Semi-Official list of Superlikelies

This is where you spade, shovel and sickle. Or is it reap?
User avatar
NardoLoopa
Market Manipulator
Posts: 1201
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:37 pm

Semi-Official list of Superlikelies

Post by NardoLoopa » Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:45 pm

Since Jick has spilled the beans on this (at least a little) I thought we should have a reference thread for the places you officially should layoff the +NC to get your quest-required NC.

Woods: Larva. Map parts are not Superlikelies.

Billiards Room -- Pool Cue.

Crypt: all boss encounters (but not the boss-killer item NCs)

Poop Deck: none (i.e. Swordfish is not)

Ballroom: The pipe organ adventure is one, whose conditional is a 75% rejection chance plus an instance of delay().

Oasis: All Superlikelies

NOTE: All BM adventures are SuperLikelies.

Feel free to add to the list and I'll update the OP.
Last edited by NardoLoopa on Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

BoL
Just Plain Old Pie
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:06 am

Re: Semi-Official list of Superlikelies

Post by BoL » Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:08 am

NardoLoopa wrote: Poop Deck: none (i.e. Swordfish is not)
I registered just to say this...

Fuck You Swordfish! All this time! How dare you not be a superlikely!...

Okay I'm done.

Hellion
Pie of the Sky
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Flatland

Post by Hellion » Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pm

Don't forget all the boss encounters in the Cyrpt.

User avatar
lostcalpolydude
Forum Maestro
Posts: 2940
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:54 pm

Post by lostcalpolydude » Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:45 pm

Hellion wrote:Don't forget all the boss encounters in the Cyrpt.

Floor, ceiling, delay(), superlikely, and contingent on another adventure all in one. Those must have been fun to code.
bmaher: Softcore character
lostcalpolydude: Hardcore character (abandoned)

DarthDud
Inscrutable Pi
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:41 am

Post by DarthDud » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:16 pm

Calling crypt bosses superlikely is misleading.

You should have two seperate parts: Superliklies (in sort of a traditional sense), and Scheduled Encounters. Much less confusing that way.

Hellion
Pie of the Sky
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Flatland

Post by Hellion » Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:34 pm

Drawing an artificial distinction between superlikelies based on their conditionals seems more misleading to me.

Especially since you're likely to try to lump FoB/ElDios encounters in with the "scheduled superlikelies" when they're two entirely different sets of critters.

DarthDud
Inscrutable Pi
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:41 am

Post by DarthDud » Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:12 am

Hellion wrote:Drawing an artificial distinction between superlikelies based on their conditionals seems more misleading to me.
Artificial distinction? You mean, like, the how one is completely random and the other is complete unrandom? :P

That's a good distinction to know!

User avatar
Flolle
Fie the Pie
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:13 am

Post by Flolle » Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:19 am

The encounters we are calling superlikelies are simply encounters which are not in the normal combat or noncombat lists and have certain conditions under which they would be rolled. These conditions can range from simple die rolls, to the presence of certain effects, to having to spent a certain number of turns in certain places, to numerous other things. Every time an area is visited, all superlikelies are checked in random order for whether they are rolled.

So yeah, I'm with Hellion on not differentiating between the various conditionals, with the only difference that I think we should stop calling them superlikelies in favour of a broader term, maybe along the lines of fixed encounter, with fixed meaning the fixed conditional.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Post by stupac2 » Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:14 am

I realize that they're the same mechanic, but from a player's perspective an encounter that occurs in a fixed number of turns is quite different from one that occurs with a flat probability, even if the fixed number is random and unknowable a priori. I think it makes sense to differentiate between the two.

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Sun Mar 01, 2009 12:04 pm

I'm with Hellion/Flolle. I'll call the barrr returns and Dr. Awkward superlikelies, because they are. (Well, in theory they could simply be hardcoded.)
Flolle wrote:Every time an area is visited, all superlikelies are checked in random order for whether they are rolled.
Wait what? Is that true?
stupac2 wrote:From a player's perspective an encounter that occurs in a fixed number of turns is quite different from one that occurs with a flat probability. [...] I think it makes sense to differentiate between the two.
Sure, it makes sense to talk about differences between purely random dice roll encounters vs scheduled encounters and stuff, but the superlikely mechanic isn't just a single one of those. Superlikely has a certain precise meaning, for other stuff we should use other terms.

User avatar
Flolle
Fie the Pie
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:13 am

Post by Flolle » Sun Mar 01, 2009 12:49 pm

Eleron wrote:Wait what? Is that true?
How else would you explain that areas with multiple fixed encounters have different orders of appearances of these fixed encounters?

To give an example of what I mean:
The Oasis has a couple of fixed encounters, namely the glug, glug, glug one, the stone rose one, and the ones that give the manual pages. The glug, glug, glug fixed encounter has a 100% chance to appear if you don't have the ultrahydrated effect, the other encounters are old-fashioned superlikelies with a 25% appearance rate plus the necessary encounters in the Desert/Oasis having been found.

Now, usually if you go to the Oasis without the ultrahydrated effect, you'll get the glug, glug, glug encounter, but sometimes, you'll find one of the other fixed encounters there, even though you don't have the ultrahydrated effect. This happens if one of those encounters was checked (and deemed to roll) before the glug, glug, glug encounter.

Of course, this could also happen if the the glug, glug, glug encounter was checked last every time, but I'd say that using the random order checking is more flexible in implementation over different areas. Also, this kinda seals the deal.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Post by stupac2 » Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:09 pm

Eleron wrote:Sure, it makes sense to talk about differences between purely random dice roll encounters vs scheduled encounters and stuff, but the superlikely mechanic isn't just a single one of those. Superlikely has a certain precise meaning, for other stuff we should use other terms.
Ok sure, that's how the word is used by the devs. But, and this is crucial, it's absolutely not how most players use it. My entire knowledge of these mechanics was gleaned from conversations/posts in AFH(k), and I could have never told you that all scheduled encounters were superlikelies, I never knew that until Jick's post. In fact, people had told me precisely the opposite, that scheduled encounters like the Encryption Key were not superlikelies.

So you have two groups of people who use the same word in similar yet semantically distinct ways. Whose usage is right? Neither, really, since words don't have fixed meanings. But I'd say that we should have some separate word for scheduled superlikelies versus probabilistic ones, since I'd argue that when most (non-dev) people say superlikely they mean the latter type (I know that was true for me).

What should it be? I don't know, I just think that "scheduled superlikely" and "probabilistic superlikely" are a bit long. Maybe we could call scheduled ones superlikelies and adopt Manny's "superannoying" for the probabilistic ones.

User avatar
lostcalpolydude
Forum Maestro
Posts: 2940
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:54 pm

Post by lostcalpolydude » Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:35 pm

O Cap'm, My Cap'm is pretty clearly a scheduled encounter, right? And Jick says the Poop Deck has no superlikelies. So, what's missing here? Is this a misuse of terminology along the lines, are separate categories actually relevant?
bmaher: Softcore character
lostcalpolydude: Hardcore character (abandoned)

User avatar
Flolle
Fie the Pie
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:13 am

Post by Flolle » Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:51 pm

Probably just a hardcoded noncombat, just like the Quartet in the Ballroom.

