I found this one much more difficult to get into than the other problmes in the series. Possibly irrationally I suspect this is because the back ground story was rather convoluted. I was able to load all the data, though it took about 20s to scan all over it which felt like an inconvenient delay.
Based on a rather cursory analysis I hope that the following two won't be too bad:
Page of Hope and Heir of Space
I haven't had a chance to analyse any effects that depend on Waking-Time yet. But based on the other data every other Snark that was hunted that matched one of B/G/H/P/Q/Y was successfully hunted so if this was for real I would play it safe and go with:
B G H P Q Y
To maximise value:
A B C D G H J K L M N P Q R V W Y
Looks like it will yield an expected value of just over 14, albeit with an uncomfortably low 84 percent chance of survival. This is my provisonal entry to the bonus task if I don't get a chance to analyse Waking-Time dependant effects.
Thank you for posting this. I didn't think this was too straightforward. Prior to reading the solution I actually thought it was one of the more difficult ones. Possibly because I focused on trying to copy the allocation helms early choices instead of on the ratings.
Some traits definitely go better with some houses, however I couldn't see much in the way of clear cut rules. I constructed the following highly provisional allocation by considering students that were sorted when the helm was still reasonably reliable, and then combining the probabilities of a student with each of the 5 ratings being sorted into each house, and selecting the one which on balance seemed most likely.
A Dragonslayer
B Thought-Talon
C Serpentyne
D Dragonslayer
E Humblescrumble
F Serpentyne
G Dragonslayer
H Humblescrumble
I Humblescrumble
J Thought-Talon
K Dragonslayer
L Dragonslayer
M Dragonslayer
N Dragonslayer
O Serpentyne
P Thought-Talon
Q Dragonslayer
R Humblescrumble
S Serpentyne
T Humblescrumble
After staring at the data a bit more:
My final selection for the fort of Magh Loduhr is therefore:
Some more observations:
- Having no farmers, brewers or warriors leads to 100 percent expedition failure. If there is a warrior present there is a small chance of success (Raiding for food?).
- The chances of failure when there are >= 4 farmers present and no brewers/warriors is statistically indistinguishable from about 99.5 percent regardless of the number of farmers. 3 farmers with no warriors/brewers gives a much lower success rate. Adding warriors only makes a distinguishable difference when the number of farmers is small.
- 4 brewers and no farmers/warriors do about as well as the farmers, but 3 brewers do better, but 1 or 2 do worse. Adding warriors only makes a difference when the numbers of brewers is small.
- Looking at forts with 4 farmers the additional value of each additional miner decreases, so we shouldn't go too miner heavy. In particular there is a sharp decrease after 5.
- 3 miners and 1 smith is better on average than 4 miners. 2 miners and a smith is about as good as 3 miners when no crafters are present. A similar pattern holds for crafters.
- Crafters do better than average when silver or hematite is present, a bit better than average when tin or copper are present, but don't do well with magnetite or gold
- Smiths do better than average when hematite is present , a bit better than average when tin and copper are present, average when magnetite is present, but worse than average when silver or gold is present.
- Warriors do better than average when copper and hematite, about average when hematite, magnetite and silver is present and worse than average when gold is present
- The average for smiths is better than for crafters which is in turn better than warriors.
Which lead me to the following provisional roster
- 4 farmers
- 5 miners
- 2 smiths
- 1 crafter
- 1 warrior
-
A few observations:
- There is a weak correlation between expedition size and the probability of the fort surviving, so we should choose 13 dwarves.
- Farmers and brewers are crucial to the survival of the city. Specialising in one type seems more efficient than having both. 6 farmers or 6 brewers guarantee survivial, but if you have a mixture you need at least 10. Farmers seem slightly better than brewers. 3 farmers give > 99 percent survival, but 4 brewers are needed to do as well. Warriors marginally increase survival odds when there are fewer farmers and brewers, but nothing else seems to have a positive impact.
- Miners seems to generate most of the value
- Having one woodcutter offers a meaningfull boost, but there doesn't seem to be much benefit in haveing more. The boost is biggest at low coal values
- Forts with 2 warriors seems to do best, though the gap between 1 and 2 seems to be modest, and maybe due to them haveing fewer lower value types.
- Haveing 1 smith provides a modest beenfit, though haveing more is counterproductive.
- Crafters are similar to warriors, except the effect is much smaller.
- When no smiths or craftsmen are present then the for value is significantly reduced.
- Smiths and crafters do better when different resources are present.
Which suggests something like this is needed to maximise value, subject to the constraint of minimising the risk of loseing the fort:
- 6 farmers
- 1 warrior
- 1 crafter
- 1 smith
- 4 miners
An alternative strategy which accepted a small risk of fort loss in exchange for makeing much more money would be:
- 3 farmers
- 1 warrior
- 1 woodcutter
- 1 crafter
- 1 smith
- 6 miners
I only had time for a very superficial analysis, however hopefully the following isn't too bad:
* When Monstrous Regeneration and Anomalous Agility is assigned to every hero it results in a
* 36 percent win rate. When they are chosen there is only a 21 percent win rate. The sample
* size is to big for this to be dismissed as a statistical fluctuation. With the DM ruling out
* any difference in God assigned cheats or other time dependent effects it looks like heroes
* are making their decisions based on some hidden variables we don't have access to.
*
* Many combinations of traits assigned by the Chaos deity also show substantial differences
* (sometime better, sometimes worse), than when they are chosen. This suggests the provisional
* decision to go with Radiant Splendor + Enlightenment probably isn't optimal after all.
*
* The best set of traits chosen by the Chaos Deity for Heroes in our class is :
* Temporal Distortion + Anomalous Agility. (95 percent win rate based on 20 records)
* Barrier Conjuration + Mind Place (92.3 percent Win rate based on 13 records).
* Rapid XP Gain + Monstrous Regeneration (91.7 percent win rate based on 12 records)
* Barrier Conjuration + temporal Distortion (88 percent win rate based on 25 records)
*
* Temporal Distortion + Anomalous Agility does almost as well when these cheats are chosen as well.
*
* On balance I think it would be a good idea to change my cheats to:
* Temporal Distortion + Anomalous Agility.
I think this would have worked better if there had been less data. Looking at the other responses I'm not convinced that adding serval hundered thousand addittional rows did anything significant other than to extend the time needed to scan across this. This stopped me doing a more extensive analysis.
Also I found this one less interesting than the previous ones. I suspect a lot of this has to do with the introductory storyline which didn't make much sense to me. Possibly this was because I hadn't heard of the "homestuck" story before, and didn't have any relevant pre-existing context to relate this to.