I’m not sure what your point is here? Omicron is, to my understanding, replacing delta, which should be benefecial.
Not sure what reasons the Wall Street Journal gave (haven’t seen the article), but they’re probably right. Faster spread doesn’t change the total number of cases all that much v. slow spread but it does reduce the average number of sequential infections each lineage experiences before the disease burns out, thus the evolutionary distance possible for the disease to achieve.
My current analysis and results:
I noticed that the B/F/W combinations tended to be consistent when given to the same child multiple times, so looked at these first.
Assuming that noise is a summed contribution from both toys, then it looks like B usually contributes 6, with some discrepancies consistent with it sometimes contributing 12 instead.
F meanwhile always contributes 4, 8 or 16.
amd W contributes 5(only if F is 8 or 16), 9 (only if F is 4 or 8), 10 (only if F is 8), or 18 (seen with F=4).
Note: it is always possible to make such an attribution with 3 variables, regardless if it really is a sum, but it seems to have worked out in view of subsequent results.
Next, I looked at T, combinations with which seem to be inconsistent but not so as to suggest an age relationship. It looks like T is for some whos 5 or 10 (inconsistently) and for other 10 or 20 (inconsistently).
G and S vary usually from about 5-11 (Note—I wrote this before finding the numbers for the latest Whos!), with G dropping by 1 every 2nd year, and S rising by one every second year for any particular Who.
Comparing to actual recent results we can fill in expectations for how much noise our current Whos will make next year with different toys:
Who | B | F | G | S | T | W
1550 Andy Sue | 6 | 4 | 5 | 18 22 | 5 or 10 | 9
1551 Betty Drew | 6 | 16 | 11 | 10 |5 or 10 | 5
1552 Sally Sue | 6 | 16 | 6 | 10 | ? 5 or 10 | 5
1553 Phoebe Drew | 6 | 8 | 7 | 18 | ? 5 or 10 | 5
1554 Freddie Lou | ? 6 | 4 | 7 | 17 | 5 or 10 | 9
1555 Eddie Sue | 6 | 4 | 7 | 9 | ? | ? 9 or 18
1556 Cindy Drew | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | ? 5 or 10 | 10
1557 Mary Lou | ? 6 | 8 | 19 16 | 8 | 5 or 10 | ? 5
1558 Ollie Lou | ? | 8 | 8 or 9 | 7 | ? | 9
1559 Johnny Drew | 12 | 4 | ? | 7 | ? 5 or 10 | 9
And whoops, looks like something’s wrong since Andy Sue had a huge jump in noise from toy combos including Sloo-Slonkers between the ages of 3 and 4, looking like he enjoys S to the tune of 14 noise at age 4 and 16 at 7. Something’s also up with Phoebe Drew. But, I continued to project forwards in both cases to 18 at the current year anyway as if nothing is wrong.
Also something wrong with Mary Lou and Gah-Ginkas, again I press forward assuming it’s all OK.
While we have seen combos with Sally Sue, Phoebe Drew, Eddie Sue, Cindy Drew, Ollie Lou and johnny Drew involving Trum-Troopas, they’ve all had a 10 contribution from T, so we don’t know if they get 5⁄10 or 10⁄20 from them.
Now for the solutions:
we have 4B, 4F, 2G, 3S, 3T and 4W to distribute.
In order to try to maximize noise, I’ll distribute as follows:
1550 Andy Sue S + W
1551 Betty Drew F + G
1552 Sally Sue F + T
1553 Phoebe Drew F + S + T
1554 Freddie Lou B + S
1555 Eddie Sue F + T + W
1556 Cindy Drew F+ W
1557 Mary Lou B+ G
1558 Ollie Lou B+ W T
1559 Johnny Drew B+ W
In order to try to minimize noise, I’ll distribute as follows:
1550 Andy Sue F + G T
1551 Betty Drew B + W
1552 Sally Sue B + W
1553 Phoebe Drew B + W
1554 Freddie Lou F + T
1555 Eddie Sue F + G
1556 Cindy Drew B + S
1557 Mary Lou T + W
1558 Ollie Lou G + S + T
1559 Johnny Drew F + S
edit: in view of abstractapplic’s observations, we can fill in some of the ?’s in the chart, added in above. The information that a doubling is involved with the anomalies also changes how we project forward the high Gs or Ss. This also led me to reinterpret some results above, also I noticed I had accidentally projected upwards instead of down for G for Mary Lou. Whoops. Since we don’t know what Ollie Lou has doubled, I’ve now avoided giving him T when minimizing noise, even at the expense of a less optimal G allocation. Also fishing for more upside when maximizing noise.