User avatar
lostcalpolydude
Forum Maestro
Posts: 2940
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:54 pm

Post by lostcalpolydude » Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:54 pm

So, hardcoded adventures are yet another category, separate from superlikelies and regular encounters?
bmaher: Softcore character
lostcalpolydude: Hardcore character (abandoned)

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:15 pm

Since not everyone knows how the game encounters are structured, I'm hacking together a graph that shows how some things work. Based on feedback in /clan, I think this could be quite helpful, and at least explain why the term "superlikely" has exactly one specific meaning to spades. Meh, the program died so I'll just go with the simple one I already made:

Image

There are three different types of adventures: combats, non-combats and superlikelies. (There are also some hard-coded things that can happen instead of these encounters, such as drunken stupor, being sent back to toot oriole or the knob lab key.)

These three types are the fundamental encounter types found in the game. First the zone's superlikelies are all checked, one by one. If one of them isn't rejected by the attached conditionals, that superlikely will occur.

Otherwise, a random roll is made for whether it should be a combat or noncombat, based on the zone's combat frequency and any combat frequency modifiers. As an example, if noncombat is selected, a noncombat from the zone will randomly be chosen. These noncombats can also have individual conditions attached to them, and additionally they can also be rejected based on "the queue". If a noncombat is rejected, the game goes back to selecting noncombats again, otherwise the player receives the chosen noncombat.

"Delayed" and "scheduled" encounters simply mean that the encounters have conditions that are based on how many adventures have been spent in the zone so far. This can apply to combats, non-combats and superlikelies. The special thing about superlikelies is that they occur independently of combat frequency, and are always checked first before any "normal" encounters can happen.

Talking about the conditions for different encounters is certainly very interesting, but "conditional noncombats" and "superlikelies" are very different things (even if telling them apart can be difficult). Talking about "delayed", "scheduled" etc. make sense when talking about *all* encounter types.
Last edited by Eleron on Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
desatysso
Inscrutable Pi
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:37 am

Post by desatysso » Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:28 pm

lostcalpolydude wrote:So, hardcoded adventures are yet another category, separate from superlikelies and regular encounters?
I believe that O Cap'm and the Strung Up Quartet are both "normal" noncombats, except that they become unavailable for a set number of turns after you encounter them, just like delayed() noncombats are "normal" noncombats that are simply unavailable until you have expired delay().

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:14 pm

HARD-CODED:
(These are very very special things that could do absolutely anything. Any adventure of the other types could in theory just have been hard-coded as well, but there's no reason to think that.)
Lab key: hard-coded, not an adventure
Rat faucet: hard-coded, not an adventure, might be reshuffled, special (well, all tavern tiles are special, but some even more than others :))
Hidden city special tiles: hard-coded

COMBATS:
(These only appear if a combat is chosen based on the combat frequency)
Adding machine: combat, based on zone turn counter
Drab bard: combat, normal
Boss bat: combat, based on counter
Lobsterfrogman: combat, probably normal

NONCOMBATS:
(These only appear if a noncombat is chosen based on the combat frequency)
Hobo marketplace: noncombat, based on counter
Strung-up quartet: noncombat, based on counter
O Cap'm: noncombat, based on zone turn counter
Beware...: probably noncombat based on flag and zone turn counter
Swordfish: probably noncombat based on flag and zone turn counter
Hippo ballet: noncombat, normal
Friars, 3 items: probably noncombats based on zone turn counter
Crypt combat items: noncombats
Immateria and S.O.C.K.: probably noncombats based on counter
Bedroom things: noncombats, possibly based on zone turn counter
Pyramid wheel turning: probably noncombats based on flags
Sonofa beach stuff: probably mostly noncombats possibly based on stuff

SUPERLIKELIES:
(These are always checked first, before the combat/noncombat roll is done)
Encryption key: superlikely, based on zone turn counter and not having found it already
Manor unlock: superlikely, based on zone turn counter and not having found it already
Mosquito: superlikely, 25% chance and not having found it already
Pirate fledges: superlikely, after using the 3 items and not having found it already
Worm wood stuff: probably superlikelies based on counter and flag
Matilda: superlikely based on global turn counter
Crypt bosses: superlikely, based on zone turn counter, global turn counter and flag
Organ of steel, 3 items: superlikelies, based on zone turn counter
Organ of steel, follow demon: superlikely, based on global turn counter
Clearing rocks to the goatlet: superlikely, based on flag
Barrr captain returns: superlikelies, based on having the items
Insult beer pong: superlikely, based on counter and flag
Bronze breastplate: probably superlikely based on counter
Palindome items: superlikelies, based on chance and not having found them already
Dr. Awkward: superlikely, based on equipment and flag
Ultrahydrated: superlikely, based on buffs
Stone rose and pages: superlikelies, based on chance and not having found them already
Gnomes in desert: probably superlikelies based on chance, flags and items
Carved wooden wheel: probably superlikely based on flag
Defowl the farm: probably superlikelies based on zone turn counter
Last edited by Eleron on Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:01 am, edited 8 times in total.

User avatar
Flolle
Fie the Pie
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:13 am

Post by Flolle » Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:19 pm

Nice chart (it looks suspiciously like an UML model ;)), but your choice of example noncombats may not be that good. The first Three-tined fork you encounter is an old-fashioned superlikely (1/4 chance), all Three-tined forks after it are normal noncombats.

desatysso wrote:I believe that O Cap'm and the Strung Up Quartet are both "normal" noncombats, except that they become unavailable for a set number of turns after you encounter them, just like delayed() noncombats are "normal" noncombats that are simply unavailable until you have expired delay().
Hmm, interesting way to look at it. So the Quartet may very well have been basically the prototype for delay()! Now I like that noncombat much less ... :O

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:22 pm

Flolle wrote:Nice chart (it looks suspiciously like an UML model ;)), but your choice of example noncombats may not be that good. The first Three-tined fork you encounter is an old-fashioned superlikely (1/4 chance), all Three-tined forks after it are normal noncombats.
Yeah I agree that fork isn't a good example. I even dropped it from the list I just posted after trying to write a bit about it, since it's just weird :)
(And all I know about it is hearsay.)
Last edited by Eleron on Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
desatysso
Inscrutable Pi
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:37 am

Post by desatysso » Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:23 pm

Flolle wrote:Hmm, interesting way to look at it. So the Quartet may very well have been basically the prototype for delay()! Now I like that noncombat much less ... :O
Delay() is a lot less annoying now that it's public.

User avatar
Flolle
Fie the Pie
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:13 am

Post by Flolle » Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:39 pm

Eleron wrote:Yeah I agree that fork isn't a good example. I even dropped it from the list I just posted after trying to write a bit about it, since it's just weird :)
(And all I know about it is hearsay.)
No need for hearsay.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Post by stupac2 » Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:21 pm

Man, that guy has a cool forum title, and he only did five more shows than I've done. I want a cool forum title!

Also, umm, how 'bout them superlikelies? We might want to link Eleron's post from one/some wiki page(s), unless that information is already conveyed somewhere and I've missed it.

Hellion
Pie of the Sky
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Flatland

Post by Hellion » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:57 pm

Flolle wrote:Probably just a hardcoded noncombat, just like the Quartet in the Ballroom.
I don't know what you mean by a "hardcoded" adventure, but the Quartet is a regular noncombat.

The only thing that I can think of that might qualify as "hard-coded" is the Lab Key and perhaps the contents of the various mines, pre-quest tavern, and barrels.

