
33 antique shield
22 antique spear
guy with a pitchfork, and his wife 174 15 pitchfork
Knight (Wolf) 67 1 lupine sword
2 snarling wolf shield
pooltergeist 1051 6 1-ball
8 2-ball
4 3-ball
4 4-ball
8 5-ball
5 6-ball
5 7-ball
GoldS sabre-toothed ferret 528 136 sabre teeth

Some preliminary disgorging data. All of this was collected at -150% items with a 10 pound slimeling, so there was a 0% chance that any of these items could be obtained from any other method (no vivala mask or other pickpocketing sources, either). --Flargen 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It might be useful to record familiar weight as well, in case that is relevant. --Shademaster00 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I overkilled a hobo with hot damage in Town Square, Richard collected a pair of boots and my slimeling disgorged a panhandle panhandling hat. Can that hat be pickpocketed normally? --Murmur 13:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • No, it can't. Everything in hobopolis is unpickpocketable. Either they made an exception intentionally, or that's a bug. Better hurry before they fix it so you can easily collect the special hobo gear while still getting parts!  :P --Flargen 13:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • If we think that the slimeling can disgorge conditional drops (as of right now, anyway,) I would suggest taking it to the Hobo bosses. I would be scintillated if it turns out it might disgorge a hamster.--Nightvol 15:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Lenseless disgorging is looking like it uses the same mechanic as pickpocket. A couple of the data points, like the pitchfork, are somewhat extremal, but the error margins are large enough that the pickpocket mechanic still has a "reasonable" chance of explaining the observations. The ferret data actually seems to be the most problematic, unless it's a 25% base rate rather than a 30% one. --Flargen 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh, it is a 25% rate for the teeth. Excellent, then. Why did I originally record it as a 30% rate in my spreadsheet? Weird. --Flargen 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Or...maybe not. Another transcription error on my part. I thought the antiques were all a 5% drop rate, but the wiki and a quick test by me show that they're 10%. My new theory for lenseless disgorging is: for a single equipment drop, treat the drop as if it was 10% higher than normal (multiplicatively; a 5% drop is treated as 5.5%); for N (N>1) equipment drops, treat all drops rates as if they were 15*N% lower than normal (multiplicatively; 2 5% drops are each treated as 3.5% drops). The single drop data from the pitchfork guys and ferrets indicate that the negative bonus formula does not propagate in this case; but it could be a modifier of 0% for a single item--the pitchfork data is only just barely outside this range. --Flargen 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Added some pooltergeist data. It's got 7 equipment drops, all at 3%, making it perfect for testing what the apparent penalty maxes out at. The data suggests the penalty is somewhere between -75% and -90% (the 5 or 6 item penalties, respectively). 80% fits the average rates pretty well. --Flargen 14:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  • 75% and 90% no longer fit the data, gonna go with a max penalty of 80% without lenses. --Flargen 16:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Disgorging with lenses
Source Monster Encountered Disgorged item counts
GoldS Knob Goblin Very Mad Scientist 450 51 Knob Goblin melon ballers
sabre-toothed ferret 342 114 sabre teeth
empty suit of armor 700 30 antique greaves
36 antique helmet
37 antique shield
32 antique spear
pooltergeist 500 4 1-ball
2 2-ball
5 3-ball
3 4-ball
4 5-ball
2 6-ball
7 7-ball
Flargen pooltergeist 444 2 1-ball
4 2-ball
5 3-ball
2 4-ball
3 5-ball
0 6-ball
2 7-ball
Furry Giant 301 88 disturbing fanfic
29 wolf mask
Raver Giant 55 15 giant needle
5 rave whistle


Ran -160% item drops with a 25 lb Slimeling. This is just barely enough -item to ensure that nothing drops.