Strategy thoughts at this point.
Like abstractapplic, I would recommend going for Crows until we get one (but I see that’s not allowed by Jemist, so I’ll refine below). So Scorchsands on week 6 and Thunderwood on weeks 7-15 if still hunting Crows.
However, I’ll recommend Electro Chainmail rather than Ground Greaves for Crow hunting. Electro Chainmail has only a single instance of coming home with nothing during Crow season, better than any other armor type, and was used in 2 crow kills, tied for the best of any armor type.
I was on the fence between Windrider Crossbow and Stormblade, but settled on Windrider, same choice as abstractapplic, for the reason that the Stormblade+Electro Chainmail combo has the single case of coming home with nothing during crow season while wearing Electro Chainmail (though this is probably a coincidence).
After Crow hunting, it’ll be time to hunt Raging Windriders which apparently don’t leave footprints (so the biologists foolishly think they’re super rare, and they’re also large so the Hunters will like them). They are found in Scorchsands and Miresmouth. Miresmouth has much less other monsters in spring, increasing the chance of getting Windriders (but also chances of duplicates).
Raging Windriders are most commonly caught when wearing Flaming Faulds or Icemail (though likely coincidence) and Icemail has fewer cases of coming home with nothing in the Windrider territories. So I suggest Icemail. Though, in spring specifically Icemail looks worse (likely coincidence). I also note that the single Poison weapon in the game, Toxicala Blowgun, has only failed once in it’s admittedly small 13 uses. It’s also never brought down a Bull-king/Sliding Queen/Crow, suggesting maybe it isn’t used in difficult circumstances (but has brought down a Raging Windrider, with Icemail). The single fail was in Thunderwood in the spring, suggesting it might have lost to a Crow.
So, for hunting Raging Windriders, I’ll use Toxicala Blowgun and Icemail, and do it Miresmouth for better chance of a Windrider. I’ll also do it in weeks 8-10 to line up with when Windriders have most commonly actually been caught in Miresmouth (in case of sub-seasonal migration).
I expect much further progress could be made by going through all the failed hunts and trying to assess the most likely causes of each one, then seeing what we can infer from this when compared with successes, and then reassessing the causes of the fails, etc. However, I have been finding little motivation to do it because it looks like a lot of work, and still would be uncertain due to low N.
So, recommendation (unless I change it in the likely short time until the answer is posted):
Week 6: Scorchsand Shores with Windrider Crossbow and Electro Chainmail
Week 7: Thunderwood Peaks with Windrider Crossbow and Electro Chainmail
Weeks 8-10: Miresmouth Forests with Toxicala Blowgun and Icemail
Weeks 11-15: Thunderwood Peaks with Windrider Crossbow and Electro Chainmail
I think there’s supposed to be an infinite amount of stock available. That is, the futures market administration lets any participant buy a full combination of all possibilities at the full reward value, and then they can sell off the ones they think are overpriced so a market hoarder can’t prevent such selling.
That being said, a manipulator may be hard to distinguish from someone with private information from the point of view of other participants, and I expect they would in fact influence the price.
Thanks, I could also use a bit extra time.
Overlay comparing with new cases from https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/south-africa/ (yellow line). I think I have reasonably accurate x-axis scaling, not sure about x-axis position. Y axis position and scaling is arbitrary (scaling based on preserving aspect ratio of original charts, position for easy visual comparison to line for total deaths).
