-
Images
Kafuuka
-
Posts
499 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
18
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Posts posted by Kafuuka
-
-
The agony of choice. I have once read a very funny thought experiment on it:
Suppose you have a donkey that is equally thirsty as he is hungry. To the left at 10 meters is a pond and to the right at 10 meters is a batch of hay (or whatever donkeys like to eat). ie there is no logical way to decide whether the donkey should first have a drink or go for a bite and thus he will be unable to decide until he dies.
It has been proposed that instead of choosing to either first have a drink, or eat first, a third option is available: decide to do something random.
If one is truly without limits, that includes knowing whether an optimal solution exists or that a coin toss is needed and the problem of choice will not occur. Ironically you will never actually choose something because omniscience will put you on a deterministic path. If you accept that thought, then it is clear that a minimum of restriction is needed to ensure a positive amount of freedom exists for a one-person universe. For multiple people it is easier to see, since the freedom of person A is limited by that of person B.
[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='09 December 2009 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1260368490' post='49506']
This is something I've thought a great deal about, mostly in the context of American culture and social ideology. The problem with any regulation that limits or removes freedom is that it also removes individual responsibility. If we each maintain unhindered freedom of choice, than we have only ourselves to blame or praise for the outcome of those choices. However, if choice is limited or regulated than the result is a dissociation between cause and effect, action and response, behavior and consequence. For instance, consider the manner in which our (American) Electoral College system breeds complacent voters, or how social reforms (welfare, social security, etc.) may contribute to financial irresponsibility. [/quote]
Even if it will be horribly off-topic, it must be said that the current economic crisis is the result of capitalist reforms leading to financial irresponsibility of those who owned large amounts of money. After 1929 laws were imposed upon banks to prevent a similar crash and these laws have been circumvented by constructions involving insurance companies. The crash has also been quite accurately predicted by people from various disciplines (historians, physicist and economists to name some). (When asked if the prediction would change the behavior of people and thus nullify itself, a professor answered: "One word: Greed")
[quote]in all democratic countries everyone has right to vote if they want too[/quote]
Actually in Belgium you have the duty to vote and not voting is considered a severe crime, for which you can be sentenced to prison (I doubt it ever happens though). -
[quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='07 December 2009 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1260212263' post='49396']
@Mailakat,Grido
1/3 = .3 -> is WRONG
your 0.9x10 example Grido, uses 1/3 already, because you can't describe 0.333... in a complete way without it. Without division you will always miss a 0.00...001.
of course (1/3)*3 is 1, but without the division its not, that was my point, And i am still not convinced i am wrong on it.
[/quote]
1/3 = 0.[u]3[/u] is wrong? If you use tail division, you will after n+1 steps get "0." + n times "3" as your quotient (concatenate it as a string) and "0." + n-1 times "0" + "1" as remainder. Mathematical induction allows us to say 1/3 = 0.[u]3[/u] wherein we mean the 3 is repeated infinitely. You can see this as an extension upon the decimal representation if you must and say that without this extension 1/3 cannot be represented in the decimal system. You can then use the proof Grido used to say that 0.[u]9[/u] = 1.[u]0[/u] = 1 = 3/3, with induction on all the digits or with epsilon-delta proofs.
(Not everybody believes in induction, but then again not everybody believes in infinity and in both cases the math becomes a lot more difficult to prove all theorems that have been proven (and for some of those practical applications exist)).
[quote]No, you are right its not infinite information, 1/3 is just "hard to match" information, without using division. Its still one step forward.
To relate this to the original thought... if you have a perfect circle (because its the simplest 2d shape) you have less information than you wouldhave with lets say a star shape. An irregular shape would have even more information stored in it. I am not sure but i dont think you can have endless information out of a finite system.[/quote]
I fail to see how it is a step forward especially since 1 can also be represented as having countable infinite zero's. Square roots and pi are more likely candidates for your step, since those are irrational numbers and pi is actually linked to circles and spheres, you should like pi(e).