The base item drop of the Knob Goblin melon baller is listed as 5%. The slimeling disgorged a melon baller 11.3% of the time. This is a definite increase. The contacts might double the chance of pickpocketing any equipment item.--GoldS 06:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The data from the sabre-toothed ferret also shows an increase from disgorging without contacts, but it is not near double. It looks like it's a flat bonus, maybe around 7.5%.--GoldS 11:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you might need to try a monster with multiple drops to help see if it's a flat bonus to EVERY item when determining if it might be disgorged, or if it's something more like a flat bonus evenly distributed amongst all valid equipment drops. A flat boost to the effective drop rate sounds pretty powerful, really. Rarer drops become more easily obtained through disgorging than buffing +items; obviously wouldn't hurt to do both, of course, but better to go with the lenses for those than any other familiar equipment. I guess they might have felt it was balanced since it's not as significant a difference for more standard item drop rates of 5% and up. I'd try running this test myself, but I don't think I can pull if off. I can't get my lensed slimeling under 25 pounds, and I'm wallaby and also can't get my item bonus below -150%. Too bad the guy can't breathe underwater. --Flargen 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Added first set of data from empty suit of armor. I don't really know how to interpret it so you go ahead.--GoldS 05:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
        • After correcting an error in what I thought where the armor's base drop rates, I've added a lenseless theory above. My theory for lensed disgorging right now is the same as for lenseless, but with the following modification: treat the number of equipment drops as 1 less; for those with 1 drop (before the deduction), add an extra 5% to the base drop rate of the item and THEN increase the resulting rate by 10% (multiplicatively)--a 5% drop rate gets treated as an 11% drop rate, a 25% drop rate gets treated as a 33% drop rate. Friggin' weird, but it fits (almost) all of the data so far. --Flargen 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Added some more lensed (and lenseless) pooltergeist data. Looks like the max penalty without lenses is -80%, and with lenses it's -75%. --Flargen 16:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With preceeding item drops

Disgorging without lenses, one item already dropped
Source Monster Encountered Dropped item counts Disgorged item counts
Flargen empty suit of armor 774 214 antique greaves
196 antique helmet
176 antique shield
188 antique spear
20 antique greaves
26 antique helmet
23 antique shield
36 antique spear
  • This test is similar to those already done without lenses, only this time I used divine crackers to steal (exactly) one item from the armor before killing it. The dropped item column lists the items obtained in this fashion. Looks like the penalty is calculated based on how many equipment drops are still left to take from, not how many it starts with, but I'll need to collect a bit more data before I'm sure. The spear data is obviously kind of extremal-looking right now. --Flargen 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, spear data is still kind of annoying me, but it seems pretty clear that it's using the full penalty of -60%, not the projected reduced penalty of -45%. The averaged disgorging rate is rather tightly centered on the -60% value. --Flargen 20:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Questionable Numbers

