Talk:Lunar Fortune

Split
--Update-- I had some from last year (8) and they are now renamed to : Lunar Fortune [Year of the Pig]


 * agreed. split it... we will add new pages every year. -- RavenJWolfe [[image:User_RavenJWolfe_Icon4sig.png]] 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree - unless the lunar fortunes are significantly different the best way to handle them is to redirect each title ([Year of the X]) to this page. As it stands now the fortunes from the year of the rat appear to have the same drop/effect rates as those from the year of the pig. --Tankity Tank 02:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that items with different names should be in different pages, this could be an exception. They are almost the same, just with a difference in the Miniature they may drop. Mith[[Image:User MithranArkanere Star.png]]Talk 19:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

2008, Still gives a pig?
Miniature Celestial Rat states: "Opening Lunar Fortunes (~0.33% chance)." to get a rat, yet on the Lunar Fortune page it says it's still a mini pig "Miniature Pig: ~0.33%". Which is it? Can I earn a mini rat or pig in 2008? --Czar 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably a copy / paste error. -- Gordon Ecker 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked the history, it looks like someone was a bit too enthusiastic and "corrected" the part about the miniature pig without noting the part about "year of the pig". -- Gordon Ecker 03:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Drunken effect
Pity that doesn't add to drunkard title, would be nice if lunar fortunes gave you something you could use later on.Last year got so many consecutive drunken ones ended up abandoning what I was doing, fair enough don't mind bit of drunken effect but if you have another effect you can't really use it. Most people prob think the same as the one thing you want to know and fairly quick is if you have a mini or not. So you can go and get more fortunes if you haven't got one,which means most of the fortunes will just get used without benefitting from them.--Dan Mocha 09:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesnt add to the title because you aren't drunk. :P - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 08:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be 100 times better if they dropped fortune cookies or something which tells you what effect it has. Different colour or somehing else.Don't like wasting them,yes you could disable the drunken effect but better if it counted towards title or gave you bottle of rice wine instead.

year of the pig?
Does anyone have one from 2007 left? I really want one, but I can't find anyone who have it... please, I will pay fr it!:)Megalodon 19:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do have some left... not many tho -- Silent Storm  [[Image:User SilentStorm MySig.png|Talk to me|19px]] 02:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Drop Rate
I believe the drop rate increses in hard mode. I got 4 pigs with ~150 fortunes. I would encourage others to try this and see if other people have this success. Each time I opened fortunes I was in hard mode Sunqua Valeand an empty party with no other Oxen in my inventory. After 1 of my characters got a Celestial Ox I switched to a different Character and restarted the process.
 * I had 2 minis with 6 fortunes in NM, so it's really a matter of luck.152.226.7.213 05:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had to open 556 Fortunes before my mini ox appeared. 195.183.80.137 15:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I opened 230 fortunes and got no mini. A friend opened about 80 and got two mini tigers. Totally random. 85.19.140.9 09:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mini pig
The image for the miniature pig is now fixed and correctly displays. It was just a matter of changing one lowercase letter to uppercase. Twe So |  talk  18:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Party points?
Party points are given for using festive items. Does this include lunar fortunes? (or just from drops resulting from using the fortune). --82.226.191.237 14:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Using Lunar Fortunes do not give party points. For a list of things that do give party points, check the Party animal page. -C2Talon 14:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Drop rates
Somehow, we seem to keep pushing 0.33% as the drop rate year after year, even though our own data (summarized below) doesn't support that. I think we should update the percentages based our actual data and use 0.66% as our January predictor of what's in store for February.