As for information contained in a circle, I ask you again, why should I take the smallest set able to describe it all (3: origin and diameter if talking 2d) instead of the largest set: the uncountable infinity of points that make the circle? For 1/3 you chose the most difficult representation, now you want to choose the easiest? If you take the easiest then yes, a symmetrical star shape would have more parameters to describe it (6+); if you merely look at the full set of points, it too is uncountable infinity.
For the glass sphere, I also have to guess how you define information, but I would strongly suggest not to use the set of points (subatomic particles) there either. imo you'll have to drop the 1/3 argument in favor of always using the smallest representation.
[quote]no quantum does not respect classical. in quantum you can have a particle jump from one place to an other without actualy going all the way there (eletron energy levels). That and much more are impossible in classical physics. Theyare not compatible from what i know of.[/quote]
That is not what I meant: it is classic which does not respect quantum when looking at the scale for which quantum effects are important (usually this means nanometers or smaller). Quantum is a more modern and more exhaustive model than classical physics. That we still use classical physics is because for larger scales, if one were able to describe the problem with quantum physics the difference would be negligible (averaged out). The same holds for special (and general) relativity: for velocities close to zero (far from light speed) the difference in outcome between special relativity and classical physics is smaller than the usual measurement error.
There have been difficulties in uniting general relativity and quantum, which doesn't surprise me since general relativity is capable of giving anyone a headache (using symbols with four indices repeatedly in every equation is not funny). -
[quote]Regardless of system/base, division can be used to obtain a "flawlessly represented" and infinite in that way, number, while multiplication cant. I still wait a proof where it can.[/quote]
Just because you can find flawed representations does that mean the numbers contain infinite information? I can easily propose a system in which all numbers have infinite digits:
1 = 1.[u]0[/u]
1/3 = 0.[u]3[/u]
Hence we don't even need division to have infinite digits anymore. Should anyone doubt that 1 = 1.[u]0[/u] I shall illustrate it with 1 =/= 1.0000000..01 for any finite number of zero's between the 1s. Of course we never write it that way, but does that matter?
[quote]Laws of physics say many things, if you compare quantum physics with normal one, you will see they fight a lot, while both being right in their way. Actualy what i say relies on the balance in an indirect way...to put it in other words:
[b]if[/b] something is capable of vanishing , (example, energy into endless universe) then something, according to the same balance, should be capable of appearing out of nothing.[/quote]
I mentioned quantum because you mentioned particle physics and quantum is more accurate than classical physics on that scale. Both models have scales on which they represent the universe adequately and in a useful way. Quantum physics works perfectly fine in the range where we use classical physics, and gives the same results, but calculating it that way is way too much work, which is why we use the simpler model there.
And I still want to see that if.
[quote]this might result into an other side question, is infinity the _equal_ opposite of zero? I personaly think not, you have infinity on both sides of zero, so to say you need one single zero to balance two types of infinity , making zero have more authority[/quote]
Mathematically infinity is the inverse of zero with regard to multiplication, where 1 is the neutral element. Multiplying zero and infinity is undefined.
For addition, minus infinity is the opposite of positive infinity, with zero the neutral element. Infinity minus infinity is also undefined. The opposite of zero is zero. (And yes there are cases where maths uses positive and negative zeros, eg. when working with limits.)
From the archive article:
[quote]Imagine you have a glass, for the sake of example lets say its a perfect sphere (or any other ordered geometrical shape). The quantity of information it contains is small, you could use a simple formula to describe the glass sphere and it will be perfectly accurate.[/quote]
This is also a question of representation in my opinion.
You have said "Muratus del Mur: so a simple equation, causes an endless source of information" in relation to the infinite possible 2d representations of a 3d object. Why should I use your simple equation for the perfect glass sphere in this case? If instead I say it has uncountably many information, it becomes impossible to find something that has more information (afaik there is nothing bigger than uncountable infinity).
Something to consider: how do you define information? Suppose I have a message and I encrypt it using a key. If I then give a person only the key or the encrypted message, they will not be able to reproduce the original message. Both the key and the encrypted message can be considered as partial information, which is only of practical use if you have both parts. But there is also the information that the key belongs to that message, or a CSI agent could be interested in the kind of ink used to write the message...
@Kyphis [topic='4843']read this![/topic] -
-
The cure for insomnia? Isn't cause more adequate, or do you believe in homeopathy?
For the leadership thing, I am trying to think of an analogy using lasers or magnetism, both can actually be used to store information (hard disks, holograms); not certain if it'll lead to any consistent results though.
[quote]
Muratus del Mur: can energy, matter, information (all 3 i see as the same thing in different forms but thats not the point here) , appear out of nothing and vanish into nothing?
Muratus del Mur: because particle physics says it can!
...
Grido: the scientist in me is asking for proof
Muratus del Mur: okok, i will have it
[/quote]
Quantum mechanics says you can violate the energy balance, as long as you do it only for an amount of time shorter than is observable. t ~ h/E
This means that every time energy vanishes, the same amount is created moments later (and not just anywhere, there are constraints on distance too). Which is [b]not[/b] as strong a premise as saying energy can simply vanish or be created from nothing and permanently ignore the laws of conservation.
[quote]
Muratus del Mur: think about waves
Muratus del Mur: the more higher the frequency
Muratus del Mur: the lower the amplitude
Grido: yeah
Muratus del Mur: to keep same energy
Grido: (damn i hate physics)
[/quote]
For those who hate physics, here's some formulas
1. Mechanical waves behave like springs:
The equation for springs: F = - k (x - x0)
Wherein k is a constant depending on the flexibility of the spring and x0 is the position of the spring at rest, usually one takes a reference sytem where x0 = 0:
F = - k x and F = m a = m x"
=> x = - m x" / k [i](1)[/i]
This is a differential equation with the general solution x(t) = c1 cos wt + c2 sin wt
Using the constraints x(t=0) = 0 => c1 =0
Rewriting: x(t) = A sin wt [i](2)[/i]
=> v(t=0) = Aw
Since x(t=0) = 0, the potential energy at t=0 is 0, thus E = mv² /2
=> E = (Aw)² m/2 [i](3)[/i]
Hence amplitude A is inverse to w (= 2*pi*freq. )
Substituting 2 into 1: A sin wt = - m (-w² A sin wt) / k
=> w² = k/m [i](4)[/i]
(Since k is an undefined constant, this proves that the frequency can be anything (positive) even with the constraints used (further constraints on m are possible))
2. For a photon the amplitude A = E ~ freq
Not quite possible to increase the amplitude at the same time as decreasing the frequency here...
[quote]
Muratus del Mur: what irrational number, you dont have it unless you use division
Muratus del Mur: (i dont think its called irrational!!)
Muratus del Mur: sqrt(2) is irrational
[/quote]
1/3 cannot be accurately represented in the decimal system; every representational system has this kind of flaw for different numbers. You can see it in more detail on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point "For instance 1/5 cannot be represented exactly as a floating point number using a binary base but can be represented exactly using a decimal base."
This is a problem of representation of rational numbers, not of division/multiplication. I suspect this to be a consequence of how we are taught multiplication and division: first you learn to add and subtract, from that you learn how to multiply: 2 + 2 + 2 = 3*2 = 6. Since we all like symmetry we are learned to divide next but then the representation fails. Perhaps there is a (counter intuitive) representation wherein all numbers 1/n are accurate but where some n are not. -
[quote name='Grido' date='02 December 2009 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1259786886' post='48963']
It's intentionally Best Quest. Quester can be added as well, but apart from quest creators, nobody would be able to vote on it really, as they wouldnt know.[/quote]
Is that really a problem? The same applies for other categories. The problem is you only know about your own quests and that's only if they passed the first stage, not if they got stuck while reading the Q page. I admit, sometimes I read a Q page and have no idea what it is about and what to do next. I kept scores for people who did my quests, so if any were nominated I know who to vote for.