It looks like the table of numbers that you came up with is really silly. Look at the lensless disgorging for the Pooltergeist, for example. Flargen recorded 40 pickpocketed items from 1051 monsters, and since the drop rate for each pool ball is basically 3%, you would expect from raw pickpocketing to get exactly 3% drop rates in the long term. Flargen achieved 40/1051 = 3.8% disgorging rate. This says to me that disgorging works at least as well as normal pickpocketing when dealing with equipment, perhaps it even does better, but that will require more spading. However you got that table is the result of very poor spading. While it is true that if you multiply each item's drop by 0.2 you do get the observed rate, it is also far more true (and much more accurate!) to note that it follows what we know about pickpocket very precisely. --MindlessGames 03:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • We have 1051 turns, the expected drop rate is .03. The standard deviation of this, assuming a normal model given by the central limit theorem, is sqrt((.03)(.97)/1051)=0.005. Were it true that disgorging worked exactly like pickpocket, a 40/1051 = 3.8% disgorging rate is 1.6 standard deviations away from the mean. This means that a disgorging rate of 3.8% is somewhat unlikely to occur if it worked exactly like pickpocket (if my calculator is correct, it would occur only 5% of the time). More data would be cool, but the standard deviation only shrinks at a rate of the square root of the sample size. --CG1:t,c,e 03:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree, it doesn't work exactly like it, but it definitely doesn't work anything like the tables seem to think. Even better is looking at Flargen's lenseless disgorging for the empty suit of armor. He records 104 disgorges, and 699 encounters. We are pretty certain that the base drop rate for all those pieces of equipment is 10%, so that would mean that Flargen saw 104/699 = 14.8% disgorging rate, with a 95% confidence interval of +- 1.34%. This says that you are 95% confident that the disgorging rate is not anywhere close to the expected pickpocket rate. However, this spading is pretty close to worthless other than telling us that it's not the same, since the weight of the slimeling was not recorded, and probably has an effect on the disgorging rate. --MindlessGames 03:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I replaced my above comment with better math. I concede that the weight probably has an effect; I was just really annoyed that people would claim that everything is wrong without substantiation. --CG1:t,c,e 03:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The thing is, in the current version, everything from "disgorging uses... " to "...modifiers used" in the notes section is wrong. Keep spading! :) --Ekeinos2 03:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
          • All of that is wrong because... what? Is there anything besides familiar weight which we haven't considered? How much statistics do devs have access to? (to which do devs have access?) --CG1:t,c,e 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The weight is mentioned in the comments, although I'll concede that it's not incredibly easy to weed that information out. And your analysis of the pool balls is incorrect. Or I am woefully incorrect and that could go a long way to fixing this MYSTERY WRONGNESS that Ekeinos is in love with right now. The lenseless rate of disgorging any SPECIFIC pool ball was about .544% on average. You expect to pick any SPECIFIC pool ball at a 2.7% clip or thereabout with a 3% base drop rate. This is dramatically higher than what was actually observed. Similarly for the armor you are mistaking SPECIFIC items for generic items. Each particular item drops at a 10% rate, but the observed lenseless disgorging rate for any specific item was 3.72%, again much less than what you would expect from pickpocket alone. You seem to be forgetting that I can tell all of these items apart from each other. --Flargen 04:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the tag should stay generic ("What is the mechanic of disgorging?") instead of specific, as at the moment there's far from enough evidence to support the current theory (multiplier on base drops, then pickpocket mechanic). I'm not sure if there's enough data to refute it yet. --Ekeinos2 04:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The tag being generic is what led to the tag's removal. If there's a problem, just saying "there's a problem" doesn't help. One must identify the problem to solve it. There's ~7000 adventures spent which appears to support the current theory; if you think something's wrong, provide evidence which disproves the current theory. You STILL do not tell us what's wrong with the theory. --CG1:t,c,e 05:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok.. So. I think we all just suck at math. Look at the pickpocket formula. I mean really look at it. The integral, if carried out and calculated out, for just equipment pool balls, gives an expected pick rate of each individual ball (assuming their base drop rate are all 3%) of 0.44182%. Flargen observed a lenseless disgorge rate of 0.544% on average. If we use his antique armor data instead, plugging it all into the pickpocket formula gives an expected pickpocket rate of 2.7775% per individual item, Flargen observed a lenseless disgorge rate of 3.719% on average. So I think that it may actually be the pickpocket formula, with some bonus attached to it, perhaps in the spirit of the way divine crackers work. --MindlessGames 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Furthermore... If he actually did have a 30 pound slimeling for those, then if we were to take <weight>/100 as a bonus, and multiply the pickpocket formula by (1+<weight>/100), then we'd get very close to what Flargen observes. (i.e. 0.44182*1.3 = 0.574366, which is close to 0.544), and 2.7775*1.3 = 3.61075, which is close to 3.719. --MindlessGames 07:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • For four items with equivalent drop rates, the pickpocket formula is the integral from 0 to 1 of: a*(1 - (1-a)*x)^3, where a is the drop rate, this integral evaluates to: P(a) = (a^8 - a) / (4*(-1 + a)). If instead, we plug in Flargen's observed disgorge rate of 0.03719 into P(a), and solve for a, we get 0.149 (14.9%) for the base drop rate of each item necessary to create a pickpocket like that. I have no idea how a weight of 30 would make good sense to go there, if disgorging does count on weight, since each item is actually 10% base rate, but who knows. --MindlessGames 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. The integral gives 2.74% for each individual pool ball from pickpocket. You need to recheck your math. --Flargen 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • More specifically, for 7 drops with a probability of p, the chance for any particular drop is:
        p*Integral[(1-px)^6,{0,1}] = p*Integral[Sum[(-1)^j Binomial[6, j] p^j x^j, {j, 0, 6}], {0,1}]
        = p*Sum[(-1)^j (p^j/(j+1)) Binomial[6, j], {j, 0, 6}]
        = (p/7)*Sum[ (-1)^j p^j Binomial[7,j+1], {j, 0, 6}]
        = (p/7)*(7 - 21p+35p^2 - 35p^3 + 21 p^4- 7p^5+p^6)
        Plugging in p=.03 yields 2.74%. --Flargen 20:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see what I did. I did p*(1-(1-p)*x)^n. Also.. your math is goofily over-complicated.. the [definite] integral comes out to: 1/7*( (p-1)^7 + 1), which is quite a bit simpler than what you've got there. Back to the drawing board, i suppose. --MindlessGames 22:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm too cool to remember to do substitutions? >_> --Flargen 22:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative algorithm

Here's another stab at the disgorging algorithm, to think about it a bit differently. More data with weight indicated would be very nice indeed, but figured I'd start anyway:

  • Randomly (and uniformly) select an equipment piece.
  • Roll to see if you get it, something like random() < droprate * X, where X is 1.5ish for reasonable weights and 2ish with lenses.

--Eleron 01:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Running a pickpocket test on ferret teeth gave a rate of ~18.8%, which fits the above algorithm reasonably well. Would be very nice to get some big numbers on whether weight has a small effect or none at all. --Eleron 12:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I will eventually get around to working out some more thorough weight testing. Could be a bit, though. I'm kind of preoccupied with matters in real life and am wary of getting into a project like this right now. Less time consuming to stick with item drop rate spading; no mechanics to be figuring out. --Flargen 16:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A 40lb slimeling seems to disgorge about twice as much as a 1lb. I'll try some more at various weights. --Eleron 12:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For a 30% item:

 1lb: 52/167, 11/23
 5lb: 31/76, 56/157, 36/75, 27/68, 26/65
10lb: 61/160
20lb: 63/122
40lb: 63/97

--Eleron 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The lenses probably let you reroll if the first roll fails, but that's a guess. Getting exact numbers would really require a dozen people running turns. --Eleron 19:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • The best theory we've got for lensed disgorging is that the lenses add +25% to the slimeling's item drop bonus for the purposes of disgorging. There aren't very many other simple mechanics that fit the data well, and complicated mechanics would likely require thousands of turns at low weights to detect, which would require many, many ascensions (and/or characters), which we just don't have. So we're basically calling it done at +25%. --Flargen 10:02, 7 October 2011 (CEST)

Conditional Drops

Can we get a clear confirmation as to whether the slimeling can disgorge non-pickpocketable items or not?--Silent Knight 03:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • It can't. --Flargen 03:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm.. Other than cursed pirate items, what equipment is there with conditionals on it? --RoyalTonberry 03:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Everything in the see, one of the shovels. --Flargen 03:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, right, the Sea. I always forget that exists. --RoyalTonberry 03:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