For anyone looking for the latest D&DSci type problem, Jemist has recently posted one that hasn’t seemed to get a lot of attention yet.
Thanks for setting up this problem. Initial remarks from considering biology data only:
There is a clear seasonality with
Winter= weeks 46-6
The biologists do not check Miresmouth Forests in the Fall, do not check Scorchsand Shores in the Winter, do not check The Lordesteppes in the Summer, and do not check Thunderwood Peaks in the Spring. There is also Devil’s Maw which they can check year-round.
For all the species the biologists have seen tracks for, they are consistent either with being in one or more locations year-round or migrating between two locations, one in winter or summer and the other for the rest of the year. Note that the information can have gaps due to the seasonal non-checking mentioned above, so it might be that they really aren’t all in these patterns, but I’m going with consistency.
The species seen are:
Downhanger (98 total). Migratory. Devil’s Maw, wintering in Thunderwood Peaks.
Northern Badger (77 total). Non-Migratory. Scorchsand Shores and Thunderwood Peaks.
Earthmover (71 total). Devil’s maw, summering in Scorchsand Shores.
Dull viper (65 total). Miresmouth Forests.
Sandcrawler (53 total). Scorchsand Shores, wintering in Miresmouth Forests.
Flamu (53 total). Non-Migratory. Scorchsand Shores and The Lordesteppes.
Cold Parrot (47 total). The Lordesteppes, summering in Thunderwood Peaks.
Cassowarrior (46 total). Scorchsand Shores, summering in Miresmouth Forests. Edit: incorrectly first wrote wintering here instead of summering, caught the mistake after finding Hunter data inconsistent with what I had written.
Flying Storm (45 total). Miresmouth Forests, wintering in The Lordesteppes.
Wrathrope (41 total). Scorchsand Shores, wintering in Devil’s Maw.
Peaksnake (41 total). Thunderwood Peaks.
Macrophant (35 total). The Lordesteppes. Edit: migratory, summering in Miresmouth Forests. This was clear in the bio data but I somehow missed it when summing up and detected the omission from the Hunter data.
Puffdrake (33 total). Thunderwood Peaks, summering in Miresmouth Forests.
Thunderclap Wyvern (31 total). The Lordesteppes.
Rimewinder (25 total). The Lordesteppes, wintering in Devil’s Maw.
Toxicala (19 total). Thunderwood Peaks, summering in The Lordesteppes. I’m going on a limb on this one (since the Lordesteppes has no summer data, their tracks have only actually been seen in Thunderwood Peaks). But, they definitely are not found in Thunderwood Peaks in the Summer so for consistency with the assumed pattern I think they must be in the Lordesteppes at that time.
todo: check Hunter data for consistency with this, plus learn more from the hunter data.
The biologists have not seen tracks for: Sliding Queen Shash, Bull-King of Heaven, Raging Windrider, Crow That Breaks the Sky, despite these being included in their notes.
Followup comparing to Hunter data:
Unfortunately, the Hunter data also does not have any Toxicala hauls in the Summer, so the hypothesis that they summer in The Lordesteppes is neither confirmed nor refuted. All data seems consistent with what I should have wrote above (not necessarily with what I actually wrote pre-editing).
The Hunter data also has info on:
Bull-King of Heaven (Summer in Thunderwood Peaks, only 1 data point).
Crow That Breaks The Sky (Summer in The Lordesteppes, Spring in Thunderwood Peaks, Fall in Miresmouth Forests, Winter in Scorchsand Shores). Hmm. This is a familiar pattern—looks like the biologists’ “ancient rules” are avoiding this monster for some reason.
Raging Windrider (Scorchsand Shores and Miresmouth Forests).
Sliding Queen Shash (Fall in Devil’s Maw, 2 data points).
Some additional remarks:
The available diet data is compatible with the following rule:
Herbivores migrate in the summer, Carnivores migrate in the winter, Omnivores don’t migrate and live in multiple zones, Scavengers don’t migrate and live in a single zone. Hmm: to check—do omnivores really not migrate, or do they migrate at a higher frequency than the seasons? (edit: falsified: year 1 week 45 Flamu seen in both Scorchsands and the Lordesteppes.)