Also, Jick was absolutely correct to say that there are no superlikelies in the Poop Deck. Just in case any of you were really doubting him.

Just to add a little more grist to the mill, there is a difference between a Scheduled Encounter (of which there are currently, I believe, 2 types: FoB/EDDlMB and Semi-rares, and which should probably be considered a 4th adventure type) and a Superlikely adventure that occurs at a scheduled time.

User avatar
Flolle
Fie the Pie
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:13 am

Post by Flolle » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:14 pm

Hellion wrote:I don't know what you mean by a "hardcoded" adventure, but the Quartet is a regular noncombat.
I know that it's a normal noncombat, it was shown that it was affected by the queue, which made this obvious.

But, if you encounter the Quartet, it cannot appear for the next 19 turns. I believe at the time it was the only encounter that had such a mechanic, which is why, at the time, people (or was it just me? >.>) assumed it had this behaviour "hardcoded" in. If this assumption is wrong then I'll refrain from calling it that in the future, but it doesn't really change what that encounter is (normal noncombat, cannot be rolled for 19 turns after having be seen).

Hellion
Pie of the Sky
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Flatland

Post by Hellion » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:00 pm

Ah, I see.

That's what I'd call a regular non-combat with a conditional.

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:55 pm

Hellion wrote:Just to add a little more grist to the mill, there is a difference between a Scheduled Encounter (of which there are currently, I believe, 2 types: FoB/EDDlMB and Semi-rares, and which should probably be considered a 4th adventure type) and a Superlikely adventure that occurs at a scheduled time.
Really? My initial reaction is to not consider those as normal encounters. Are semirares really normal adventures for the zone, just with their own completely separate mechanics to select them?

I find it kind of strange since I'm relatively certain there's special code in adventure.php for both of those outside of what I'd call the "encounter handling code". (Which I'm sure is much messier than I imagine though :P) But if they really are normal adventures that are listed for the zone in the same way as normal encounters, I agree that they should be included. I can't really verify that though, I think, but are you leaking it? :D

I can't see FoB etc as an encounter type though, they're more like gong returns. Am I missing something?

Assuming that they're actually both the same type of "scheduled encounter" beasts, I don't think I'd consider that an adventure type. Semi-rares are tricky though, is it really just one mechanic for both of these?

I think you're talking about the game instead of underlying mechanics now - AFAIK there's no such thing as a superlikely that occurs at a scheduled time. There is only Zuul (conditionals) :)

Antipasta
AFH
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:24 pm

Post by Antipasta » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:36 am

Hellion wrote:Also, Jick was absolutely correct to say that there are no superlikelies in the Poop Deck. Just in case any of you were really doubting him.
After this thread, I can't tell what "superlikely" means anymore; I mostly thought of it as a noncombat that wasn't affected by plus/minus combat frequency skills.

So is the implication here that you should use +noncombat on the poop deck? It never seemed like it mattered. Is there some loophole meaning to "no superlikelies" that makes swordfish not a superlikely, but nonetheless not affected by combat frequency skills?

lordhades15
Fie the Pie
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:02 am
Location: Kent, OH

Post by lordhades15 » Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:38 am

The Poop Deck noncombats are definitely noncombats, affected by the +/- combat modifiers.
j12601 wrote: Turns are now sub-optimal. It is a brand new fucking day.

salien
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:50 pm

Post by salien » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:26 pm

Eleron wrote:
Hellion wrote:Just to add a little more grist to the mill, there is a difference between a Scheduled Encounter (of which there are currently, I believe, 2 types: FoB/EDDlMB and Semi-rares, and which should probably be considered a 4th adventure type) and a Superlikely adventure that occurs at a scheduled time.
Really? My initial reaction is to not consider those as normal encounters. Are semirares really normal adventures for the zone, just with their own completely separate mechanics to select them?

I find it kind of strange since I'm relatively certain there's special code in adventure.php for both of those outside of what I'd call the "encounter handling code". (Which I'm sure is much messier than I imagine though :P) But if they really are normal adventures that are listed for the zone in the same way as normal encounters, I agree that they should be included. I can't really verify that though, I think, but are you leaking it? :D

I can't see FoB etc as an encounter type though, they're more like gong returns. Am I missing something?

Assuming that they're actually both the same type of "scheduled encounter" beasts, I don't think I'd consider that an adventure type. Semi-rares are tricky though, is it really just one mechanic for both of these?

I think you're talking about the game instead of underlying mechanics now - AFAIK there's no such thing as a superlikely that occurs at a scheduled time. There is only Zuul (conditionals) :)
I feel you may be splitting hairs unnecessarily here; if a superlikely's condition is '0% before X turns spent here, 100% after', is there really any harm in referring to that as a scheduled superlikely? Perhaps the useful distinction is between superlikelies whose conditions change, and those which don't. The 'classic' superlikelies are the ones whose conditional is always just X% chance of rejection, whereas scheduled, floored, triggered, etc. superlikelies are the ones people generally aren't bothered about, beyond wanting to know their schedule/trigger/etc and plan accordingly. (The classic ones, with just a flat unchanging rejection rate, even knowing it you can't do any kind of planning around it really, which is why they're disliked.)

As for semirares being normal adventures, I don't think that was implied at all; they're certainly not affected by the combat/noncombat die roll. There's probably no practical difference between FoB/semirare adventures and superlikelies except the order they're checked in; if superlikelies are all checked in random order, then these would differ in always either coming before or after superlikely checks. Most likely after for semirares, due to numerous reports of losing a semirare to a BM adventure, and before for FoB since they can override all sorts of things, possibly including semirares. Regardless of the particular ordering, that's the only practical difference between these adventures and superlikelies; either way the most important point is they simply have conditions and are checked before the die roll, it's just that the conditions on semirares and FoB always happen to be 'is it turn X?'.

So, it would seem the sensible category breakdown for both spades and players would be: superlikelies, noncombats, and combats, with superlikelies split into "classic" (unchanging random conditionals, flat X% reject chance) and "other" (conditionals Y turns, triggers, scheduled for turn Z, etc. which really need to be dealt with case-by-case, since you can do practically anything with them), and noncombats and combats also both further split into unconditional (everything normal) and conditional (anything targetted by delay(), ballroom song, poop deck sailing, possibly the non-map hidden temple items since it seems you can only get them after the map, etc.). For purposes of determining the adventure you receive, there's really no distionction between noncombats and combats, beyond which way the combat modifiers affect the die roll, and which queue you're dealing with.

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:53 pm

salien wrote:I feel you may be splitting hairs unnecessarily here; [...] is there really any harm in [being inaccurate to greatly aid understanding and discourse]
There's no real harm to that when talking about the metagame. People might get a false impression regarding what the mechanics underlying the game really are, but as long as it's not being misrepresented there's no problem.

However, when talking about these underlying game mechanics in themselves instead of where they're used in the game, you really do need the accuracy.

When talking about playing the game, you might say that you discover the rest of the manor when looking around in the pantry. For the metagame, you want to know how to handle it: that what's required is to spend enough time there, and how to meet this requirement in the best way. As part of the game design, it gives access to new zones by spending some turns there. In the actual game artifact it's a superlikely with conditionals checking that it hasn't already triggered and whether the counter for number of adventures spent in the area has reached a per-ascension preset target value.

