Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Confirmation system on Entropedia, trustworthy people needed.

Witte said:
..
A more general note, I saw you confirmed some damage on Entropedia, with a link to some images. However, these images do not show conclusive evidence that the values are correct. ..[/b]
Click to expand...

Ah, but they did confirm the existing value was understated, and the new value was the highest recorded so far.

I'm not sure there is any possible way of obtaining 'conclusive evidence' that the max damage CANNOT be somewhat higher. :scratch2:
 
Serica said:
Ah, but they did confirm the existing value was understated, and the new value was the highest recorded so far.

I'm not sure there is any possible way of obtaining 'conclusive evidence' that the max damage CANNOT be somewhat higher. :scratch2:
Click to expand...

Yes there is..

It's called finding out what the minimum damage is :D

Max damage can't be more twice the minimum damage :p


Confirmation is for 100% sure that is the EXACT value.. otherwise just change it and leave it unconfirmed. (aka: a guesstimate)
 
kebplay said:
Hi Witte,
I'm happy to help when I can, I've done a bit of research on MOB damage and have updated a few times before.

Account: Gypsy
Ava: Keira Gypsy Croft
Click to expand...

Thanks for willing to help out. If you are planning to actively participate in confirming future updates, I will add you to the trusted list.

Hijacker27 said:
I think the SIB max point should also be confirmation based, and have a notice that it's where the SIB is maxed, not when you first get (20/20), etc on the actual tool statistics. I see this error all the time, and it really irks me.
Click to expand...

Ok I will add a confirmstatus to these columns. Hasn't there yet been found any logic in it btw? Or is it random?


Hijacker27 said:
Yes there is..

It's called finding out what the minimum damage is :D

Max damage can't be more twice the minimum damage :p


Confirmation is for 100% sure that is the EXACT value.. otherwise just change it and leave it unconfirmed. (aka: a guesstimate)
Click to expand...

Correct. We also assume that creatures maximal damage is an integer. For example, when a creature did 50.4 and 99.1, we can for certain tell the creature does 100 damage. The reasoning goes as following:

Twice the minimal damage is 100.8. Since the damage must be an integer, 100.8 must be rounded down, and 99.1 must be rounded up, getting both from the min and the max recorded damage a value of 100.

If for example you only have 50.5 and 99.1, then you would get 101 and 100, leaving it still uncertain what the maximal damage is.
 
Witte said:
Ok I will add a confirmstatus to these columns. Hasn't there yet been found any logic in it btw? Or is it random?
Click to expand...

For the most part it is logical, most new weapons max 4 or 5 levels after SIB is started, SIB blueprints 5 levels later and SIB faps 5 levels later. Though most people usually put it at 3.9 levels later or 4.9-5 levels later for weapons and 5.9-6 levels later for faps..

There are always exceptions though.
 
Hijacker27 said:
For the most part it is logical, most new weapons max 4 or 5 levels after SIB is started, SIB blueprints 5 levels later and SIB faps 5 levels later. Though most people usually put it at 3.9 levels later or 4.9-5 levels later for weapons and 5.9-6 levels later for faps..

There are always exceptions though.
Click to expand...

I added confirmation to these columns, and took the liberty to confirm all non-sib weapons.
 
I don't add/edit info on Entropedia often, but hopefully often enough to be of some help. Sign me up, and I'll do what I can. :)

Entropedia Account = JohnCapital
 
I suspect then that Damage will almost never end up being 'Confirmed'.

I can see a case for using a value of 2 x damage to lower an existing value (which would have to remain unconfirmed, cos who knows? next hunt they might get a lower one again)

But who is likely to notice and report that they got a damage message for .. uh more than 1/2 the maximum damage in Entropedia, when you'd expect to get that anyway ?

Let's face it, the number of people likely to volunteer for exhaustive testing is minimal. It took 3 years for someone to notice that the previous value for Longu Alpha damage was understated.

And if you're never going to get sufficient data reported to 'confirm' with 'conclusive data', what's the point ?
 
Last edited:
Witte said:
Mak (Account: unknown)
Click to expand...

Hey Witte, my account is not "unknown" (although that is a cool account name ;)) it is "Mak" :D

P.S. - I am a bit ashamed to confes I just recently opened it :ahh:
 
If you still need more peeps to help, i'm available and i find myself a bit bored at work at times... ;)
Account name: Cail
 
Serica said:
I suspect then that Damage will almost never end up being 'Confirmed'.