I’m somewhat bemused that the hunters want us to get bigger monsters, but the size data only comes from the biologists and is incomplete. The obvious thing would be to just ask the hunters, but I guess they have such contempt for us they will not even provide that information?
OK, but how does this evolve into a bacterium? Won’t it evolve into a local maximum of RNA enzyme replication efficiency and stay there?
Each person is ignorant between 2 possible states, but each is ignorant between the correct state and a different incorrect state.
We need to partition states so that some (minority) of states are “special” so that if anyone is ignorant as to whether the state is “special” they will guess they are not in the special state, and if they know it isn’t “special” they all stay silent. That way we will lose if the state is special, but will win if the state is not special but someone is ignorant about whether it is special. (What someone does if they know the state is special is not specified, but we’re doomed in this case anyway since others will guess wrong).
Ideally, we need it to be the case in all cases there will be at least one person who is ignorant as to whether the state is special, so that you go free unless the state is special. Then we want to make as there be as few as possible states that are special.
If we imagine the hat arrangements as vertices on a 4-dimensional hypercube, then we want each non-special vertex to be adjacent to at least one (and as few as possible) special vertices. So, the question is, what is the smallest number of special vertices we can use?
So I tried drawing this (with a pair of cubes to represent a hypercube) and it seems you need 4 special vertices (if you only have 3 there are two vertices that are not adjacent to any of them).
Let’s just start with
1) all white hats
being special. Then the other special states can be:
2) prisoner 1 has a white hat and all others have black hats
3) prisoner 2 has a white hat and all others have black hats
4) prisoner 3 and prisoner 4 have white hats and prisoner 1 and prisoner 2 have black hats
All other states are within 1 of at least one of these states, so if everyone follows the strategy, someone will always be ignorant as to whether we are in one of these special states, and we will win if we are not in these 4 states, which is a 75% chance of winning since there are 16 possible states.
With respect to the second question the answer will depend on the discount rate. I expect Solomonoff is assuming that we are in the limit of low discount rate, where exponential decay will look linear, so essentially you are minimizing the expected total number of attempts.
I haven’t done the math to confirm Somolonoff’s answer, but if you were to go to each box with probability equal to it being correct, then your expected number of attempts would be equal to the number of boxes, since each box would have an expected number of attempts conditional on it being the right box equal to the the inverse of its probability. So this is no better than choosing randomly. With this in mind it seems intuitive that some intermediate strategy, such as square roots, would then be better.
Thanks for making the scenario.
I found I was slow to start because it seemed a bit intimidating, as there was so many variables that were obviously going to confuse each other. (This was part of why I looked at Threat Level, since it was something I could actually solve). Once I got going, there was plenty to consider but not enough time, which is OK. Maybe some more obviously low-hanging fruit could help people get into it.
A minor formatting preference: if you would add a unique ID to each row, this would help identify a particular row in a way that is preserved through sorting of the data.
On my particular solution:
I didn’t realize I needed all three of Fighter, Ranger and Mage on Dragon. I should have looked at class combos on Dragon in more detail; that should have been discoverable. Meanwhile, the optimal choice on Goblin Warrens was (by sheer coincidence) going to be my second choice, but even if I had chosen it, I would still have been behind abstractapplic who got the proper Dragon combo as well as a good Goblin party. Congrats abstractapplic.
I explicitly contemplated the idea that cleric might restore resources, not from the data but from priors, but didn’t look into it (are Clerics good at easy-but-long dungeons would be one possible line of approach). I also would have eventually looked at the relative importance of different classes being high level if I had enough time.