These aspects are naturally informed by each other, but when determining mechanics the goal is to match how it actually works. Does the manor unlock superlikely check a flag for whether the zone is already unlocked or whether the superlikely adventure has already been found? Do two separate flags exist? It doesn't make any difference for playing the game or the metagame, but I'd like to know. That's not the same thing as determining that +nc doesn't make it go faster.

"Scheduled" encounters and superlikelies are mechanically different, and that's why it makes sense to discuss them at that level. If you instead discuss other things like e.g. which content is funnier, I fully agree that it makes no sense at all to talk about the mechanical differences. It seems rather pertinent when specifically setting out to differentiate between them though.

Hellion
Pie of the Sky
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Flatland

Post by Hellion » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:02 pm

Antipasta wrote: After this thread, I can't tell what "superlikely" means anymore; I mostly thought of it as a noncombat that wasn't affected by plus/minus combat frequency skills.
A Superlikely is a class of adventure that has conditions attached to its appearance. EVERY superlikely's conditions are checked EVERY SINGLE TIME you spend an adventure in the relevant zone, prior to (almost) anything else, and if the conditions are met, the superlikely will appear. (The only technical caveat here is that if you qualify for more than one superlikely at the same time, obviously only the one will be displayed; which one wins out is chosen randomly.)
If no superlikely's conditions are met, you then proceed to the "standard" process of rolling for combat vs. noncombat, checking the queue, etc.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Post by stupac2 » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Hellion wrote:A Superlikely is a class of adventure that has conditions attached to its appearance. EVERY superlikely's conditions are checked EVERY SINGLE TIME you spend an adventure in the relevant zone, prior to (almost) anything else, and if the conditions are met, the superlikely will appear. (The only technical caveat here is that if you qualify for more than one superlikely at the same time, obviously only the one will be displayed; which one wins out is chosen randomly.)
If no superlikely's conditions are met, you then proceed to the "standard" process of rolling for combat vs. noncombat, checking the queue, etc.
I have a tough time distinguishing this definition from noncombats like the ballroom song. My guess here is that the difference is that things like the ballroom song aren't checked EVERY time. I might be wrong. But, for illustrative purposes, what's the difference between them? Also, how about swordfish, which obviously has some conditional on it. Is it just the order of the die rolls?

User avatar
desatysso
Inscrutable Pi
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:37 am

Post by desatysso » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:50 pm

stupac2 wrote:I have a tough time distinguishing this definition from noncombats like the ballroom song. My guess here is that the difference is that things like the ballroom song aren't checked EVERY time. I might be wrong. But, for illustrative purposes, what's the difference between them? Also, how about swordfish, which obviously has some conditional on it. Is it just the order of the die rolls?
The difference is that superlikelies are lumped into a "pre-adventure" check, and the ballroom and Swordfish aren't.

When you adventure, first the game checks all the superlikely conditionals, and if one happens, that's it. After that, it rolls combat chance, and then (assuming noncombat is rolled) checks to see which noncombat. If the noncombat rolled is one with conditionals that aren't true yet, a new noncombat is rolled until the game either finds a valid noncombat or has rejected all noncombats in the zone (at which point it aborts to a combat). [This is largely conjecture, based on this thread and the one about the Middle Chamber bug from a while back].

The Middle Chamber bug from a while back was caused because the game was checking the raw number of rejected noncombats rather than the number of distinct rejected noncombats; the no-longer-valid "place the wooden wheel" adventure would get rejected twice and the game would say "I've rejected two noncombats, time to abort to combat" instead of continuing to roll a noncombat until it reached the "I've already placed the wheel, let's just turn it" noncombat like it should have.

kevbob
Spy vs. Pie
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:32 am

Post by kevbob » Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:54 pm

didn't hellion post a flowchart of adventure.php either on this forum or the hco one?

if the code has signifigantly changed since then, and i don't know when delay() came about so it quite possibly has, someone should break out that flowchart and reformat it.

i'd been advocating striking "superlikely" from the vocab since ns11. i think agreed upon terms makes sense for information exchange.

Hellion
Pie of the Sky
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Flatland

Post by Hellion » Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:48 pm

I don't know if it was me that posted it but I'm pretty sure there's one floating around.

And stupac2, desatysso has it right.

Let me give an example: in the ballroom, the adventure to open the Cellar is a superlikely with 3 conditions on it, whereas the Quartet is a regular non-combat with a single condition on it.
This means that EVERY SINGLE TIME you adventure in the ballroom, the Open-the-Cellar's conditions are checked (is the cellar still closed, have you read the diary, and have you spent enough turns here). Every time those checks fail, the game then rolls for Combat/Noncombat. If you roll a combat, you then select a combat from the list of possible combats. The conditions on the Quartet are NEVER CONSIDERED in this case. And even if you do roll a non-combat, the game could still select the Organ Choice and present it to you without ever looking at the Quartet's condition.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Post by stupac2 » Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:59 pm

Hellion wrote:I don't know if it was me that posted it but I'm pretty sure there's one floating around.

And stupac2, desatysso has it right.

Let me give an example: in the ballroom, the adventure to open the Cellar is a superlikely with 3 conditions on it, whereas the Quartet is a regular non-combat with a single condition on it.
This means that EVERY SINGLE TIME you adventure in the ballroom, the Open-the-Cellar's conditions are checked (is the cellar still closed, have you read the diary, and have you spent enough turns here). Every time those checks fail, the game then rolls for Combat/Noncombat. If you roll a combat, you then select a combat from the list of possible combats. The conditions on the Quartet are NEVER CONSIDERED in this case. And even if you do roll a non-combat, the game could still select the Organ Choice and present it to you without ever looking at the Quartet's condition.
Ok, that's what I thought. One more question though, are there any superlikelies that respond at all to +/-combat?

Also, can we a definite list of superlikelies? And a pony?

User avatar
desatysso
Inscrutable Pi
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:37 am

Post by desatysso » Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:19 pm

stupac2 wrote:Also, can we a definite list of superlikelies? And a pony?
Isn't the first post a definite list of superlikelies? I mean, Jick may have missed one accidentally, but I don't think he left any out on purpose.

Oxbarn
Just Plain Old Pie
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 9:55 pm

Post by Oxbarn » Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:29 pm

desatysso wrote:The difference is that superlikelies are lumped into a "pre-adventure" check, and the ballroom and Swordfish aren't.
Hellion wrote:A Superlikely is a class of adventure that has conditions attached to its appearance.
I think the problem with these definition, accurate though they may be, is that they're kind of useless in practice -- I don't care what order the game does stuff in internally, nor what code is executing when I hit the ballroom at level 8, and I'd rather not have to think about it more than necessary. Also a definition based on internal game code is unspadable. Also also, when "conditions attached to its appearance" can include stuff like "75% rejection rate", it's hard to see how superlikelies differ from ordinary probabilistic adventures. Not impossible, but hard.

I'd rather think of a superlikely as any zone-bound adventure, excluding semi-rares, whose frequency can never be influenced by normal means.

(I say "zone-bound" to exclude stuff like tofurkeys and banana peels. "Normal means" include +/- combat and stuff like Olfaction / Creepy Grin. I say "never" because delay()ed adventures temporarily fit this criterion but are not all superlikelies. The definition may or may not include ultra-rares and battlefield heroes, depending on whether sniffing other monsters in the zone reduces their frequency.)

Does this definition match the one the admins use? That is, does it pick out the same set of adventures?