! Year !! Mini !! % !! Drops !! Fortunes opened 0.32% || 52 17 || 5290 ! colspan=2 | Totals !! % !! Drops !! Fortunes opened
 * 2007 || Pig || 0.98%
 * 2007 || Pig || 0.98%
 * 2008 || Rat|| 0.44% || 7 || 1592
 * 2009 || Ox || 0.63% || 26 || 4107
 * 2010 || Tiger || 0.46% || 26 || 5705
 * 2009 || Ox || 0.63% || 26 || 4107
 * 2010 || Tiger || 0.46% || 26 || 5705
 * 2010 || Tiger || 0.46% || 26 || 5705

2007-2010 || 0.66% 0.46% || 111 76 || 16,694
 * colspan=2 |
 * colspan=2 |
 * }

Here are some of the ways we could handle this:
 * 1) Assume that the drop rate varies from year-to-year &rarr; we publish individual percentages for each year and use the 0.66% 0.46% as our best predictor for future years.
 * 2) Assume that the drop rate is identical each year &rarr; we publish a single percentage, 0.66% and only change it in March.
 * 3) Assume that our data is insufficient and we cannot speak with any certainty on the main pages of the minis or Lunar Fortune.
 * 4) Ask John Stumme or Joe Kimmes to let us know which one of the above is closer to the truth.

I prefer option 1, as it fits closer to the evidence we have. (Option 4 is fine, too, but, out of all the questions we ask Joe/John, this isn't at the top of my list.) Before I boldy update the various articles, does anyone have a different strategy? Opinion? Recommendation? — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(Fixed incorrect count in 2007: should be 17.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Giving exact/two-digit percentages like 0.46% sounds (to me at least) as if we had pretty accurate data. I guess you suggested 0.66 since it is 2/3 and thus a 'nice number', but someone corrected the table and edited your comment as well. However, now that the basis changed, what do you think of 'roughly 0.5%'? –aRTy 03:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem, Arty, is that 2009 data contradicts that: 0.63% from over 4,000 fortunes is statistically unlikely if 0.5% is the true drop rate. We could assume that there was bias (those getting minis were more likely to post), but why should 2009 have seen more of that than in other years?


 * I'm not against using a single digit given our relatively low sample size. But I didn't suggest 0.66% because it is 2/3 (that would be 67%) nor because it's a round number; I suggested that because that is 111/16,694. As you note, I copied data from one of the years incorrectly, so it should be 0.46% because that is 76/16,694. If we used a single digit for that, you are correct that it would be 0.5%.


 * As far as data accuracy: 0.5% means 1 drop per 200 fortunes, so I would like to see 50*200 or 10,000 samples to feel comfortable we're on solid ground.


 * Finally, we have been publishing 0.33%, which is not supported by any data I can find. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed the table stated 0.66% before, but I thought the fact that it's so close to 2/3 influenced your suggestion. However, I checked the data and 1.) there is a miscalculation and 2.) in addition the last 3 rows were not included at all as they were added later and not noticed (or whatever) when year 09 was merged with the totals. As far as I see it's 5725|38 (=.66%) in 2009. Please have a look at it, I'll have another one as well. –aRTy 04:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you are probably right that all of the data needs to be revisited (I noticed other issues, too). However, here's what we know without digging too deeply:
 * 0.33% doesn't apply to the last three years: those are easily 0.44% or above.
 * The actual drops rates for those three years has not been consistent.
 * So, I think we should separate 2008/09/10 from 2007 and we should probably publish the historical rates for those 3 years...and then use the combined rate to predict each new mini. And, as you suggest, 0.5% is probably going to be close to our best guess'. — Tennessee Ernie Ford'' ( TEF ) 04:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did some more calculation with the data from 2009 and 2010 (the rest is locked for me, since the page was moved by copypasta and the original was deleted). There is an important point to think of: People want to get their mini and tend to stop opening to sell the rest once they got one. I noticed quite a lot ppl in 2009 with very few Lunar Fortunes but a tiger, so I only took those with 50+ and did the calculation again: It's 5316|29 = 0.55% in 2009. In 2010 there were fewer people contributing, but most of them opened a lot. Taking only 50+ in 2010 gives 5583|24 = 0.43%.
 * I think taking 0.5% is reasonable. –aRTy 04:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a requst on Gaile's talk for a designer to comment on this, but it's probably a longshot. Might be worth posting on Jon's page to see if he has any involvement in determining drop rates.--TahiriVeila 04:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't Gaile mention an increase in drop rate back in 2008, to go with the mini's removal from the finales? That would separate pigs from the rest. 24.197.253.243 04:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot one thing: About one week ago I opened all tiger lunars I got left in my chest, I kept almost 2 stacks for DoA and stuff but then only used a very few, since friends became inactive. There were a little more than 450 left and I got 2 tigers out of them (both within the last ~50), which gives 0.44%, resp. (theoretically) increasing the totals of 2010 to 6033|26 = (still) 0.43%. Just wanted to add that. –aRTy 04:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tahiri; good idea(s). And, yeah, I think 24 is correct that something changed drastically for the rates after 2007. I firmly believe that 2008-2011 have the same drop rates, but we don't have enough data to prove that. Short of that, Arty's idea of saying around x% based on cleaning the data (to remove selection bias) has merit. Let's see what other folks say; we probably won't get a definitive answer until after this festival is over, but things will be cleaned up for everyone that follows. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