Not sure if this mentioned, but the slimeling CAN disgorge two items after a fight. I've seen that happen a few times. That makes it quite different from pickpocket which can only get you one item per fight.--Edir 14:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Was your slimeling wearing the undissolvable contact lenses at the time? --RoyalTonberry 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was. Haven't read the discussion above TOO carefully at the moment, so sorry if what I'm writing has been proved wrong but...perhaps the lenses give an extra disgorge attempt even if the first one already succeeded? Also, I will look out for disgorge messages at the end of fights and see if I *ever* get a triple disgorge(though I doubt it). --Edir 18:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Are you absolutely certain that you got two disgorges? I just took out 60 Black Knights with a 50 pound slimeling wearing lenses, and a bunch of -item% to maximize the probability of getting disgorges, and never once saw a double disgorge. If it is working like you claim, then I would see a double disgorge approximately 9% of the time. Or, I would not see one 91% of the time, to not see a double disgorge in 60 black knights with a 50 pound slimeling would be around 0.3% chance of happening. I did, however, see disgorges about half the time, which is perfectly in line with 15% base item rate, with a 50 pound slimeling that has lenses, with what we think lenses are doing (giving you a second roll if you didn't get an item on the first roll). --RoyalTonberry 19:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well now that I think about it - one possibility is that I confused the equipment disgorging and the slime stack dropping. Thus, when it dropped both equipment piece and a slime stack, I misread that as two equipment pieces. I'll be more careful with disgorge messages from now on, but if you are right, and indeed only ONE equipment piece can be disgorged, sorry for the wrong info and wasted time. --Edir 20:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


Messages

The start of combat messages do not seem to indicate that the Slimeling is out of charges. I've received the "you should feed him" message at the start of combat and still received MP blasts during that fight. --Greycat 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note also that when the familiar is out of charges it stops having any combat messages at all (except first round, at start of combat). It's a nice way of tracking that you're out of charges. DarthDud 07:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Charges from items

A rough guess based on what I've seen with the Slimeling: It seems to give <power>/10 charges for every item you feed it. In particular, if you were to give it a 110 power item, you will get 11 charges of MP. The amount of MP given per charge depends on the familiar's weight. Not sure if this is exactly a starfish, but I just kinda assume it is. --MindlessGames 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It's exactly a starfish when charged. --Flargen 23:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It gives power/10 charges per item. Half charges (for instance, a 25 equipment gives 2.5 by the above formula) are rolled for. So, a 25 equipment gives 2 and 3 charges with equal probability. So, say, if you eat 2 25power thingies, you'll get 4 charges 25% of the time, 5 50%, 6 25%. DarthDud 07:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What if you feed it accessories? They don't have a visible power rating but they might provide some charges...any way to know how many? Edir 13:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tao of the Terrapins power-increasement for hats and pants doesn't affect the charges given to the slimeling, I suppose? --Yatsufusa 17:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

MP Restoring

I am not sure if this follows the Star Starfish exactly. If it does indeed just mimic the starfish, then the page on the starfish is mistaken for MP restore range. On a 34 pound Slimeling, I saw MP restore values of 18 and 40. These values would be outside the range that the Star Starfish page says for (weight/2)+3 to (weight+3). Yes, I am sure it was 34 pounds during the combat (and after). --MindlessGames 06:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Cream of Creature from the School Cafeteria

This is probably just a coincidence, but the connection between Mikey and a ball of slime could be found in Mike Thaler's Cream of Creature from the School Cafeteria. In this story, the kids are confronted with a rampaging mystery food ("it burbled and slurped in the pans... then it slithered out of the pans, down the counter, and across the cafeteria floor - it was coming at us!"). They eventually think to grab Mickey (who "will eat anything" and is obviously a reference to Mikey from the commercials). Mickey confronts the food and eats it all up. So this could be how the connection got made between a Mikey character and a giant ball of slime in the first place. --Kilyle 08:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

simple question

When fed equipment, does the slimeling act as a fairy + improved starfish hybrid simultaneously? Or only an improved starfish when fed and only a fairy when not fed? In other words whether or not the slimeling is fed equipment does he always act as a fairy? The page is not clear if the "improved starfish" part replaces the fairy or adds onto it. --Annoying nerd 03:29, 10 August 2011 (CEST)

  • It's in addition to. --Flargen 03:31, 10 August 2011 (CEST)