User avatar
lostcalpolydude
Forum Maestro
Posts: 2940
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:54 pm

Post by lostcalpolydude » Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:35 pm

Following the pencilnecked demon is missing from the initial post. Either it is a superlikely (in which case it should be added to the original post), or it is a noncombat with conditions on it (in which case, maybe running +combat there the whole time is a bad idea if you want organ). Or I'm still not getting something about the definition, which is totally possible at this point.
bmaher: Softcore character
lostcalpolydude: Hardcore character (abandoned)

Oxbarn
Just Plain Old Pie
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 9:55 pm

Post by Oxbarn » Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:41 pm

desatysso wrote:Isn't the first post a definite list of superlikelies? I mean, Jick may have missed one accidentally, but I don't think he left any out on purpose.
If you check Jick's original post, he says "Let's look at your examples from the first post" and only responds to the few specific zones stupac mentioned.

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:00 am

Oxbarn wrote:[Arbitrary definition for what you'd personally prefer to think of superlikelies as being]

Does this definition match the one the admins use? That is, does it pick out the same set of adventures?
It's rather close to the definition of superlikely, but it's not the same thing. When they say superlikely, they mean an adventure using the superlikely mechanic. Come on. Let me quote Jick's post verbatim:
Jick wrote:I'm gonna say this again, because I can't remember where I said it the first time. The "We hate superlikelies" complaint is really frustrating to me, because I think that by and large it's born of a misunderstanding of what's actually happening.

You guys think of a superlikely as an encounter that has a fixed chance of occuring, independent of the adventure chance of a zone and anything the player has that modifies it. And while this used to be the case, there are almost none of these left. Certainly nowhere near as many as you think.

What superlikely means now is "A noncombat whose conditional is checked every time you adventure in a zone, whether it rolls for a noncombat or not." If a zone had five monsters, five noncombats, and a single superlikely with no conditional on it, you'd get the superlikely every time you adventured there, no matter what the zone's noncombat rate is. A superlikely is currently our only tool for making a noncombat more likely to show up than the zone's overall noncombat rate allows for.
Superlikelies are a third type that are handled in a different way than noncombats, using their own mechanic. That's what they *are*. Whether Jick adds a condition to one that's affected by what you very vaguely refers to as "normal means" has no bearing on whether it's a superlikely or not. And we don't even know where he's already done that.

Basically, many "diamonds" don't care about how the game works as long as they can figure out enough to metagame it. I have no idea why you think "spades" should pretend to be ignorant of game mechanics to please "diamonds" on that subject. It's like claiming that flyering the GMoB is optimal as a muscle class, based on it being "optimal for my personal enjoyment, for my playing style". Calling that optimal is not true in any meaningful sense. If people use another word than optimal for the GMoB and another word than superlikely for "adventure that sucks", we'd all be happier. Including Jick, even.

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:25 am

stupac2 wrote:Also, can we a definite list of superlikelies? And a pony?
What, handed to us by the admins / devs? Maybe even with the conditions included? Uhhh, that would certainly be nice to have, but not sure why they would do that? Now, narrative content pointing to what the conditions are for all conditional adventures, that would be supersweet. An indicator that shows whether an adventure is based on monster attraction or not would be nice, since that's a narrative difference.
lostcalpolydude wrote:Following the pencilnecked demon is missing from the initial post.
Following the demon and picking up the 3 items for the organ of steel are superlikelies (based on counters), added it to my post.
(Or hardcoded since something that's hardcoded could also behave exactly like any non-hardcoded adventure of any type, but there's no reason to believe that.)
Last edited by Eleron on Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hellion
Pie of the Sky
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Flatland

Post by Hellion » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:29 am

Just to nitpick, the part of my post that Oxbarn quoted was not intended as the full definition of a superlikely; the next sentence was supposed to be part of the definition as well. (Which makes my definition basically the same as Jick's, oddly enough.)

Oxbarn
Just Plain Old Pie
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 9:55 pm

Post by Oxbarn » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:47 am

"Normal means" are anything that can influence the frequency of a plain vanilla adventure. Musk, olfaction, the queue, etc.

And you've totally lost me with the optimality analogy. Obviously we both know what superlikelies are now, and neither of us knows what they'll be in the future -- Jick's definition could change again as the codebase grows. So I'm not speculating beyond the current state of the game.

My question is, if I think of superlikelies as
any zone-bound adventure, excluding semi-rares, whose frequency can never be influenced by normal means
and you think of them as
First the zone's superlikelies are all checked, one by one. If one of them isn't rejected by the attached conditionals, that superlikely will occur.
are we thinking of the same adventures? Or is the problem that you just don't know yet? I ask because the first concept is quite important to diamonds, and if it covers exactly the same adventures that spades and admins think of as "superlikely", then that certainly seems like the word we ought to use for them, doesn't it?

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:55 am

Hellion wrote:Just to nitpick, the part of my post that Oxbarn quoted was not intended as the full definition of a superlikely; the next sentence was supposed to be part of the definition as well. (Which makes my definition basically the same as Jick's, oddly enough.)
I can interpret your statement: You said that superlikely is one of the big classes of adventures. These superlikelies have conditions. Superlikelies are evaluated every time you choose an adventure for the zone, so the conditions are always checked.

<joke>However, this is an evil lie, perpetuated by the devs in an attempt to suppress the playing masses!!!! We demand equality for superlikelies, without always having prohibitive conditions attached, as if that's an absolute necessity! Just because it would block any further progress in the zone by always happening instead of anything else is no reason to discriminate against the superlikely adventure class! That's adventureclassism! :wink:</joke>

Seriously though, do you agree with / can you repeat this statement: "When talking about superlikelies, TPTB and the devs mean adventures that use the superlikely game mechanic, nothing less and nothing more. To make it explicitly clear, this classification is only based on the underlying game mechanic, not how a metagaming player should optimize adventuring or whether it's possible to optimize at all." =)
Oxbarn wrote:My question is, if I think of superlikelies as [a] and you think of them as , are we thinking of the same adventures? Or is the problem that you just don't know yet?

We don't know if the adventures you happen to think of are exactly the same as those using the superlikely mechanic. It is absolutely crystal clear that it would be trivial for Jick to make superlikelies that don't fit your definition, but it's not certain whether any of the superlikelies in the game actually do so at the moment, since the frequency-related conditions are mostly unknown. I don't personally think there are any that couldn't be said to fit your definition, but I'm not sure. (And not knowing the condition for your own particular run is the bit that makes metagaming them suck btw, not the fact that they're superlikely.)

The important difference between superlikelies and noncombats is *how* they're rolled for, not whether smooth movements has any effect. Just change "influenced by the usual stuff, sometimes" to "determined using normal means" and you've got it.

Oxbarn wrote:I ask because the first concept is quite important to diamonds, and if it covers exactly the same adventures that spades and admins think of as "superlikely", then that certainly seems like the word we ought to use for them, doesn't it?

More importantly though, your definition covers more than you think. When "diamonds" (not necessarily you in particular) talk about frequency stuff, they don't consider getting the pirate fledges as a superlikely, since it's not very meaningful to attach a frequency to that, maybe not even the organ of steel. Frequency really isn't a useful classifier for most superlikelies, which is the problem.

The ones some "diamonds" have talked about are really conditional adventures, which may or may not actually be superlikelies.

