User talk:Freshberrysmoothie

internal wiki links

To link to an article on this wiki, use this format: [[article name]] or, if you want to display different text: [[article name|display text]]. This is preferred over raw URLs because the wiki can track these internal links. —Dr Ishmael 05:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I did not know that Freshberrysmoothie 16:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And now you do! Huzzah! :) —Dr Ishmael 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

lol! Thanks for fixing that one for me Freshberrysmoothie 16:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about incorrect filenames either, it happens to everyone, you just have to remember to type the name of the destination after clicking the file for new images ^^. Also, if you want something deleted, you can type {{delete|<with a reason here>}} so that an admin (like dr ish) can delete it later. Chieftain Alex 18:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Also,

[[File:User Freshberrysmoothie Blueberry Icon.jpg|19px|link=User talk:Freshberrysmoothie]] [[User:Freshberrysmoothie|<font color=#000>'''Fresh Berry Smoothie'''</font>]]

Fresh Berry Smoothie seems decent :P Chieftain Alex 19:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Holy cow! Thank you so much -- I also had never checked the "treat as wiki" checkbox underneath it. This saved me a head ache. Also will remember the delete flag for the future :)

And I figured the color out too (was simply missing quotes):

<font color="#000">

Fresh Berry Smoothie 19:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dungeons

Make a proposed format on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Dungeon formatting. There will be a link to it on Practices and processes.--Relyk ~ talk > 06:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You want me to do this? I have no idea how to do that! Fresh Berry Smoothie 06:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll copypaste what you have for solid ocean then.--Relyk ~ talk > 07:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate that, where I was for now was really really bad. I'm good with editing and re-organizing. If you can give me something to work off that'd be perfect--Thanks Fresh Berry Smoothie 07:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RNG

Re: this, I don't know what data you have, but intuition would tell me the chance is different for the different tiers of conversion. I.e., is there a higher chance to convert blue->green than to convert green->yellow? Like I said, I don't know your data, and I've never performed these conversions myself, so it's just a thought. —Dr Ishmael 13:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm keeping a track in my notebook for now. Something tells me I'll have to do it thousands of times to be really sure. But thus far in batches of the same tier to next tier (aka rare runes to superior runes) I've noticed a wide variety. The batches I've been using are in the 256 range. I've already done perhaps a thousand of them, but I wasn't keeping track until the last two :/ Will let you know how it goes Fresh Berry Smoothie 17:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating on that editing comment? What exactly do you mean by "range of RNG" and "double RNG"? If the only thing you're measuring is whether the quality is upgraded or not, then your data should look like a weighted coin toss no matter how it's implemented internally. --Felbryn 17:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, by double RNG I was meaning simply that perhaps the game goes through a rough RNG (in sets of 5-10%) and then within that chooses another RNG number. I know this isn't a real probability method as in the long run, as you asid, it will become one number around which thigns are chosen (so to speak?). It is only important for people doing it in small batches. The number may very well be 20% in the long run, but for someone doing it 256 times it's unlikely (highly!) that they will get 50% of them to be converted to superior, and unlikely (highly!) that they receive 0 superior runes. That is why I think, at the least that we should both confirm the actual percentage (which I think could very well be 20%) and then the "confidence" range for doing a batch of say 16? I haven't taken probability in a long time, and I know we can calculate the "confidence" range by using the "actual" percent RNG, but we should probably do some data mining to get the actual percent number. If this already exists, I'm sorry I simply did not know about it and we can work off that! Hope that helps explain my silly thought process Fresh Berry Smoothie 17:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If they are using one RNG to determine what percentage chance they should use for a second RNG, then without seeing the actual source code, that will look exactly the same as just using a single RNG, whether you do 1 trial or a billion. It does not affect the short-run, it does not affect the long-run, it does not affect anything. Your results would look exactly the same as if they just used a single RNG all the time.