Does this work with nominations, and does everybody get to nominate everybody except their alts?
@dst: please don't confuse me with Lifeline. -
[quote name='dst' date='02 December 2009 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1259766644' post='48898']
Going through the Pls entries I found some quite funny. I was wondering if we should change the funniest quote award to funniest Pl entry award. And use the entries we have so far.
[/quote]
I second this, amongst others because a whole page of posts is ignoring it and people have short memories in my observations.
Also, doesn't it make more sense to decide on the awards before nominating people? Even if you blame the merge with the other topic, that topic clearly has distinct times for category debate and nominations! -
[quote name='Udgard' date='02 December 2009 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1259773899' post='48915']Obtaining one requires the sacrifice of a GG drachorn, which some people will gladly trade one or two WP for one egg, [/quote]
I thought selling WP was illegal?
Imo a 4 WP creature is only cool if it looks hot but is totally useless. It's like saying "I blew 4 WP on this but that's because I am awesome enough to afford it." If it is really useful, more people will buy it, making it less unique (imo wishes are supposed to be unique, although automation somewhat ruins that idea) and also unbalancing (not that i battle a lot).
Plus it would force MB to gather enough WP to buy it, lest he fails to prove his awesomeness. A just reward for all that PL spam -
It's a fun quest, although for obvious reasons my opinion is biased, and it has been a while since i completed it. Luckily I still have my original pm:
I had most trouble with the spike puzzle. When you lack sleep, it is not obvious that you need to set all squares to be a spike, not just the ones needed to satisfy the numbers...
What's good about the quest is that the instructions are clear (most of the time) and the puzzles seem to be at the right level if you look at number of attempts and successes. What's a bit less imo is that it is first solve, win. I saw people start the puzzle when I finished and others had finished it before I even heard about it. -
mp3 flaw: what if an mp3 buys or wins a joker?
mp4:
-no access to Wish Shop-items other than give-vitality, invisibility and locate (call them the RP-spells)
What about clickies? And is the xp reset even worth anything at mp5?
-no access to some shop-features (i'm thinking about collector-crits and tokens mainly)
Some people like to collect things not for war but for collecting. If it wasn't for collecting and things like the Loreroot guards, I might've sacced all my creatures and be done with the combat.
-no access to the ol' hidden shop and no access to medusa's weapons and breast-plate-thingy
I seem to remember mp3s with full sets
generally: no matter how good your system, if it isn't 100% proof, someone will find a way to exploit it and others will copy him/her. I'd rather not experience nerfs for such a thing, I already consider myself quite harmless when it comes to creature combat. And why do people stay on a lower mp level anyway? To age their creatures, because they don't really care about combat or to win HC. Perhaps if they are really sad people, they like to pick on newbies even if they don't get anything in return because they have hit the cap. If we ignore the last possibility, the easiest motivation for people to move up is to deny HC participation if a character is too old for its level. -
But there is no alt less convincing than one that got banned right?
-
These should be adapted or removed imo:
Best RPC - no more RPC
Best PWR - redundant
Best Dojo Staff - sparring grounds/GGG?
Rookie of the Year - but the description says < 80 AD =/= 1 year
Best LHO - most helpful person?
Least Convincing Alts - several alts have been banned...
Best Quote - "Awarded to the player or players who have given the best contributions to Yami no Sakura's list on the Forum." I don't remember such a list being updated the past months. Not that we can't start a new thread, but many funny quotes of the previous months will be lost.
Additions:
I like the best quest idea. Should it be the most difficult or the most fun or both?