BTW, if you want to define by exclusion, you just have to change your definition to be "any normal zone-bound adventure that's not a combat or noncombat", and you'd trivially have the correct superlikely definition, given that you define normal adventure as just those three types (which is reasonable). It's a bit silly, but it's obviously true and accurate.

What you want to know is whether you should run +NC or not though. That decision cannot be taken purely based on whether it's a superlikely or a noncombat - you need to know about any attached conditionals etc. It really is more complicated than a "yes, always do it/no, never do it" thing, which makes me happy. There are some interesting decision to be made here. What makes me severely unhappy is the fact that the correct answer cannot currently be determined for a particular run without being a dev, even in theory, which is just absolutely awful. That's because of the conditionals used though, not at all because they're superlikely.
Last edited by Eleron on Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Post by stupac2 » Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:11 am

Eleron wrote:
stupac2 wrote:Also, can we a definite list of superlikelies? And a pony?
What, handed to us by the admins / devs? Maybe even with the conditions included? Uhhh, that would certainly be nice to have, but not sure why they would do that? Now, narrative content pointing to what the conditions are for all conditional adventures, that would be supersweet. An indicator that shows whether an adventure is based on monster attraction or not would be nice, since that's a narrative difference.
Yeah hence my "and a pony" part. We're not going to get a real list, just like we're not going to get what you want either (seriously, how long has Jick been saying delay() is on the way out? Count me in the "skeptical" column). As long as the ideal (content) is indefinitely postponed, I'd rather know where my skills are useless.

So as long as we can't know which adventures are superlikelies without the devs telling us count me in oxbarn's camp, among those who don't give two craps how the devs use the word "superlikely" if they won't tell us or if it doesn't actually affect how I play the game. If that's not pedantic enough for you, well tough crap!

(Note that I'm not saying I'd misuse the word superlikely, just that I don't care about its technical definition if it in no way affects me, similarly to how I don't care if leprechauns push electrons through wires if they do it in the same way as described by electrodynamics.)

User avatar
lostcalpolydude
Forum Maestro
Posts: 2940
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:54 pm

Post by lostcalpolydude » Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:28 am

stupac2 wrote:(seriously, how long has Jick been saying delay() is on the way out? Count me in the "skeptical" column)
We're getting off topic now, but Jick never said it would be a quick fix. Content needs to be created to make it a good change, it isn't just a simple code change. He said Q2, so until July comes you're really wasting your time complaining about this one.

For a similar example (I don't think you were around for this), lots of people wanted a pirate revamp. The zone back in NS11 gave you a random amount of drunkenness before giving you a dictionary. For NS13 it gave you exactly two drunkenness. Jick said he would improve it. The improvements probably took about half a year, but when they came out they were good. There were plenty of little things to complain about, as there are with any change, but people like the new content. My point is, just because it's taking a long time doesn't mean it won't ever get done.
bmaher: Softcore character
lostcalpolydude: Hardcore character (abandoned)

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:30 am

stupac2 wrote:Count me in oxbarn's camp, among those who don't give two craps how the devs use the word "superlikely" if it doesn't actually affect how I play the game.

I'm not saying I'd misuse the word superlikely, just that I don't care about its technical definition if it in no way affects me, similarly to how I don't care if leprechauns push electrons through wires if they do it in the same way as described by electrodynamics.)
That's your personal choice, you're free to ignore superlikelies and also to make wrong choices when playing the game, just like you're free to believe in electron-pushing leprechauns if you want to. But if you're making decisions in the game or deciding on the design of an electrical circuit, I would personally opt to leave the fairy dust and leprechauns out of it, and strongly recommend leaving them out if you want to discuss it with others. I'm quite sure you'll agree on that part :)

I interpret Oxbarn's definition very generously when I say that it's still not correct but that it could arguably refer to the set of the superlikelies in the game. For a perhaps more intuitive interpretation it would simply be false. If you read Oxbarn's definition and then listed what adventures you think fits the definition, it would absolutely not be the same as the list of superlikelies in the game. Look at the first line of the OP if you think the inaccurate definition of superlikely is unambiguous and meaningful.

You're free to believe that there are two types of quest-related non-monster-fighting adventures, gobblydoks and flummoxies, and that you should absolutely always run maximal monster-avoidance whenever you want a gobblydok and not care about your monster-avoidance level when you want a flummoxy, regardless of any other factors. It's not true that non-monster-fighting adventures in the game consist of those two types though. There *are* adventures where you should normally do such things, but they're a very small subset of the non-monster-fighting adventures. Pretending that all non-monster-fighting adventures are either a gobblydok or a flummoxy is crazy talk. A gobblydok is not the same thing as a non-combat, and a flummoxy is not the same thing as a superlikely.

It can make perfect sense to talk about gobblydoks and flummoxies, but they're only assigned labels and not actual adventure types like combats, non-combats and superlikelies.

User avatar
Flolle
Fie the Pie
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:13 am

Post by Flolle » Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:54 am

Eleron, don't beat yourself up too much over this. From personal experience, I can tell you that people usually formulate a personal view of the encounter rolling process and stay with it until it fails them, at which point they formulate a new view which isn't necessarily congruent with the actual technical definition of it. This is not criticism of those people, they merely have a different take on the game mechanics, namely how they are affect by them while playing instead of wanting to know what the technicalities of those mechanics are, even if it doesn't make much of a difference in practice. It can be very disheartening when one tries to talk about the mechanic, but it's not worth getting angry over.

stupac2 wrote:[...]

So as long as we can't know which adventures are superlikelies without the devs telling us count me in oxbarn's camp, among those who don't give two craps how the devs use the word "superlikely" if they won't tell us or if it doesn't actually affect how I play the game. If that's not pedantic enough for you, well tough crap!

(Note that I'm not saying I'd misuse the word superlikely, just that I don't care about its technical definition if it in no way affects me, similarly to how I don't care if leprechauns push electrons through wires if they do it in the same way as described by electrodynamics.)
That world view won't put you on the good side of mathematically inclined people. Those are all about definitions and the corresponding axioms. Just saying. ;)

Oxbarn
Just Plain Old Pie
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 9:55 pm

Post by Oxbarn » Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:49 am

Flolle wrote:That world view won't put you on the good side of mathematically inclined people. Those are all about definitions and the corresponding axioms. Just saying. ;)
Oh, but it'll totally get him in with the software people. We're all about the black boxes. :)

Anyway, fair enough. You and Eleron want to keep Jick's strict code-based definition in case there's a superlikely with a conditional acceptance chance of "50% + noncombat modifiers/2" or "1 / # monsters currently available in the zone" or something similarly tricky; the advantage is that if so, we can still have discussions with the admins without ambiguity. Also that the definition is trivially correct, assuming Jick has things straight in his head.

I figure no such tricky superlikely now exists (or Jick would have bragged about it) and I'm skeptical about basing definitions on possible future states of the game; the advantage here is that we get a definition that's useful, spadeable, and probably correct, but which we might have to modify later to handle exceptions.
Eleron wrote:I interpret Oxbarn's definition very generously when I say that it's still not correct but that it could arguably refer to the set of the superlikelies in the game. For a perhaps more intuitive interpretation it would simply be false. If you read Oxbarn's definition and then listed what adventures you think fits the definition, it would absolutely not be the same as the list of superlikelies in the game.
I think you just called stupac2 a crappy reader! (Also, do you really think the definition based directly on invisible game internals is more intuitive to understand?)

