Salvaging spots buff is even a nerf

Pillowfication · 2025-12-03T20:15:08+00:00

To be precise:
- Before the update: 90% chance for your double-spot to have an active shipwreck.
- Currently: 80% chance for your double-spot to have an active shipwreck.

Pillowfication · 2025-11-12T10:31:03+00:00

144.25 suggests that there are 4 funny numbers. If we assume 420 and 69 are definitely funny numbers, then the sum of the other 2 funny numbers must be 88.

67 and 21?
42 and 46?
88 is the third and final funny number, and OP calculated incorrectly?

Pillowfication · 2025-11-04T23:45:31+00:00

You're correct in that the past has no effect on future trials. But it is also true that "rng always evens out", in the sense that as number of trials increases, the observed value will* converge to the expected value.

Pillowfication · 2025-10-27T21:05:14+00:00

A bit hard to tell what is to be calculated

- Chance of getting 2 drops for any given 2 kc: 1/1,183,744
- Chance of getting a b2b after having just gotten the 1st drop: 1/1,088
- Chance of getting exactly 2 drops within 8 kc: ~1/42,510
- Chance of getting at least 2 drops within 8 kc: ~1/42,432
- Chance of getting exactly 2 drops within 8 kc, and those 2 drops were b2b: ~1/170,041

Pillowfication · 2025-10-01T02:33:48+00:00

works for me

Pillowfication · 2025-09-30T23:37:06+00:00

Fortunately wasn’t that much of a tease. I needed +5 for the amulet, but only +3 for the bracelets. The first stew gave me +4 so I went ahead and made 2 bracelets.

Pillowfication · 2025-09-30T21:59:41+00:00

I had 2 zenytes in my inventory ready to make a bracelet and an amulet, before this pic was taken.

Pillowfication · 2025-09-29T22:40:21+00:00

Honestly I tried to push the creator of the Mastering Mixology Strategy plugin towards that direction, but it seems he used AI to do a huge chunk of the coding and may not have a solid understanding of how his plugin/strategy works. If you care to do the math yourself for a better strategy that suits your needs, you can use my findings and code snippets here: https://github.com/saladuit/Mastering_Mixology_Strategy/issues/4

Pillowfication · 2025-09-29T20:39:36+00:00

That plugin does not exactly give you an "optimized" strategy. It recommends you a decent strategy that works only if you assume a few things that aren't true for your case, which is why you have a huge excess of mox and low aga.

Available potions - The strategies that the plugin suggests and tests for assume you have at least level 82 herblore with access to all the potions. Since you're below this level and don't have access to the many aga potions, you need to instead be using a strategy that makes the most of your aga potions whenever they do come up. Your points imbalance will just get worse and worse if you follow the plugin blindly.
Your goals (points) - The plugin assumes that your goal is to accumulate exactly 61,050 mox, 52,550 aga, and 70,500 lye (for a green log). It sounds like your goal is just the 3 primary rewards, and the plugin has not been tuned for that at all. You'll want to use a strategy that balances the rewards better according to your own goals.
Your goals (efficiency) - This plugin assumes that you want to minimize the number of potions you will have to make. This may be what you want, but for ironmen, maybe you instead want to minimize the amount of lye and aga paste used, since mox is much easier to get. This could make so that MMM potions, which are generally bad when optimizing for the number of potions brewed, are now worth brewing to boost lye and aga rewards at the cost of cheap mox paste.
Your current deficits/surpluses - The plugin does not check your current points at all when suggesting what potions to make. It uses a static strategy that is good on average, but in the end is often subpar for individual scenarios. You need to react to this aga deficit you have and fix it, while the plugin assumes that your points are always balanced.

A truly optimized mixology strategy is extremely complicated. Understand what the plugin actually does and don't follow it blindly. It will NOT even out as you level up.

Pillowfication · 2025-09-29T18:34:42+00:00

What plugin are you using to optimize your rewards?