Best fighter makes sense too, what about best puzzler? Totally unpractical to decide, but solving quests is also a main objective in MD imo.
Best debate and best debater; another one of MD's pillars.
Perhaps something market related, the market can always use more propaganda. Best slave/employee, best trader etc? -
[quote name='Liberty4life' date='28 November 2009 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1259407379' post='48611']
okies... primary point of this topic was inner magic, principals, story mode and scene poems, and similar stuff
not creats and al, they are secondary in this topic, i just mentioned them becoz creats arent anymore wot they were a year ago, they are treated completely different than before, and i mentioned al becoz it stagnated for quite some time already
i wonder why everyone in this topic stopped talking about primary points of this topic
[/quote]
[topic='5680']Story mode is being changed.[/topic] For principles I believe you suffer the same problem as last time I mentioned them: the first reply is on the issue that interests that poster most and people then follow the example, forgetting about the other issues.
Spell documents is perhaps the easiest to fix. The code to allow people to distribute them existed before, but there's no method to assign new distributors anymore. Three possible solutions: WP shop, hand picked by Mur or a crafter function (Master Scribe?). The WP shop will make it a race to get the license first, if the number of distributors/doc is limited. For quest reward purposes that makes a lot of sense to me. Hand picking is a lot of work for someone who already has a lot of features we want him to work on.
A crafterlike role: a player who can change a WP into a spell doc distribution license and write new documents. Sadly this is a huge responsibility for that person, so we need someone incorruptible. The benefits should be obvious: requirements to get a license can be changed when needed. eg. When the only distributor is being too lazy or left the game, the requirements for that license can be lowered; while if it is being spread at light speed, there is no need for someone to have the same license. Once all the existing documents have a distributor, we'll need new ones. Again it makes sense to me that the distributor has a say in what kind of document he wants to be made. We also need someone to approve of the new document: function, levels, description, principles... Which is again a lot of responsibility. Perhaps Mur will get nightmares after reading this, but I am working on the premise that we are supposed to be able to influence the game and if none of us are capable of bearing this responsibility, then the game is too difficult for all of us. It doesn't even have to be one person, it can be a team too.
At the cost of possible corruption, we get something that is in many ways useful for quests and will spark (principle) debates once more.
*edit* seems that idea got shot down before I even pushed submit -
[quote name='de la Rey' date='25 November 2009 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1259103871' post='48407']
Kafuuka, think of ''cavalry'' or ''infantry'' as concepts and principles, not regular units as we see in movies, men on horses and guys with shields and spears. When I speak of cavalry, I`m referring at the concept of cavalry: speed, mobility, force. You ask about cavalry in MD. Nope, we don`t have it, but the ideas that form up the concept of ''cavalry'' can be used within MD without problem. And there aren`t two different aspects of conflict: in my Way, there`s only one. And that can be applied everywhere, be it a real conflict or a football match. The principles are always the same.
[/quote]
They are not entirely separate things, but abstract conflict and MD specific conflict might interest different people. The question is on which you want to focus: MD specific conflict and referring to the more abstract when necessary, or explaining theories and occasionally using MD as an example? -
Removing the comments yourself gives too much freedom. eg when the dojo existed people got marked with 'dojo violator' in their log and I don't think they should have had the ability to remove that comment themselves.
Submitting it on the forum will bring more sad topics and doesn't really solve it.
We trust the mods with the forum, so why not with the PL? Of all people, they should know the difference between a negative comment and an offensive comment. It might be a tiny bit more efficient if there was a central 'please remove comment X by player Y from my PL' form; they have no way to see all the new entries like the forum RSS. -
[quote name='de la Rey' date='23 November 2009 - 08:03 AM' timestamp='1258959804' post='48155']
As the title goes, the subject of the debate regards strategy, subterfuge and propaganda, all pictured in a (not so) philosophical manner. My final and at the moment so faraway goal is to form up a handbook with different opinions that circulate in the MD universe. And why not - if I`ll be capable of pulling this through - establishing a set of guidelines (not rules) to be used whenever conflicts burst out in the otherwise peaceful lands of Magic Duel.
<snip>
I want you to take the stand and share your vision and theories on warfare - tactics, the employment, deployment and use of cavalry, infantry, logistics and auxiliaries (scouts, spies, diplomats)
[/quote]
Do we have cavalry in MD or is that part of the philosophical aspect? I think there are people interested in both the non MD and the MD aspects of conflict and the link between them is also interesting, yet the scope becomes large enough to split the debate in multiple parts.
[quote]
For now, a rough and simple rundown of the debate would look like this:
- Opening - Introduction to warfare
- Set one - Head on - conventional warfare; how are we doing it - theory
- Set two - In the shadows - the use of ''agents'' or <How can one man win the war>; deceit and treason.
- Set three - A mouthful of words - they can`t fight as good as we can speak.
- Set four - All still standing go to a pub and drink their minds out while sharing experiences, like the true warriors they are.
[/quote]
I propose an additional topic:
- The origin of conflict (you can see a small article on this in my MW&B papers: on information) -
With php? That sounds very insane to me. It's all Turing complete but then again, you're not going to program it in abacus or lolcode either methinks.
Dwarffortress runs with wine too, if you're using linux. -
Being skeptical: do you know how to program in a decent language, ie c++? If you don't go into the multithreading route, events will never be simultaneous for your program, so you shouldn't worry about it. The scope of your plans is also very large rpg/strategy with the extent of d&d/empire earth?
Might be helpful: play dwarffortress for a while, it has a very extensive economy with jobs, items and resources. (And look at how long it's being developed already.) Puzzle Pirates also has a good way of managing supply and demand issues and keeping the player economy going, although the puzzles are very repetitive, but you're not aiming for puzzles. -
While posting a walkthrough is worse than people sending answers to only a single person, the situation is similar: it is next to impossible to stop them. Sometimes people send me pm within minutes after my name is put up as one of the people who solved a quest, asking me to give them the solutions. Perhaps in the future I shall list the names and others will do the same, but that is about all I can think off.
As for originality: the entrance riddle for my old quest is actually unoriginal. It wasn't supposed to be hard (nor is any part of the quest, it is tagged as easy and fun), I needed an excuse for people to pm me. Somehow it is the part where most people got stuck upon and also what resulted in the most surprising answers. I think I've heard about all elemental metals, as well as some alloys and 'Metal Bunny'. Luckily almost nobody got stuck on my own creations.- Fenrir Greycloth and Rendril
-
1
-
1
-
@Fernrir: Why mp5 only? And instead of on log-in I think it makes sense to have something like the document dispatcher. It has the same benefit of not needing a 50k query and there could be requirements set before you can get it, plus it might be easier to use the clickies to program it.
@Rendril: I imagine having someone else's cube grants you power over that person, if you know how to use it. Power over alts isn't that desirable, but ripping off newbies who might become powerful will be a problem.
@Shadowseeker: I used to have a puzzle like that: a set of 1³ cubes in various colors, which you could take apart and put together again, or combine multiple cubes into a bigger structure, eg a cross, a 2³ cube... Now I'll have to go and search boxes of old toys to see if I still have them. -
[quote name='Esmerelda' date='15 November 2009 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1258286001' post='47520']
I used pigpen when I was in 5th grade to pass notes in class. Recognised it instantly. Wierd that you haven't heard bout it. O.o
[/quote]
I've never felt the need to pass notes in class, perhaps that's why I never heard about pigpen? -
Jay a third cleanup topic!
While it is nice to see people are concerned about cleaning, I think a scheme to facilitate it in the future is needed first. I don't think it is possible to create something foolproof (lazy-bum-proof). At some point the only method to decide if a script is still valuable will be for someone to manually inspect it, because the creator is beyond reach. While it directly violates privacy/secrecy and ownership, imo creating a script for MD implies that you give up copyright on the script. If someone else were to see the code and expands upon it, it is fair for that person to cite your name, but you can't go and sue them. And if you are gone, what use is it to forbid people to look at it?