John Stumme's reply


Unless anyone objects, I'm going to replace the rates we have for the Celestial drops (2008-2011) to 0.5%, referencing this page & Stumme's response (and noting that he actually said 0.45-0.65%). I suspect the true number is higher, primarily because of how Stumme phrased his reply, but I can't back that up with any evidence. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 0.5% is easily understood
 * It's within the range stated by Stumme
 * It's within the range of our estimates (from prior years).
 * Sounds good to me =)--TahiriVeila 19:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here. –aRTy 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really poor at math, but that means I have to open 200 to get 1 Rabbit, right? --[[Image:User Large sig.png|talk]] Large 20:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. But as usual, statistics don't say anything about 'single events'. You may also be the lucky one and get a mini out of the very first, or open 500 and get none. If you say '1 in 200 on average' you are perfectly right. –aRTy 20:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What Arty says. (you don't get better odds for playing longer... if you get no minis from 199 fortunes, the odds for the 200th are still just 0.5%). When I simulated 1000 people opening a stack of fortunes each, it seems that ~700 lucky toons will find one mini (or more); the rest (~300) will get nothing. (Even easier example: in a coin flip, you can't guarantee that you'll get heads even if you toss your dime 10 times.) Good luck! — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The page is clearly incorrect then, since it's saying 0.33 for them all. Should we be separating out just this year's as 0.5 or are we assuming that past years were higher as well? I know that it used to list 0.5 for last year. Lillian ap Cor 22:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Stumme's reply applies to all the celestial minis. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Statistically you would need to open 460 fortunes to be 90% confident that you would get a mini with a 0.50%drop rate. In order to be 99% confident you would need to open about 920 Fortunes--Tillian 06:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If the chance is 0.5% in a fortune, you can calculate your chances to get at least one bunny from a set by using the formula: 1-0.995^x, where x is the number of fortunes. That means if you open 200 fortunes, you have a 1-0.995^200 chance of getting at least one rabbit, 0.633 or 63.3%. This means that if 1000 people open 200 fortunes each, 633 people will get at least one rabbit and 367 won't. This is on average of course. Judas 15:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your math example Judas. Question: where did you get the .995 from? The Texas Hammer 20:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 0.5% drop rate means 99.95% 99.5% chance of no mini = 0.9995 0.995 (and the 0.5% is based on past year's data and John Stumme's confirmation of our range estimate, 0.45-0.65%) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TEF: You have one too many nines in there. 0.5% of getting one is 99.5% of not getting one. Cynique 09:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ty, Cynique. Fixed! — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 09:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The math formula that I use is (1-dr/100)^n = (1 - x/100) where dr is the drop rate of the item in question n is the number of bags that contain said item and x is the percent chance that you recieve the item you are looking for. Tillian 06:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)