My strategy and analysis:
As abstractapplic notes, parties are less likely to fail on earlier encounters. I can think of multiple possible reasons:
resource depletion. Fights can deplete a resource (or possibly there could be multiple resources) and the party gives up when it runs out of the/a resource.
depth-dependent difficulty. Each fight is an independent binary check, but at a difficulty that depends on the depth of that fight.
debuffs. Each fight can apply a debuff that reduces success chance on later fights. Importantly different from 1 in what you can deduce from failure rate on a particular fight.
incomplete data. It’s just too embarrassing to report to the guild that you turned back at the very beginning.
I’m proceeding assuming (1), but on a weak basis: it’s the a priori most likely (imo), things don’t immediately appear incompatible with this (without me having really checked), and the “Threat Level” stat seems most compatible with this. But I don’t really know!
If resource depletion (at least, single-resource) is an accurate model, losses to an encounter type should be fairly informative about the difficulty of an encounter type and what is strong against it, with at least these caveats:
later encounters should falsely appear harder due to resources have been depleted
classes that are better at earlier encounters in the same sort of dungeon that the later encounter is in will falsely appear stronger in the later encounter due to having higher resources entering the later encounters
I am keeping these points in mind but have not really done anything to actually deal with them in the analysis.
I’m also assuming things like only the encounters in the dungeon matter and not the name, order of party members doesn’t matter, etc.
edited to add: after posting this i did a brief check on the effect of levels and noticed two outliers where a high level party was defeated early:
Abandoned Dungeon of Azmar: Ranger 7 Druid 6 Fighter 6 Rogue 7 Snake Pit lich Lich (...etc, but defeated there)
Forgotten Temple of Stormwind: Ranger 4 Rogue 6 Fighter 5 Cleric 6 Basilisk Basilisk (...etc, but defeated there)
This makes me think a single-resource-depletion model is maybe less likely, and it might be a multiple-resource model (such that repeated encounters deplete the same resource), but I have no time to re-consider things.
The Goblin Warrens of Khaz-Gorond:
Goblins → Boulder Trap → Unknown x 8
Encounters 3-9 are 2⁄3 Goblins and 1⁄3 Boulder Trap, and the final encounter is 3⁄4 Goblin Chieftain and 1⁄4 Goblins
I confirm, but go a bit further. Dungeons with “Goblin” in the name all seem to have basically the same encounter generation, unless they have the “Night” prefix (in which case they can have Ghosts) or the “Mountain” prefix (in which case they can have Wolves). There are 118 Dungeons with “Goblin” in the name that have 9 or more encounters; all of these end with a Goblin Chieftain. Also, dungeons with “Goblin” in the name never have exactly 8 encounters, suggesting a discontinuity in the generation rules. Thus, the dungeon will end with a Goblin Chieftain (high confidence).
Threat Level: 3.95 (but beware potential bias regarding perceived difficulty of Goblins, reported by abstractapplic)
Goblins: Rangers are strongest.
Goblin Chieftain: Looks like a relatively hard encounter (but be aware of late dungeon bias). Fighter is strongest.
Boulder Trap: looks like a relatively easy encounter. Fighter is strongest.
Ranger and Fighter are obvious choices.
There are a decent number of very similar dungeons to this in the data. Restricting to dungeons with 7 or more total encounters including Goblins, Boulder Trap, Goblin Chieftain and no other encounters, there are 12 wins and 22 losses, maybe not enough to do accurate statistical analysis, but certainly enough for me to engage in my favourite pastime of overfitting to spurious patterns.
Looking at these particular dungeons, Rangers look incredibly strong, Mages look very bad, and Clerics look uncharacteristically meh (they are usually quite good). Going by strongest-looking to weakest-looking and selecting the top four different types, it looks like Ranger, Fighter, Druid, Rogue would be the strongest party.
However, going further down the overfitting-to-spurious-patterns rabbit hole, Druids and Rogues together have a terrible record (1-9) on these dungeons. Note, Druids and Rogues don’t seem to have particular antisynergy in general, so this is most likely completely spurious. However, double Ranger (2-1) looks better assuming the likely spurious patterns are real. Who to drop of Druid and Rogue?