I do agree about the guaranteed superlikelies not "seeming" the same as the probabilistic ones, if that's what you're referring to. At least for the purposes of people complaining. :) But it seems to me that this is a separate discussion, since both definitions cover this case equally well -- either way, the distinction requires some new terminology.

And to say that the definitions may cover the same set of adventures, but one's more correct than the other, sort of requires thinking of KoL as having a non-finite list of adventures generated according to an unchanging set of axioms. This is mathematically appealing but neither condition seems particularly true.

User avatar
desatysso
Inscrutable Pi
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:37 am

Post by desatysso » Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:49 am

Oxbarn wrote:
desatysso wrote:Isn't the first post a definite list of superlikelies? I mean, Jick may have missed one accidentally, but I don't think he left any out on purpose.
If you check Jick's original post, he says "Let's look at your examples from the first post" and only responds to the few specific zones stupac mentioned.
What other ascension-relevant noncombats are there that we aren't sure about already?

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:01 am

Oxbarn wrote:Anyway, fair enough.

(Do you really think the definition based directly on invisible game internals is more intuitive to understand?)

I do agree about the guaranteed superlikelies not "seeming" the same as the probabilistic ones, if that's what you're referring to. But it seems to me that both definitions cover this case equally well -- either way, the distinction requires some new terminology.
Yay! =)

Anyway, as I said your definition *can* be interpreted in a way that makes it not-too-wrong-for-comfort. It's just that working from your definition I don't think most people would find the correct classification for most of the stuff in my post (which I've just updated with lots of more stuff, yay!), so that's why I really do think the accurate one is easier to understand correctly. The big problem with the inaccurate definitions is that they are oh so very very easy to "understand" and then achieve a false understanding.
Oxbarn wrote:And to say that the definitions may cover the same set of adventures, but one's more correct than the other, sort of requires thinking of KoL as having a non-finite list of adventures generated according to an unchanging set of axioms.
There *really are* different classes of adventures in the game. That's different from us or Jick labeling things, even if the labels should somehow align fortuitously.

[I wrote a lot of extra stuff but I removed it before posting. I'll be happy to talk in PMs about how an artificial game artifact allows us to determine privileged information without running into epistemological problems, but I don't want to make Flolle worry or keep derailing the thread :)]
desatysso wrote:What other ascension-relevant noncombats are there that we aren't sure about already?
Well see my list in an earlier post, it contains a lot of stuff. Determining whether a conditional adventure is a noncombat or a superlikely is far less interesting than determining the conditions though. I could have been more precise for many of the conditions, but many of them are not fully known.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Post by stupac2 » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:02 pm

Oxbarn wrote:
Flolle wrote:That world view won't put you on the good side of mathematically inclined people. Those are all about definitions and the corresponding axioms. Just saying. ;)
Oh, but it'll totally get him in with the software people. We're all about the black boxes. :)
The funny thing is that it wouldn't be wrong. I know this is something of a derail, but as long as the leprechaun theory put forth the same mathematical structure (which I stipulated it did) they'd be identical in the real world, and all you're talking about is parsimony. It's just a matter of taste which theory you believe. Which was kind of my point here, if we can't tell the difference between the way the game has been programmed by its creator by spading, then the two descriptions are basically identical. The qualifier basically because, unlike the real world, the creator talks to us and tells us things and so we have an understanding of how things work that we probably couldn't piece together otherwise (unless I'm mistaken, as far as I can tell the whole "order of the roll" thing could only be spaded in relatively few cases, the "not responding to +/- combat" could be, but it's a very difficult job).

Hence why I asked for a list. I think that absent a definitive list from on high (preferably with conditionals known) worrying about this is pointless, although our nice little partial list makes it slightly less pointless.
I think you just called stupac2 a crappy reader! (Also, do you really think the definition based directly on invisible game internals is more intuitive to understand?)
To be fair I was drunk at the time, so probably was a crappy reader. Also you guys are posting a lot and quickly, it's hard to keep up. And I'll say that that definition could be better, provided we had the same perfect knowledge the devs have. Absent that I'd rather stick to something observable. Eleron clearly disagrees and would rather use incomplete knowledge of the absolutely totally correct internal function.

Like I said, it's a matter of taste.


EDIT: Actually Eleron I'd be interested to know that.

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:54 pm

Oxbarn wrote:Oh, but it'll totally get him in with the software people. We're all about the black boxes. :)

I think you just called stupac2 a crappy reader!
No no no. Your black box specification wasn't accurate, that's why someone reading it would be misled.
stupac2 wrote:EDIT: Actually Eleron I'd be interested to know that.
Games are more interesting than physics, that's how. In mathematics you can prove things. How frickin awesome is that! :)

I'm not sure why you somehow still think the superlikely mechanic is unknown. It's been known for a long time and posted several times in this thread.
I really do think it's because you're into physics and you can't handle the truth!

It's not about whether you'll experience a visual impression of the pirate fledges from your computer screen. Assuming that there's no power outage isn't a simplification. It really, truly cannot possibly happen in the game. The statements made about superlikelies don't depend on such frivolous assumptions as the physical existence of the world. It's not about how the kingdomofloathing.com servers will respond to browser requests.

Physically spading the game through a browser over the Internet is something else entirely, but you don't have to spade superlikelies to talk about them.

kevbob
Spy vs. Pie
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:32 am

Post by kevbob » Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:59 pm

viewtopic.php?p=23307#23307

is that still current?

Oxbarn
Just Plain Old Pie
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 9:55 pm

Post by Oxbarn » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:07 pm

Oh, this is interesting -- I wondered why you brought up epistemology. I don't really see KoL as an abstract set of rules and mechanics to quite that extent -- if Jick has programmed no superlikelies that look at combat frequency, even if he could, I'm content to say that superlikelies don't check combat frequency. After all, he could change the programming to check superlikelies after semi-rares if he wanted to; I don't know how you decide which rules are really part of the game and which are just followed by happenstance.

It seems like my specification is (probably) accurate... unless something changes. And yours is (definitely) accurate... unless something slightly larger changes.

Maybe the short version is that I agree with stupac about seeing KoL as more like physics than math -- if you ignore the actual thing in favor of a set of axioms you've deduced, what's the point?

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Post by stupac2 » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:44 pm

Eleron wrote:I'm not sure why you somehow still think the superlikely mechanic is unknown. It's been known for a long time and posted several times in this thread.
I really do think it's because you're into physics and you can't handle the truth!
I'm obviously aware of that, but what I was saying is that the only reason we know about it is because Jick or a dev told us about it. Unless that's not the case (and I believe there are some circumstances where it could be pieced together), in which case I'm just wrong there. But based on what people have said I think I understand the mechanic, I just utterly fail to see how understanding it helps me if I don't know where it's being used, and what the conditionals on those superlikelies are. I know that we have a (partial?) list of superlikelies, but what I want is a full list with conditionals, perfect knowledge (I also want a pony).
Physically spading the game through a browser over the Internet is something else entirely, but you don't have to spade superlikelies to talk about them.
Definitely true. But my general mode of thinking is that if something is not observable it's not relevant (truth and relevance can be different). I am open to being persuaded otherwise, especially if you have a salient counterexample.