I can see a case for using a value of 2 x damage to lower an existing value (which would have to remain unconfirmed, cos who knows? next hunt they might get a lower one again)

But who is likely to notice and report that they got a damage message for .. uh more than 1/2 the maximum damage in Entropedia, when you'd expect to get that anyway ?

Let's face it, the number of people likely to volunteer for exhaustive testing is minimal. It took 3 years for someone to notice that the previous value for Longu Alpha damage was understated.

And if you're never going to get sufficient data reported to 'confirm' with 'conclusive data', what's the point ?
Click to expand...

It takes a few minutes to test a mob for maximum damage.

For those of us that camp a mob, this info is easy to get and quite useful. I'd do it for many more mobs if I had the capability to do so (aka: an impfap/modap :p)
 
Serica said:
I suspect then that Damage will almost never end up being 'Confirmed'.

I can see a case for using a value of 2 x damage to lower an existing value (which would have to remain unconfirmed, cos who knows? next hunt they might get a lower one again)
Click to expand...

That is why you need both low and high maximums.

But who is likely to notice and report that they got a damage message for .. uh more than 1/2 the maximum damage in Entropedia, when you'd expect to get that anyway ?

Let's face it, the number of people likely to volunteer for exhaustive testing is minimal. It took 3 years for someone to notice that the previous value for Longu Alpha damage was understated.

And if you're never going to get sufficient data reported to 'confirm' with 'conclusive data', what's the point ?
Click to expand...

There has actually been quite some work on this. See for example: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/93047-mob-damage-studies-circa-2008-a.html

Maybe now that you can see that data is not confirmed, it will encourage people more to test it, at least they will know what to test. And its not really a problem that part of the data never gets confirmed. At least people will know that the data may not be accurate, and that is part of the reason I introduced the system.
 
I can confirm anything that involves pink :)
 
May as well take me off the list then Witte, cos I'll never be sure that the evidence will be sufficiently conclusive to Confirm anything.

I'll just update what I see myself as unconfirmed, and let others Confirm.
 
hmm...

soon and very soon entropedia will be as full of bias as wikipedia is sometimes.... slippery slope.
 
Serica said:
May as well take me off the list then Witte, cos I'll never be sure that the evidence will be sufficiently conclusive to Confirm anything.

I'll just update what I see myself as unconfirmed, and let others Confirm.
Click to expand...

It is very hard to be 100% certain, I took stats on 50 hits on each maturity on Eviscerators to get the damage, but it's still not 100% I could be a point or 2 out. But data that is 98% correct is better than no data at all, you can still make decisions based on it.
I'm happy to confirm.
 
Serica said:
I suspect then that Damage will almost never end up being 'Confirmed'.
Click to expand...

This may be true in many or most cases, but it's still better to be able to differentiate between figures which are definitely correct and those which are estimates, which to me is the whole point of this confirmation system.

In time we will see the number of confirmed figures increase, which can only be a good thing :)
 
with the chat log now including everything in the chat window, i'd have thought its quite easy to check damage ranges. kill mob in isolation, copy and paste log for that mob and filter out* the damage messages. keep that in a csv or such if you want a longer test. near enough confrimed as matters. and certainly beats watching the chat while killing.
 
Serica said:
May as well take me off the list then Witte, cos I'll never be sure that the evidence will be sufficiently conclusive to Confirm anything.

I'll just update what I see myself as unconfirmed, and let others Confirm.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to scare you off ;). Just stating the general guidelines for confirming. But as you wish I shall remove you from the list. If you change your mind let me know, you are one of the most active updaters (which is highly appreciated :)), and I haven't seen you make false updates.

mastermesh said:
soon and very soon entropedia will be as full of bias as wikipedia is sometimes.... slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Since this only concerns factual data, I don't think this will happen. No matter how biased you are 1 is still 1 and 2 is still 2 ;).

Mak said:
Hey Witte, my account is not "unknown" (although that is a cool account name ;)) it is "Mak" :D

P.S. - I am a bit ashamed to confes I just recently opened it :ahh:
Click to expand...