Ranger+Rogue looks good, Fighter+Rogue not so much, Ranger+Druid and Fighter+Druid both OK, so Druid looks the safer choice.
All of this, to be clear, is far too low N to be of any reliable use. But I’m doing it anyway because, whatever, maybe there’s something there.
Another possibility would be Ranger+Fighter+ double Cleric, since both double Cleric parties won. But I’m sticking with double Ranger, Fighter, Druid.
Levels: see below.
The Lost Temple of Lemarchand:
Skeletons → Poison Needle Trap → Zombies → Snake Pit → Poison Needle Trap → Skeletons → Snake Pit → Ghosts
Threat Level: 4
None of these look like particularly tough fights.
Skeletons, Zombies, : Cleric looks best, followed by mage.
Ghosts: Cleric still looks best, but mages look about comparable to fighters in distant second place.
Note: Ghosts commonly occur in both physical and undead-oriented dungeons, while Skeletons and Zombies are more restricted to undead-themed dungeons. So, potential for different biases to creep in from parties being weakened by other fights in different dungeon types.
Poison Needle Trap: Rogues do best, as reported by abstractapplic and yonge.
Snake Pit: Druids do best, as reported by abstractapplic and yonge. Possibly notable: Fighters don’t look especially good here, despite Snake Pits commonly occuring in physical-oriented dungeons.
Obvious choice from just this info is Cleric+Mage+Rogue+Druid.
There isn’t a big pool of dungeons with this exact encounter combo to look at for my overfitting. Although undead-themed dungeons with Skeletons, Zombies and Ghosts are common, and they often have Poison Needle Traps, they don’t often have Snake Pits. In fact, dungeons with “Undead” in the name never have Snake Pits. However, Undead-themed dungeons without “Undead” in the name apparently have looser rules.
However, we can look at dungeons that have subsets of these encounters (with the understanding that the sample is low in Snake Pits).
Looking at this, Clerics, Mages and Rogues look good as expected, but next place is Fighter. Druids look quite bad.
If we look at synergies between these in this tiny data pool, all of Clerics, Mages and Rogues work well with each other, and while Druids still don’t look as good as Fighters, they do OK when paired with these. So, I speculate that druids are only bad for missing something we needed more and we probably have what we need with this party, and that therefore taking Druid to deal with Snake Traps is probably worth missing out on whatever Fighter is bringing us on other fights.
So: Cleric+Mage+Rogue+Druid (same as abstractapplic and Yonge)
Level: see below
The Infernal Den of Cheliax:
Orcs → Snake Pit → Wolves → Snake Pit → Unknown
The final encounter is a Dragon.
Threat Level: 4.5
Orcs: Fighters do best, then Clerics (as reported by Yonge).
Snake Pit: encounter is also in The Lost Temple of Lemarchand. Druids do best, as reported by abstractapplic and Yonge.
Wolves: Looks like an easy fight, but I expect this is largely because both Fighters and Druids do well against them, and since parties typically have 4 of the 6 classes the large majority of parties will have at least one Fighter or Druid. Fortunately, we are likely to want a Fighter for Orcs or a Druid for Snake Pits anyway.
Dragon: a very hard fight. No class looks to have a big advantage; Fighters, Rangers, Mages and Clerics all do comparably well/badly with Druids worse (by a bit) and Rogues worst.
There are few dungeons that are really close to this one, so only really looked at the individual fights.
If you look at parties with Fighters in them Rangers seem to do better against Dragons than Mages, so I am thinking: Fighter+Ranger+Druid+Cleric.
I have not analyzed the effect of levels. I will just slightly buff up the characters that seem the most important and on the dungeons I expect to be harder, and vice versa. I don’t know the effect of giving different characters much different levels and will avoid that to avoid possible danger.
Solution (unless I change it later):
The Lost Temple of Lemarchand (9,000gp):
The Infernal Den of Cheliax (14,000gp):
The Goblin Warrens of Khaz-Gorond (13,000gp):
Anyone who wants to know about “Threat level” can now find information in a separate comment.