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:07 pm

stupac2 wrote:But based on what people have said I think I understand the mechanic, I just utterly fail to see how understanding it helps me if I don't know where it's being used, and what the conditionals on those superlikelies are. I know that we have a (partial?) list of superlikelies, but what I want is a full list with conditionals, perfect knowledge (I also want a pony).
Yeah, I'd like the not-a-pony too =)

I'm quite sure you actually know how knowledge about the difference between "regular" noncombats and superlikelies and about some conditionals helps you. You don't care about the finer points of the definition, and that's fine, they're not too interesting in themselves. But they really are required for examining the deeper interesting stuff, specifically the conditionals, and I know you *do* want to know those ;)
stupac2 wrote:Definitely true. But my general mode of thinking is that if something is not observable it's not relevant (truth and relevance can be different). I am open to being persuaded otherwise, especially if you have a salient counterexample.
Yeah, you're a physicist all right. Formal systems just don't work like that at all. A particularly pertinent example would be computer programs.

User avatar
lostcalpolydude
Forum Maestro
Posts: 2940
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:54 pm

Post by lostcalpolydude » Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:13 pm

stupac2 wrote:(I also want a pony)
I could give you the one I've been storing in my closet for the last 10 years for just such an occasion.
bmaher: Softcore character
lostcalpolydude: Hardcore character (abandoned)

TeKRunneR
Spy vs. Pie
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:35 pm

Post by TeKRunneR » Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:21 pm

My diamond's opinion is that I want to know exactly how things work, no matter if it doesn't have any currently known observable effect, because it may be useful to figure out future / unknown effects.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Post by stupac2 » Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:34 pm

TeKRunneR wrote:My diamond's opinion is that I want to know exactly how things work, no matter if it doesn't have any currently known observable effect, because it may be useful to figure out future / unknown effects.
I think we'd all like that, but it's not going to happen (hence my pony jokes). So we're left in this weird state where we know how the mechanic works, but have very incomplete knowledge of where it is used and what conditionals attached. What I'm saying is that in our current state I'm not terribly concerned about the specifics of the mechanic unless it helps me somehow. I'd still love to have perfect knowledge (and a pony!), but it ain't gonna happen.

I guess we just have to cross our fingers and hope that "Q2 of fixing annoying mechanics with new content" comes to pass.

kevbob
Spy vs. Pie
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:32 am

Post by kevbob » Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:40 pm

stupac2 wrote:What I'm saying is that in our current state I'm not terribly concerned about the specifics of the mechanic unless it helps me somehow.
great. don't be concerned.

salien
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:50 pm

Post by salien » Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:03 pm

Oxbarn wrote:...if Jick has programmed no superlikelies that look at combat frequency, even if he could, I'm content to say that superlikelies don't check combat frequency.
Sorry to ruin your hopes and dreams, Oxbarn, but Jick has directly stated that Mr. Alarm's first appearance is a superlikely affected by noncombat modifiers.

Also, Eleron, for your list: Jick stated everything in the Poop Deck is a normal noncombat (in the recent post that started all this), so the 'probably' isn't needed on "Beware..." or "Swordfish". From that same post, you can add "We'll All Be Flat" to the list of definite superlikelies (affected by delay(), a flag check on reading the journal, and a 75% rejection chance). Also, "That's your cue" is superlikely, the desert gnomes are definite-not-probable, and "Maps and Legends", "Spooky-Gro", and "Spooky Sapling" in the spooky forest are all normal noncombats, with at least Spooky-Gro having a flag on it.

Oxbarn
Just Plain Old Pie
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 9:55 pm

Post by Oxbarn » Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Aw, man! Nothing's ever simple. Good to know, though. :)

User avatar
Flolle
Fie the Pie
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:13 am

Post by Flolle » Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Flolle goes through his notes and compares stuff with the list you already have, because he apparently isn't able to sleep right now.
  • I'm going out on a limp and say that all shirt and demon name encounters are superlikelies. I obviously cannot proof it, but it seems the obvious solution to realise the low appearance rates those encounters have.
  • Also, I'm pretty sure the Black Forest map is one. Not sure about the map encounters in the starter locations and the Friars Gate.
  • The It's A Sign! encounter in Whitey's Grove is very likely a superlikely.
  • The A Grave Situation encounter in the Cemetary seems to be a superlikely, but it also seems to have some stuff hardcoded in because it only takes a turn if you have a shovel.
  • The Adventurer, $1.99 encounter in the Fun House is probably a superlikely with a couple of conditions (clownosity, 75% rejection rate, 10 turn counter if you skip it).
  • The Rusty Screwdriver! :D Easily overlooked since everyone goes muscle sign these days. ;)
  • The three encounters in the Ruins of Fernswarthy's Tower. Those encounters seem to have some kind of minimum floor though, if it's delay() or some other counter, I don't know.
  • The Towel in the Bathroom? Not sure about this one, might be simply a normal noncombat with a conditional.
  • The tombstone encounter in the Conservatory. Although severly limited turn range in which it appears.
  • Pretty much the same goes for opening the manor in the Pantry.
I think that's all I have. And with that:

Link
Jick, Sep 23rd, 2008 wrote:[...]

A lot of things that people think are superlikelies are not, in fact, superlikelies. There are noncombats for which the normal rules don't apply because of conditional logic applied to their encounter. [...]
Either there are many more noncombats with conditions than I think there are, or I didn't get the joke here. Image

Admittedly, most of the superlikelies are not that annoying, especially compared to the great offender going by the name delay(), but how many superlikelies have to be there to call them many? >.>

zomg
Spy vs. Pie
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:39 pm
Location: Bottom o' the boards.

Post by zomg » Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:15 am

Damn Flolle, that's a creepy emoticon.

I doubt Adventurer, $1.99 has the clownosity conditional. Unless that's the second noncom, in which case, disregard this.

I'm also with stu on this issue. Knowing the mechanic is all well and good, but if you don't know where to apply it, what good is your knowledge?

User avatar
lostcalpolydude
Forum Maestro
Posts: 2940
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:54 pm

Post by lostcalpolydude » Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:46 am

The club in the PLD has to be a superlikely, with +combat making it more likely, right?
bmaher: Softcore character
lostcalpolydude: Hardcore character (abandoned)

User avatar
Eleron
Has a thing!
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm

Post by Eleron » Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:10 am

zomg wrote:I'm also with stu on this issue. Knowing the mechanic is all well and good, but if you don't know where to apply it, what good is your knowledge?
Does it really look like we have no clue? :p
Flolle wrote:Flolle goes through his notes and compares stuff with the list you already have, because he apparently isn't able to sleep right now.
Mostly seem to be reasonable, but could theoretically be conditional noncombats. I suppose I could add them to my list. My current "probablies" don't really have any significant doubt about the class of adventure, so I might have to reword things a bit to accommodate them :)

Demon names sound suspicious though, and I agree that the cemetery probably has some hardcoded stuff.

User avatar
Flolle
Fie the Pie
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:13 am

Post by Flolle » Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:10 am

Do what you want with that list, Eleron. I posted it to help and if in the process some of its items are shown to not be superlikelies, it is pretty much as good as the other option. Knowing what encounter is what is important, showing one side or the other to be true is equally welcome for that purpose. :)
zomg wrote:I doubt Adventurer, $1.99 has the clownosity conditional. Unless that's the second noncom, in which case, disregard this.
Jick himself said it's a superlikely with such a conditional. Don't you love it how I have all these links at my disposal? :D ;)

Post Reply