JohnCapital said:
I don't add/edit info on Entropedia often, but hopefully often enough to be of some help. Sign me up, and I'll do what I can. :)

Entropedia Account = JohnCapital
Click to expand...

Cail said:
If you still need more peeps to help, i'm available and i find myself a bit bored at work at times... ;)
Account name: Cail
Click to expand...

kebplay said:
It is very hard to be 100% certain, I took stats on 50 hits on each maturity on Eviscerators to get the damage, but it's still not 100% I could be a point or 2 out. But data that is 98% correct is better than no data at all, you can still make decisions based on it.
I'm happy to confirm.
Click to expand...

As long as its not 100% sure, it should not be confirmed.

JohnCapital
Cail
Gypsy
Smoerble
Mak

Have been added. Thanks for helping out.

One general remark, I will monitor the updates of trusted accounts. If there are no (relevant) updates for a while (2 months or so), your "trusted" status will be removed.
 
Can we get a sub forum at Entropiaforum?

Would like to know things like:
What is the guideline for density? I found several spots makred with high density but it is, imo, only medium.
 
Smoerble said:
Can we get a sub forum at Entropiaforum?
Click to expand...

Entropedia already has a subforum ;). Alternatively I created this forum: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/groups/315/

Or do you mean something else?

Would like to know things like:
What is the guideline for density? I found several spots makred with high density but it is, imo, only medium.
Click to expand...

Currently I have not enabled confirming on loots yet. I may do that later though, but I first need to think of good guidelines ;).
 
I have a question about confirming max damage for mobs.

I'm not a trusted member so when I do damage tests (which I have done for a few mobs with a little piece of software), the figures I enter in Entropedia are not confirmed. This fact kind of puts me off from doing these tests because someone else (a confirmer) will have to do the same tests anyway. So what's the point for me to do the test?

However, let's say I give the results of my test to a trusted member, in the form of a screenshot if needed. Would they be allowed to confirm the figures in this case, without actually doing the test themselves?

Witte said:
Would like to know things like:
What is the guideline for density? I found several spots makred with high density but it is, imo, only medium.
Click to expand...
Currently I have not enabled confirming on loots yet. I may do that later though, but I first need to think of good guidelines ;).
Click to expand...

I believe Smoerble was asking about mob spawn densities ;)
 
IceCold3000 said:
I have a question about confirming max damage for mobs.

I'm not a trusted member so when I do damage tests (which I have done for a few mobs with a little piece of software), the figures I enter in Entropedia are not confirmed. This fact kind of puts me off from doing these tests because someone else (a confirmer) will have to do the same tests anyway. So what's the point for me to do the test?

However, let's say I give the results of my test to a trusted member, in the form of a screenshot if needed. Would they be allowed to confirm the figures in this case, without actually doing the test themselves?
Click to expand...

You can either become a trusted member yourself, or you can publish your findings somewhere, for example on EF or in the discussion tab or comments on Entropedia. The value can then be confirmed by a trusted member. For the guidelines for confirming see: http://www.entropiawiki.com/Page.aspx?page=General+guidelines+for+confirming+data


I believe Smoerble was asking about mob spawn densities ;)
Click to expand...

Ah yes I see :ahh:. Currently the same counts for mob density though. I guess a guideline would be something like:

Low: This spawn can not be effectively hunted.
Med: This spawn can be seriously hunted by few avatars simultaneously.
High: This spawn can be hunted by many avatars simultaneously.
 
Witte said:
You can either become a trusted member yourself, or you can publish your findings somewhere, for example on EF or in the discussion tab or comments on Entropedia. The value can then be confirmed by a trusted member. For the guidelines for confirming see: http://www.entropiawiki.com/Page.aspx?page=General+guidelines+for+confirming+data
Click to expand...

Ok, that sounds reasonable. I hadn't seen the last line on the page you posted :ahh:

Btw I sent a PM last week about becoming a trusted member but no reply so I guess I don't qualify :silly2:
 
IceCold3000 said:
Ok, that sounds reasonable. I hadn't seen the last line on the page you posted :ahh:

Btw I sent a PM last week about becoming a trusted member but no reply so I guess I don't qualify :silly2:
Click to expand...

Oops that pm slipped through, sorry :ahh:. I will check out if you are qualified and then add you :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top