What would give you different results in the short- and long-run would be if it keeps track of what it's recently given you and changes your odds based on whether the last few recipes you tried gave you good or bad results. That's called "memory", because the system needs to remember what happened before. And while it's possible the mystic forge has a memory, human intuition for the kind of runs you should get in a system with no memory is legendarily bad. Unless you've done some very rigorous math on your data to test, the fact that you feel like the mystic forge has lucky streaks and unlucky streaks actually makes me more confident that it does not have a memory, because most people would feel like it had weird streaks even if it was really just a straight independent random chance every time, and the most likely reason to add a memory would be to spread things out more evenly so that players didn't feel like that. --Felbryn 17:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The confidence interval doesn't refer to the actual percentage, but the reliability of the true mean value from your data. The chance of getting n number of rares from x number of attempts is a binomial distribution.--Relyk ~ talk > 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, I never said that we would be able to determine the two RNG steps even if there were. I thought I pointed out that we would eventually come to one number either way (As in "I agree with you"). I made a mistake and owned up to it in my earlier response I thought. Secondly, I never mentioned memory, lucky, or unlucky streaks. I may have come across that way, but I did not intend to -- Again my apologies. I have not done rigorous maths, but I'm positive for the average user to see a range like that would be much more helpful than a single number. The chance that someone tries 80 items (20 "Forge" buttons) and receives only 1 is actually quite strong. Many users could do this and receive that result. All of them won't, most of them won't, but a significant portion will. They'll feel cheated perhaps, but I think it would help them feel better to see that it was on the low end chance to receive that. Those users would think the forge has a 5% chance instead of the independent 20% and they would be absolutely correct -- FOR THEM --. It's not important to that user whether or not the individual chances were 20%. I'm not sure if this is making sense but if this were a bell curve of chances, we should document both the actual percentage, and the 95% chance of what you'll receive. Is that a possibility or not would be my question? Obviously it would require some arbitrary number, I was thinking perhaps 5 tries (20 items prior, 5 after forged). It would lead to something like a binomial proportion confidence interval of hopefully 95% users or more. It is totally possible that I'm just overthinking this and users probably DONT care about the confidence interval. Regardless, if no one can point out some data to corroborate a 20% independent chance, then I'm going to leave it that way until we gather more information. And to be clear, YES, the numbers I put there are arbitrarily chosen over a sample size of ~1,000 items (~250 forges). I don't pretend that this is correct or factual, but to me it is more correct than putting a number without data behind it. I checked the talk page and it did not satisfy me on that considering no one had posted about it. I'm not very good at finding that kind of information as I'm new to this wiki, but I again ask if someone knows where that number came from. I'm totally willing to go back to the 20% number even on it's own if someone can pull that information out. Fresh Berry Smoothie 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Choosing an arbitrary range is literally the same as putting a number with no data behind it :P--Relyk ~ talk > 21:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A range like that doesn't make any sense. Statistics calculated off of observed data will give you a specific end result (the % chance of something happening) with a margin of error and/or confidence interval derived from the precision of your data. If you perform 1,000 forgings and 200 of them produce a higher-rarity item, then the observed chance for promotion is 20% ± x% or 20% (x% CI) (I don't know the derivations for error margins or CI offhand, so I'm just leaving X in there). The observed chance is not 5% – 20% or anything like that. —Dr Ishmael 21:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh that I get, I just didn't think 250 forges was enough data to say it with confidence xP. Thus far I have gotten these results:

Forge Results

x	Forges	Success	Percent
1	16	3	18.75%
2	16	6	37.50%
3	16	3	18.75%
4	32	7	21.88%
5	16	3	18.75%
6	16	4	25%
7	4	0	0%
8	4	0	0%
9	4	2	50%
10	2	0	0%
11	2	0	0%
11	10	1	10%
11	5	1	20%
11	5	2	40%
11	2	0	0%
11	1	0	0%
11	10	1	10%
Total	161	30	18.6%

So even with ~160 recorded tries I'm quote close to the 20% someone else wrote. Again, I totally think it's reasonable to assume it is that. Just wanted some more infos :/ I actually won't be doing this anymore as I've determined the profit of upgrading major to superior runes is often negative :( However, if someone wants to keep adding to this table I would be very glad to post it to the talk page of the mystic forge in the future. That way some noob like myself won't be tempted to type in a range within which the actual RNG percent is located. Fresh Berry Smoothie 22:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is why you make google spreedsheets ^^--Relyk ~ talk > 22:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have it, I just don't know how to set myself to "Anonymous". Once I do that, I'll post back with a link! Fresh Berry Smoothie 22:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

My spreadsheet says 20.5% btw XD--Relyk ~ talk > 22:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, same here. I noticed it and realized I couldn't even do basic Algebra. What was I hoping to accomplish delving into theoretical probability?!? -- D'oh! Mine is over here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnfO8DyHx5LRdHEwdlpscEYyLUwyODM0OU5hWjA3QkE#gid=0 Not sure how to link to external things on Wiki and couldn't figure out how to set myself to Private :/ Fresh Berry Smoothie 22:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Fractals_of_the_Mists#Daily_Reward

Don't get too heated about it, it's just a table and Felbryn and Arty mean well. Felbryn tends to be aggressive. Don't use CAPS when you comment, it's as distracting as Felbryn bolding words and only looks like an attempt to inflate the importance of the sentence. Calling someone a "rude fucking asshole" won't get the discussion anywhere, of course. Let the discussion cool of, other people will come along to verify the contents of the table.--Relyk ~ talk > 03:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha Fresh Berry Smoothie 12:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

if I may direct your attention...

over here. —Dr Ishmael 01:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

HUZZAH!!!! Fresh Berry Smoothie 04:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your fractals rewrite

I have several objections to your recent rewrite of the Fractals of the Mists page:

• You talk about choosing difficulty levels before explaining that difficulty levels exist or what they mean
• You say that personal reward level affects the challenge of the fractal, which is not true AFAIK. If you're sure this is true, please explain it in detail and/or cite a source.
• You've removed mention that rewards are based on the lower of personal level or fractal level, and at one point imply that they are based only on personal level (second paragraph of Mechanics).
• The karma rewards you've specified do not match my personal experience. I think you've over-generalized from the limited information on the talk page.
• You introduce the term "tier" in a way that makes it sound like an official term (at least to me). I'd like it to be clearer that this is not an in-game term.
• The beginning of the "Mechanics" section seems long-winded largely redundant; in particular:
  • You say that entering the portal lets you choose a difficulty, that the portal transports you to Mistlock, and that the party will be kicked if the leader leaves, at least twice each (in the space of only a few paragraphs). Note that the first two of those are also already explained in earlier sections.
  • Mechanics that are common to all dungeons (such as clicking "enter" to enter the dungeon, or the party being kicked if the leader leaves) do not need to be described in gorey detail on the page for one specific dungeon; to the extent that these need to be described, they should be described on a more general page, such as dungeon, and at most should get a passing mention on pages for individual dungeons.
  • Descriptions of how things used to work in previous patches should either be deleted or moved to the "trivia" section near the bottom of the page.

I could rewrite the page myself to address these problems, but if I do so I will use the revision before yours as my starting point, because I think it's closer to how I would like the page to look. If you think any of your changes are valuable, please either edit the page to address the above concerns or identify the specific details you care about so that one of us can work them into another version. --Felbryn 19:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I made some of my own changes, please use Talk:Fractals of the Mists for discussion on improving the dungeon article though.--Relyk ~ talk > 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks better to me -- Thanks Fresh Berry Smoothie 20:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully some of these bullet points were addressed in the latest revision? Fresh Berry Smoothie 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It was improved, certainly. I've made some additional rewrites. --Felbryn 22:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Skill infobox examples

User:Relyk/sandbox/skill infobox semantics, we should end up with something like that.--Relyk ~ talk > 15:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What new terminology would fit into the infobox? I know you wanted to add "activation delay" and "aftercast delay" correct? I'm going to try and upload a sample thief dagger chain to show the complexities to this. The more I look at it the more mistakes I'm seeing in my own calculations.

If you click a skill you start timer at 0. Then there is a number that shows up (aka when it hits) set that to Timer A. Then there is the time where the skill is finishing it's animation Timer B. Then there is the time where nothing can be activated as Timer C. Would yours be like Timer 0 to A and then Timer A to C? or Timer A to B? Some things hit twice as well, or are chanelled. For those the Timer A is when the first number appears and Timer A2 would be when the last number appears. Probably would help if I put the vid up Fresh Berry Smoothie 15:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Here we go: http://youtu.be/ZhlehBvC99E -- This shows that fromt eh first frame to change at the skill bar at the bottom as the 0 frame that the first attack from dagger is at 12 frames, second from the first dagger attack is 24 frames (but at the bottom the second skill will already be halfway switched) and the second attack hits at 45 frames where the third hits at 1.24 (60 frames + 24 frames). Using the time when the first number pops up from the first dagger attack as the point 0 to the next time that number pops up I can reliably say that the entire chain takes 2.05-2.06 (125-126 frames) (more closer to 2.05 from this video) Fresh Berry Smoothie 17:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I made my own pooptube video! [1]. Camtasia only does 30 fps or lower and it requires maths. It seems like most skills have the .25 second aftercast delay and .25 second activation delay. You can basically derive the activation delay for channeled skills since it's included in the activation time, so I'm pretty confident about that. I don't know if it varies.--Relyk ~ talk > 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's okay, youtube doesn't register over 30 frames anyhow, I would never have known! So I did another test with ranger's longbow. I first clicked skill 2, waited for the skill to channel and to switch automatically to skill 1 and to attack the target once that way as well. But purely on the auto-attack from damage number appearance to the next it's a good average of 74.45 frames, which is basically 75 frames per second / 60 = 1.25 seconds (3/4 is the activation time listed on the skill 1, so using what you said that's like .25 + .75 activation + .25 = 1.25seconds?)

Also using the second skill I ran into some interesting behavior. If I run that skill until it's cooldown pops at say 675 frames, if I backtrack 5 seconds worth (5 seconds is the activation time listed on it) or to frame 375, you can see on the ranger the instant frame from when the bow leaves the back and is magically teleported to the hand in one frame. So clearly that must be when the game starts "reacting" to the mouse cursor which I clicked on skill 2 less than a quarter second prior to the 375 frame, right? Or perhaps there's some other latency/lag involved in the very beginning of activating the first attack, which happened to be skill 2 here.

Interestingly enough, when I went to the first damage number frame posted by the longbow auto attack AFTER the skill 2 had finished (this was just for fun) i backtracked 60 frames, taking out the 15 you said was for "inherent cooldown" to see what was going on near the skill 2 ending and skill 1 beginning. It is so oddly enough, the same frame when the cooldwon on skill 2 begins. Definitely going to have to do more testing on "normal" classes before I handle the thief ones. Fresh Berry Smoothie 13:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thief is the best class to test, you can chain any of the skills :3--Relyk ~ talk > 21:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)