I assume it is possible to see who wrote a certain script and to determine when that person last logged in? Allowing creators to attach a short comment to their script would help too, but is relying heavily on them not being lazy. -
[quote name='AqlBeast' date='13 November 2009 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1258072971' post='47326']
A good survey when carried out randomly should not need that much number of players. 100 players is a far-fetched amount for MD's population that are online. Both the answer and the problem of a survey lies with the margin of error. A low number of responses from players means a higher margin of error, and a high number of responses from players means a lower margin of error. Based on the population of MD that are online, which is usually between 250 to 300 players. Out of a pool of let's say 300, an acceptable amount to sample may be one tenth of the pool, which average around 30 players. After all, most surveyers only select a random amount of 1000 people out of a population of 100000 people. The margin of error is fairly acceptable for an amount of 30 sample from a pool of 300 players.
But certainly unresponse sample may create a problem for the survey as well as stated by Kafuuka. But hopefully the time alloted (possibly a month the same time for MDNP) may compensate for this bias method.
(Not done writing going to edit later on)
[/quote]
Should we really base on the MD population online, which is a small sample of the MD target audience?
If we do that, then the true error margin will be bigger, and that might make it seem less a problem to have a large estimated error. However t statistics care not about the ratio of estimator/true value. Furthermore, you cannot rely on large numbers and assume things to be asymptotically normally distributed.
We already have three nominal categories: winners, losers and idlers. (ok those might sound a bit bad...) For a lot of quests the winners will be extremely limited in number. It is not impossible to get good conclusions out of that kind of data, but it is a lot more complex than having 100 observations and ignoring the difference between 1/(n-1) and 1/n and such.
Can we really expect 30 observations for each quest?
What do we want to measure? Difficulty, reward, reward/difficulty, originality, fun?
@Cryxus: your quest was fun. If you want puzzles, did you try Cutlers' quest? Or are we talking about a different kind of puzzles?
@Master: Dst said she wanted to write this topic for a long time, wouldn't that rule you out as a specific target? -
Last time i tried to do a survey, 13 people filled it. I can only hope Mur reached more people with his surveys, although he stopped doing them quite fast as well. For the king elections, 100 votes was the target. 100 is not a large number when talking about statistics. For surveys where there is less possible benefit, should we expect to get 100 observations? Of course you could give a reward for filling the surveys, eg. 1 credit for every 10 quests rated. This however comes at the cost of 1 credit for every 10 quests rated and less accurate ratings: some people will enter random numbers, caring only about the credits.
Interpreting statistics is not as easy as people like to think. If you look at the IQ thread, you'll notice people have very funny ideas of statistics. I suspect IAB wanted to fit a bell curve through a three modal sample, ignoring that it should be a t curve. Printing the raw results of small sample statistics will lead to large misunderstandings.
Regardless, I think it is feasible to automate this partly, for future quests using MDscript. The keys allow us to verify if people attempted the quest and won. A survey system would only have to be set up once, if enough thought is given to the formulations of questions and what we want to test with them.
Wp For Days
in New Ideas
Posted
I don't really care much about the number of WP/year, the WP codes are likely to cause inflation anyway.
As for alt abuse there is one relatively simple method to make it impossible: change the way items are made and don't add useful creatures to the WP shop. Afaik everything else in there cannot be traded and I don't think it's a secret that I disagree with the item creation process. As I said in the market debates there needs to be a creative and a destructive flux of items if you want to sustain circulation. If WP abuse for items would lead to larger creative flux, that might actually be a good thing.
If you however want to check alts, I don't believe there to be a 100% efficient system and manually approving "good alts" is going to be tedious at best.