You are at your local village’s Evil Overlords Club meeting. (Yes, Evil Overlording, or to be more precise, wanna-be Evil Overlording, is very popular in this civilization).
Several other club members have coincidentally also taken an interest in arranging for adventures, and some fruitful discussions have taken place (see other people’s comments for details).
One of the club members, however, reveals some further information:
“When I sent to get adventuring data from the guild” said your fellow club member, who you only know as simon, “the Evil Overlords liaison there showed my representative something he wasn’t supposed to see. It was only a moment, but that was enough—he got it with his Secret Encoder Ring. It was a list of adventure data, but with an additional column, for something called “Threat Level”.
“What,” you say, “the liaison didn’t show my representative that. I thought the liaison was supposed to show data to all Evil Overlords International member representatives equally.”
“Indeed. Which caused me some concern that it might strain relations if I used it. But, I wasn’t specifically told to throw it away. Now, the liaison said that this data, supposedly, “didn’t end up being used”, but even if it wasn’t “used”, it’s potentially of interest since it might be in some way related to dungeon difficulty or perception of difficulty—or someone’s perception of what someone else might perceive as the difficulty—or something. Anyway, this “Threat Level” column had numbers in it and I figured out a formula for the numbers. If you’re interested, keep listening.”
“So, what’s the formula?”
“Simple. It’s a sum of contributions from the individual encounters in the dungeon, minus 0.25.
Goblins = 0.325
Orcs=Skeletons=Zombies=Boulder Trap=Lever Puzzle Room=Riddle Door=Cursed Altar=Snake Pit=Poison Needle Trap=0.5
Goblin Chieftain=Wolves=Orc Shaman=Ghosts=0.75
“Yes, that does seem simple,” you say, “I assume that was pretty easy to figure out.”
“Uh...of course,” Evil Overlord simon responded, with a slightly pained look. “Not that it had to be easy… a lesser mind than myself might have proceeded from the assumption that there’s no 0.25 subtraction, and then, since the first entries when sorted by Threat Level each include exactly one physical trap (by which I mean Boulder Trap, Lever Puzzle Room, Snake Pit, or Poison Needle Trap), counted the physical traps as having 0.25. And then later, that lesser mind would have noticed that they needed to count extra physical traps beyond the first as having 0.5. And, if they had extended that as well to magic traps (by which I mean Riddle Door and Cursed Altar) everything would have worked out, since all dungeons have at least one trap of one sort or another. But, that lesser mind might have been tripped up by the fact that the first magical traps, when the dungeons are sorted by threat level, occur along with a physical trap—so the 0.25 subtraction is accounted for already—and before dungeons with two physical traps are encountered, so before they knew that traps after the first contributed 0.5 to the threat level. So it looks like magic traps are a straight 0.5 and different from physical traps. And since many later dungeons have some magical and no physical traps, the lesser mind would then get the wrong answer for those dungeons and add epicycles. And then become tied in knots trying to make the epicycles work, knowing something is wrong but expecting some simplification to become apparent when they just add enough epicycles, but not looking back to the very earliest assumptions. Of course, super-smart Evil Overlord that I am, avoided that easily.”
“That’s, um, a very specific pitfall. How did you avoid it.”
“Intuition,” Evil Overlord simon grimaced. “By the way,” he added, changing the subject. “there were some very tiny discrepancies that look like rounding errors. Like, on the order of 10 to the minus 16th or thereabouts. Anyway, I won’t be looking into those. I consider my duty to equalize the information properly discharged.”
OK, but you’ve added a new column for “Threat Level”, is that intended?
Thanks. Actually though, could you keep both versions available? Having some entries listed as “Unknown” makes it easier to check what a party actually fought—something I had been intending to extract from the “# of <x> Encounters” columns when I noticed the issue.
edit: thanks. comment was made before seeing aphyer’s comment on the corrected version being available and the edits to the post.
A potential issue with the dataset:
The listings for total number of encounters of the different types appear to include the actual encounters that are shown as “Unknown” in the main list of encounters. Is that intended?