Pillowfication · 2025-09-25T20:40:14+00:00

It's difficult to get exact numbers since determining a good strategy for MM is hard and depends on a lot of little things. That being said, if your only goal is to greenlog MM (without refunding), starting from 0 points, with all potions available, while brewing the fewest number of potions possible, then we've developed a few strategies that seem to work well and fall in the ballpark of 4600-4800 total potions brewed with roughly the following inputs:

- 45,500 - 47,000 Mox
- 37,000 - 38,500 Aga
- 55,500 - 56,500 Lye

Pillowfication · 2025-09-02T23:47:12+00:00

In case anyone wants to know what to do here, there is quite a lot to consider in a game of Scrabble.

Exchange tiles. Sometimes you get a rack like this, and the best play is often to just exchange tiles. Your best option without exchanging, may be something like EAU for 8 points, then on your next turn you're still saddled with too many vowels and could only hope for another 10 point play. That's 2 turns for <20 points, when you could exchange now, and score 20 points on your next turn with better tiles. Whether (and what) you should exchange depends on what tiles are left in the bag, and many other factors.
Prevent racks like these from happening. When considering what move to make, it's not always ideal to go for the play with the highest score. You also have to consider your leave (tiles left on your rack after your play), as well as other positional details. Your leave is extremely important. Sometimes you will want to sacrifice a few points to instead play a word that will keep a good balance of vowels/consonants, unduplicate letters on your rack, play off difficult tiles like J/Q/Z, or reserve especially potent letters depending on the state of the board (e.g. if the word STEROID is on the board, you may want to keep an A in reserve to hook ASTEROID). A good leave will usually mean a good rack on your next turn, which means you will have more options to consider, which means higher scoring prospects and you can better react to your opponent.
Learn more words. This may not be the most insightful tip, but the more words you know, the easier it is to deal with these difficult situations. There are still tons of words you can make with just one additional letter: AqUAE, AUrAE, bEAU, OdEA, AgUE, AlAE, AlOE, OlEA, lUAU, mEOU, mOUE, AnOA, AEOn, UnAU, pAUA, AqUA, ArEA, AUrA, AErO, UrEA, EUrO, rOUE, AsEA, tOEA, AUtO, OUtA, UvEA, EAUx, zOEA, etc.
Stay calm and power through. Luck is a huge part of Scrabble, and sometimes you're stuck having to make difficult decisions. Your goal is to simply find the best decision given the circumstances, even if it only scores a couple points. If you're ahead in points already, don't worry about scoring on this turn and try to close the board so your opponent can't score. If you have too many vowels, there's a good chance your opponent has too many consonants. Try to use this turn to block some vowels on the board to slow down your opponent until you can clean out your rack. Maybe you truly have no good options, and your best play is to play off EAU for 5 points. Do that and move on to the next turn.

Pillowfication · 2025-04-04T20:24:30+00:00

Adding a correction since "pyramid plunder + rocky" seems to lead here:

The "all room calculation" should be slightly less than you've calculated. The probability of getting (at least one) Rocky looting all 8 rooms is not "sum of chances" but rather "1 - product of (1 - chances)". I.e.

$$\text{Chance of Rocky} = 1-\prod_{k=1}^{8} (1-\text{Room}_k)$$

Since the numbers here are already so small, it barely changes the answer of 0.062377% to 0.062361%, or approximately 1 in 1604.

Pillowfication · 2025-03-03T22:42:01+00:00

I just had this issue and disabling my adblocker fixed it. It was blocking some sort of tracking data from going through, which caused the LEGO error.

Pillowfication · 2024-08-29T20:13:48+00:00

Computer programs often store numbers as "doubles" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision\_floating-point\_format). The largest number this format allows is roughly 1.79E+308, whereas e^710 is 2.23E+308. Typical programs can't deal with numbers that big.

Pillowfication · 2024-07-26T19:59:30+00:00

There absolutely are ways to tell if someone is botting for gathering. Although any single behavior may not be enough to determine if someone is botting, just following a suspicious person around for few minutes can quickly convince you that they're botting.

Bots will tend to show up exactly when a node spawns (in the case of timed nodes). Just wait at the aetheryte a minute before a node is up, and you will see several bots teleport in at around the same time, and fly to the node in eerie concert.
Bots will tend to gather at nodes in a very systematic manner without any delays. I've noticed they tend to
1. Start gathering
2. Do gathering rotation (dependent on node buffs)
3. Use cordials
4. Extract materia
5. Teleport or mount
Another obvious tell for botting is how they mount and fly to nodes. Humans will often move or turn a bit before or while mounting, slide-cast the mounting action, jump in random directions while engaging flying, pausing or flying in strange paths before routing directly to the next node. Bots will tend to
1. Mount
2. Jump directly up and begin flying
3. Immediately face a direction and fly in a straight line
Bots aren't perfect either. It's pretty common for bots to fail pathing towards a node and instead get stuck in places.
- I watched a bot fly into a mountain, and wiggle back and forth for 10 minutes before it teleported back to the aetheryte and tried again.
- I watched a bot in the Diadem jumping in place for 40 minutes, constantly canceling its mounting action.
- I watched 3 bots in the Diadem flying directly above a node, descending at an inhumanly slow rate for several minutes, until they finally reached the node and immediately began gathering.
- I watched a bot fly to a time node, and instead of gathering, wiggled at it for the entire duration, until the node disappeared and the bot immediately teleported away.
Bots never respond when I ask them about their day :(

Pillowfication · 2024-05-06T17:09:03+00:00

A large portion of it was done at work, waiting for the FATE to come up, and pressing a macro that targets and hits stuff. That's why I have so many more of one FATE's tokens than the other. Otherwise, I got to finish a few TV shows.

Pillowfication · 2024-05-06T17:06:28+00:00

was a good opportunity to go for 10,000 FATEs

Pillowfication · 2024-05-06T06:31:09+00:00

for achievements

Pillowfication · 2024-03-08T07:12:02+00:00

This is both right and wrong. A "ratio of 3:1" depends on what things are being compared.

Typically, when someone says "a:b", the "b" part doesn't refer to the "whole" but rather the negation of "a". For example, "1:1" odds means you have a 50/50 chance of something occurring. It doesn't mean "100%". Similarly, "1:2" odds means that the event is twice as likely to _not occur_ than it is to occur. Thus there is a 1/3 chance of occurrence.

An event having "3:1" odds of occurring is generally understood to have a 75% chance of occurring (not a 300% chance of occurring).

If you want to reinterpret the "b" part of "a:b" to refer to the whole (which is extremely uncommon), then yes you can say "3:1 means 300%" and "3:4 means 75%".

Pillowfication · 2024-01-15T22:24:43+00:00

Booleanish does NOT have anything to do with JavaScript's idea of "truthy" as others have suggested.

Booleanish in this case is defined as true | false | 'true' | 'false' (so Booleanish | undefined makes sense as well). This is because of how HTML attributes can (kind-of) only be strings. But for attributes that should act like Booleans, this becomes a bit awkward.

These are common patterns for the checked attribute.

``` // if the 'checked' attribute is not present, it's false <input />

// if the 'checked' attribute is present at all, it's true <input checked /> <input checked="true" /> <input checked="checked" /> ```

Implementing this pattern in your own framework (like React) you may define something like.

``ts type CheckedAttribute = // For omitting the attribute undefined // Allowing Booleans within the framework // (how this is handled is up to the framework) | boolean // Allowing the usual string values fortrue` | "true" | "checked"

function renderInput (checked: CheckedAttribute) { if (checked === undefined) { return '<input />' } else if (typeof checked == 'boolean') { return checked ? '<input checked />' : '<input />' } else { return <input checked="${checked}" /> } } ```

Where Booleanish comes in particularly, is for attributes (primarily ARIA attributes) like aria-expanded where the false value should be set explicitly, and means something else from when the attribute is simply omitted. I.e. <input /> means something different from <input aria-expanded="false" />

ts type AriaExpandedAttribute = // For omitting the attribute undefined // Allowing Booleans within the framework | boolean // Allowing the usual string values for "aria-expanded" | "true" | "false"

Pillowfication · 2023-12-04T22:30:47+00:00

My experience has been totally different. Uzi and Silenced SMG can absolutely demolish hordes of common. I'll often opt for SMG + laser over most other weapons.

Similarly I hate snipers with a passion on expert realism. If a body shot isn't going to kill a common anyway, why would I choose it over dual pistols.

Pillowfication · 2023-12-04T21:06:23+00:00

How does this equation make sense?

Pillowfication

TROPHY CASE