Speedy parasites


chuckie

Recommended Posts

I mean, if you calculate something, it doesn't mean that it has something to do with reality. If you flip a coin ten times and have always heads, then the properbility of getting another head with the 11th flip is exaclty 50% because it is a single event. You guys are mixing up a series of events and single events - previous results do not change the properbility of future results!

The mistake you make is called "Gambler's fallacy".

If you have past 24h and the 1% chance is gone, you will start again - a new event. It's not a series but single events - just like flipping a coin.

1% is a very low chance and if it happens more often (isn't very rare), than there is something wrong or something hidden we don't know about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MueckE The reverse is also not true.  Just because something has a low chance of happening does not mean it cannot happen frequently.  It is just unlikely.

1% does not mean it should never happen.  It doesn't even mean one out of every hundred.  In fact, after observing any 100 attempts it should have happened exactly once only 37% of the time.  :)  

(it could have happened more than once [26.4%] or not at all [36.6%]. all are possibles and can be calculated because: math.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really play on experience levels that have parasites, but from what people have been reporting who do, they seem to get parasites frequently even when it is at a 1% chance. More frequently than would be normal for a 1% chance of something. I think that was the point the OP was attempting to make. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Thrasador Both @MueckE's and my points have been exactly that: people who don't understand random numbers often maintain incorrect assumptions about what to expect.

What hasn't been addressed here is the corollary: Random numbers are not a not substitute for directed experience.  They are a cheap method for builders to create variance within an experience without requiring much thought.  Often they are misused and end up creating a feeling that the experience is arbitrary and meaningless.  And those feelings are accurate. Random numbers don't care what experience you are having, or what steps you took prior to testing them.  They are completely random.  And unless someone puts some effort into the implementation: they are completely arbitrary.

Don't blame random numbers for being random.  Blame developers for lack of development.  @Support: Random numbers are not art.  They can occasionally create it, but then they can eventually create anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thought @selfless. Now that the OP was properly addressed I think, how could parasites be "fixed"? If I remember, the original problem was that Stalker mode was too easy. There were far too many wolves and for experienced players, meat was coming to them on its own legs. So they introduced parasites to remove an easy source of calories for Stalker players. What other solutions would be possible?

  • making wolves harder to kill (but not necessarily more dangerous to the player)
  • having less meat on wolves, or fewer calories from wolf meat in general
  • making wolves more "intelligent" - attacking only weakened survivors, only by surprise or only in numbers, but staying away from survivors who are fit and ready to fight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, in general, the meat situation is good. Interloper made wolves already way more dangerous and you only can use a bow. I think this would be enough already to reduce the amount of wolfmeat. If you put parasites on top of it, i can live with that because in theory it doesn't have an enormous impact. The problem is that obviously (after all complaints) it is badly programmed so that it isn't 1% chance every time (as it should be) but programmed like a series of events so that the mathematical properbility goes up (assumption). 

With Interloper and the current wolfagression/behavior, i don't think that parasites are absolutly necessary. But it would be perfectly fine if the risk is 1% - always.

We don't know what's the problem. All we know is that people complaining getting parasites very quickly and therfore stop eating wolfmeat completly. And i think that's to much if you avoid it entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny (to me) because I saw the original parasites implementation and it actually tried to keep adding more chance to get parasites every time you didn't get parasites.  It was crazy.

Someone, who may actually have understood how probability works, seems to have described how a small chance of contracting parasites would result in an eventual certainty of a player who always ate suspect meat getting parasites.  Apparently that guy then left and someone else programmed the thing because in that first version once you ate predator meat you kept every % risk for the rest of your life and tested it every day.  So if you ate only one piece of wolf meat a day for 10 days, and somehow still hadn't got parasites [56% chance of happening, BTW], then even if you never ate wolf meat again you would still test at 10% everyday until you got parasites.  O.o

Everyone complained.  Most because they were always getting parasites.  But those who understood probability complained because actually carrying over the risk is not necessary.  The risk automatically carries itself over because you keep testing for failures.  I wish I could help others understand that...

So even in that early implementation, the intent was that if you try to survive on predator meat you will get parasites.  Certainty.  Only question unanswered is on which day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest i enjoy the parasite mechanic, but i just wish it was somehow more intuitive.

Say for example each piece of meat carried a % chance of parasites (from 0-3% for example) which you could view before eating, then this would accumulate in the same way it does now, it would be better. It would actually give the player a sense of risk about eating one piece of meat as opposed to the next, this would reduce the sense of randomness we have.

 

Perhaps higher cooking levels could reduce the risk as you go along rather than a hard counter at level 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2017 at 8:54 PM, Thrasador said:

I don't really play on experience levels that have parasites . . .

Does Voyager have parasites?  Or is cooked wolf meat perfectly safe in that mode?  Stalker?

I realize Interloper has parasites -- just wasn't sure how safe Wolf meat is outside of Interloper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NardoLoopa said:

Does Voyager have parasites?  Or is cooked wolf meat perfectly safe in that mode?  Stalker?

I realize Interloper has parasites -- just wasn't sure how safe Wolf meat is outside of Interloper.

You can only get parasites from predator meat on Stalker and Interloper.

The treatment takes 10 days on Stalker and 20 days on Interloper.

Voyager and obviously Pilgrim are safe. I typically play Voyager....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.