Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Apply bias towards middle values to Tycoon Wallet shop prices #1899

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

GSKirox
Copy link
Collaborator

@GSKirox GSKirox commented Feb 22, 2023

All shopsanity prices option except 'Random' currently uses a fully uniform distribution between min and max prices.
When using the Tycoon Wallet option, this means half of the prices will be greater than 500, which can be extremely hard and boring to farm rupees for.
Which to be fair, is kinda what you're signing for when using the option, but a bias towards middle values could help this setting being a bit less tedious.

This change applies the same distribution used for the 'Random' option, which is a Beta distribution with alpha = 1.5 and beta = 2.0.

For reference, here is the corresponding chart to this distribution :
image

@fenhl
Copy link
Collaborator

fenhl commented Feb 22, 2023

Seems strange to have the 0–300 and 0–995 settings behave one way and the 0–95, 0–200, and 0–500 settings another way. Maybe we should have two separate settings defining the maximum price and the distribution to use?

@GSKirox
Copy link
Collaborator Author

GSKirox commented Feb 22, 2023

It is pretty unintuitive I agree. Or maybe just apply the same distribution to all shop options, it's not a huge difference anyway.

@Cuphat Cuphat added the Component: Setting specific to setting(s) label Feb 24, 2023
@cjohnson57 cjohnson57 added the Status: Under Consideration Developers are considering whether to accept or decline the feature described label Feb 27, 2023
@cjohnson57
Copy link
Collaborator

Imo this is a pretty significant change that will have to be considered carefully

@Cuphat
Copy link
Collaborator

Cuphat commented Mar 4, 2023

Agreed that they should all be consistent, unsure if it is worth a separate setting to control the way the randomness is generated.

@GSKirox
Copy link
Collaborator Author

GSKirox commented Jul 10, 2023

I'd personally go for #2037 instead of my lazy attempt. It gives much more control to the user.

@cjohnson57
Copy link
Collaborator

I think my plan is to have fenhl make #2037 a plando-only feature and use that, so I'll go ahead and close this.

@cjohnson57 cjohnson57 closed this Nov 14, 2023
@GSKirox GSKirox deleted the tycoon_shop_tweak branch November 14, 2023 06:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Setting specific to setting(s) Status: Under Consideration Developers are considering whether to accept or decline the feature described Type: Enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants