Significant decrease in Materials from Gathering Favors - Patch 3.07

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

Uhm............
In English classes? In school? I mean this is really, really, basic (? or intermediar?) English. How exactly does one argue the rules of a language? Why would someone argue the rules of a language?

---

because English is an ambiguous language, one that doesn't translate directly into particular meanings. I say this because phrases can have multiple meanings depending on context. "Increased by" is one particular phrase, because there is a difference when you mean to enact upon something (to increase a value by x%) versus displaying the result of a change (the value was increased by x%).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

Are sure about that? Because I don't need to use external links to prove basic math. And math was my weakest class in college.

---

This was never about basic math. It was about an interpretation of English into Math, and I was using the external link to provide an example of an interpretation. Here is another such source that describes perfectly why they can write that it was "increased by 300%" and still mean that it was only tripled, not quadrupled. (e.g. if you increase something by 200%, the end result is that it was increased by 300%)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

This entire discussion is unnecessary. But I tried to find an explaination anyway, on how it's possible that people would argue basic math or English, but in response to your query, it's because people forget the basics all of the time and sometimes need to be reminded of them.

---

I was referring to your demeaning comment. Those are quite unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnoTechie

(e.g. if you increase something by 200%, the end result is that it was increased by 300%)

---

I would not have a problem with your e.g. if you used To instead of By. Increasing something by both X and Y do not give you the same result unless X and Y are equal. You can, however, increase something BY X, with the result that you increased that something TO Y. Edit - Somehow I read that earlier as both numbers being 300%, which would be incorrect in the manner I've described here. HOWEVER - the second should still be "to" rather than "by". the reason is that the use of the word "by" means that you are still taking the base amount and adding whatever to it, in this case, the first is adding 200% to it, the second is adding 300% to it. Neither one tells what the actual total is. /Edit

English itself is less ambiguous than people use it to be. There are a lot of contextual meaning changes, but without that context (such as the patch notes simply making a statement out of the blue, the chance of the node appearing has been increased by 300%) there can be no such contextual meaning change.

As such, the patch notes were in error, either in the English notes (which state an increase of 300%) or the other language patch notes (which state the chance was tripled). Reports suggest the English notes were the ones in error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnoTechie

because English is an ambiguous language, one that doesn't translate directly into particular meanings. I say this because phrases can have multiple meanings depending on context. "Increased by" is one particular phrase, because there is a difference when you mean to enact upon something (to increase a value by x%) versus displaying the result of a change (the value was increased by x%).

---

So increased by 50% means the same thing as decreased by 50%, aka halved?

As much as you would like to claim that there is a precise meaning to the phrase, the reality is that it is used inconsistently. I'm not sure how much clearer this can be, given the fact that it wasn't used according to the convention in this case. There is no need to be condescending to people, it isn't a matter of mathematical skill or language skill here. If you are really interested in shaming someone, the most you can say in this case is "they used the phrase inconsistently with convention!"

The moral of the story is that if you want to be precise, you should probably avoid the phrase altogether or include enough additional information to make it clear. Even if you are using it correctly, there are enough people out there using it incorrectly to give the reader some doubt, no matter how familiar with they are with English/math. As some others have pointed out, there are tons of ways to say it more clearly.

Let's try to keep these forums a positive place, and if we are going to argue, let's argue about something important like who would win in a fight between Merlwyb and Raubahn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonzaiFerroni

the reality is that it is used inconsistently.

---

Exactly...sitting here in shock about the fact this argument's even still going on.

This thread's already been linked in a couple of forums that poke fun at some of the ridiculousness that goes on here; but seeing it still on the front page now is especially laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randysquirrel

I've only done 3 sets since patch, but the amounts gathered so far were 16, 19 & 20. This is too small a sample to draw any meaningful conclusion really, but leans towards a slightly lower yield than before.

---

Underlined for emphasis.

I have not missed a single favor since red scrips were implemented, and can confirm a net zero change to the red scrip tokens spent and the materials realized through favors.

Just this week my record was (in 5 favors):

28 Bladeleaf
9 Swordleaf

Average seems to be around 20 (With a margin of error + or - 10) for 5 favors, just like it was prepatch. RNG will skew that value up and down, but with large enough sample size (30+ tokens worth), it is easy to calculate a more consistent dividend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonzaiFerroni

As much as you would like to claim that there is a precise meaning to the phrase, the reality is that it is used inconsistently.

---

The reality is that this only applies to those that don't understand English well enough. As Roth mentioned above and others have explained, English isnt as ambiguous in this case as people in this thread make it out to be.


It's simply some people arguing that their lack of English understanding means ''English is ambiguous''

''to'' and ''by'' mean different things. It is that simple. This is basic English. My earlier argument was not an insult as apparently it seems to be taken. This level of English is just that basic.


''you fill a glass to full''
''you fill a glass by filling it with water''
The different meaning of ''to'' and ''by'' can be infered by the different use of grammar in the two sentences.



''The yield of Favor items has been increased to 300% of the old value''
And everything after ''to 300%'' isn't even needed either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnoTechie

I was referring to your demeaning comment. Those are quite unnecessary.

---

It wasnt a demeaning comment. Perhaps you felt that it was, but it truly is basic English.

It was about basic math because you claimed the math used to explain the English used was incorrect.
Again, I also dont need to use links to disapprove you are wrong, because the math also is very basic. Children are taught this level of math (the different between + and x) in their first year of math.

So having (presumably) adult people who regularly engage in forum discussions argue about this is baffling.

Again, perhaps I'm biased since I never had much issues learning English myself..so I tend to forget the difficulties in learning another language. So perhaps the English isn't as basic as I'm making it to be, but more intermediate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonzaiFerroni

Let's try to keep these forums a positive place, and if we are going to argue, let's argue about something important like who would win in a fight between Merlwyb and Raubahn?

---

This would be a more positive thread if you *blushed* and realized it's only a small thing to be wrong about. I'm surprised tho, I didnt consider you one to argue over something that cant be argued about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alistaire

Exactly...sitting here in shock about the fact this argument's even still going on.

---

I guess it shows people on these forums truly try to argue against everything.

Remember what it feels like to blush!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StouterTaru

So increased by 50% means the same thing as decreased by 50%, aka halved?

---

I do believe that is what is being argued, yes.

the way you farm favors is much more important than before now. to get the most out of them you should always prepare 4 nodes so that they have only 1 gathering attempt left before starting the favor. also you should gather only the rare materials from concealed nodes before moving on. making use of sprint between close nodes and mounting for nodes that are further away should be obvious too. I believe doing all this vs just gathering normally can easily increase your average yield per favor by 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

The reality is that this only applies to those that don't understand English well enough. As Roth mentioned above and others have explained, English isnt as ambiguous in this case as people in this thread make it out to be.
It's simply some people arguing that their lack of English understanding means ''English is ambiguous''
''to'' and ''by'' mean different things. It is that simple. This is basic English. My earlier argument was not an insult as apparently it seems to be taken. This level of English is just that basic.

---

The English words themselves are basic, yes, but if you had actually attended college as you had stated you did in an earlier post, I'd expect you not to ignore a reference, and the point of even having them. In said reference, even people with advanced degrees in math agree that the particular phrase used is ambiguous with respect to Math, and should be avoided at all costs because of the duality of the meaning when you start trying to interpret them into Mathematical terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

''you fill a glass to full''
''you fill a glass by filling it with water''
The different meaning of ''to'' and ''by'' can be infered by the different use of grammar in the two sentences.
''The yield of Favor items has been increased to 300% of the old value''
And everything after ''to 300%'' isn't even needed either.

---

omitting the part after the "to 300%" is exactly what would make it ambiguous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

It wasnt a demeaning comment. Perhaps you felt that it was, but it truly is basic English.
It was about basic math because you claimed the math used to explain the English used was incorrect.
Again, I also dont need to use links to disapprove you are wrong, because the math also is very basic. Children are taught this level of math (the different between + and x) in their first year of math.
So having (presumably) adult people who regularly engage in forum discussions argue about this is baffling.
Again, perhaps I'm biased since I never had much issues learning English myself..so I tend to forget the difficulties in learning another language. So perhaps the English isn't as basic as I'm making it to be, but more intermediate.

---

Perhaps you don't understand basic English if you don't know when you are effectively calling someone an idiot or a child by saying that their education amounts to no less than what children are taught in their first years of English or Math. I suggest you go and review, and English is my first language, thank you very much.

Just going to toss my Favor results in here. I did 60 favors over the past week and here's what I got. (Excluding the Hidden mats.) I also pre-prepped 4 nodes before starting each one.

Trader's Favor (Coerthas Western Highlands) - 20 favors - 80 Red Ooids
Trader's Favor (Dravanian Forelands) - 10 favors - 44 Green Ooids
Matron's Favor (The Churning Mists) - 20 favors - 83 Wyvern Warts
Matron's Favor (Sea of Clouds) - 10 favors - 40 Void Nuts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grieve

Just going to toss my Favor results in here. I did 60 favors over the past week and here's what I got. (Excluding the Hidden mats.) I also pre-prepped 4 nodes before starting each one.

Trader's Favor (Coerthas Western Highlands) - 20 favors - 80 Red Ooids
Trader's Favor (Dravanian Forelands) - 10 favors - 44 Green Ooids
Matron's Favor (The Churning Mists) - 20 favors - 83 Wyvern Warts
Matron's Favor (Sea of Clouds) - 10 favors - 40 Void Nuts

---

So that seems like 20 per 5 favors is the average.

My results so far:

5 favors - 22 red ooids
5 favors - 19 green ooids
5 favors - 21 bladeleaf
5 favors - 22 yellow ooids

Not counting hidden which I average about two per favor set. I will update as I do more. Maybe we can add which nodes seem to work best per favor zone? I will have to try more spots, I will let you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnoTechie

The English words themselves are basic, yes, but if you had actually attended college as you had stated you did in an earlier post, I'd expect you not to ignore a reference, and the point of even having them. In said reference, even people with advanced degrees in math agree that the particular phrase used is ambiguous with respect to Math, and should be avoided at all costs because of the duality of the meaning when you start trying to interpret them into Mathematical terms.

---

Your first reference talks about people misusing similar phrasing. Does it change the meaning of the phrase? You can argue that it becomes slang, and becomes an accepted alternative. The word forte is often mispronounced as having two syllables, and you will see it noted in most dictionaries that it has become an accepted alternative pronunciation for the word. However, that is not the case for "Increased By." It literally means what it literally means.

Your 2nd reference shows it used properly, and describes exactly what it means. I'm not sure why you linked it.
http://www.algebralab.org/img/4a5f6e...aa2bad1da5.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

''to'' and ''by'' mean different things. It is that simple. This is basic English. My earlier argument was not an insult as apparently it seems to be taken. This level of English is just that basic.


''you fill a glass to full''
''you fill a glass by filling it with water''
The different meaning of ''to'' and ''by'' can be infered by the different use of grammar in the two sentences.



''The yield of Favor items has been increased to 300% of the old value''
And everything after ''to 300%'' isn't even needed either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnoTechie

omitting the part after the "to 300%" is exactly what would make it ambiguous.

---

Actually, no.

The word "to" tells you everything you need to know. Just as the word "by" tells you everything you need to know. However, they are not synonymous (that some think they are happens to be the unstated gist of the arguments in this thread).

To - the old value is discarded, and this new value is used in its place. The amount of adjustment is not specified.
By - the old value is adjusted by this amount, to a new, unspecified total.

Either way, you have to do the math to see what was not told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnoTechie

The English words themselves are basic, yes, but if you had actually attended college as you had stated you did in an earlier post, I'd expect you not to ignore a reference, and the point of even having them. In said reference, even people with advanced degrees in math agree that the particular phrase used is ambiguous with respect to Math, and should be avoided at all costs because of the duality of the meaning when you start trying to interpret them into Mathematical terms.

---

I completely ignore the reference, because then I would have to explain either a) why the reference is correct but it does not support your argument, or b) why the reference is wrong.

I'm actually arguing on the basis of a) already, which is assuming that the reference is correct but you simply misunderstand it. That you need to use a reference at all seems to indicate you don't understand how this math works on your own accord.
Also, in science one doesnt typically use references for math, unless it's a rarely used formula or you omit parts of the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnoTechie

advanced degrees in math agree

---

I failed my own advanced degress in math. That said, this is basic math, not advanced, nor scholarschip level. Having a reference by a math major doesnt make any arguments in regards to this any more valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnoTechie

omitting the part after the "to 300%" is exactly what would make it ambiguous.

---

As Roth explained. 'to 300%' means you replace the old value with the new one. 'by 300%' means you add 300% to the old value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnoTechie

Perhaps you don't understand basic English if you don't know when you are effectively calling someone an idiot or a child by saying that their education amounts to no less than what children are taught in their first years of English or Math. I suggest you go and review, and English is my first language, thank you very much.

---

I don't understand whether this particular part of English is considerate intermediate or basic. I'm a bit biased due to having learnt the language at an early age. That said. The math we discussed is truly taught to children around the age of 11-12 from I'm from.
Literally the first thing they learn is adding and multiplying. % I don't recall when it's taught, but the error made by some in this thread is not one of %'s anyway, it's the difference between adding and replacing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechnoTechie

you are effectively calling someone an idiot or a child by saying that their education amounts to no less than what children are taught in their first years of English or Math.

---

None of the words I used explicitely say that. But that does not change the fact that the math is incredibly basic, and the English not very advanced either. If as you say, you speak English natively, then I would think you know that both of this is true.

Making mistakes, no matter how basic they are; does not make one an idiot. Or uneducated.
Insisting you made no mistake however, well.. I will leave that up to debate.

I cant believe we are still discussing percentages ^^. To my understanding "increased by x" always means x was added to the original value. None of the sources that have been posted here says otherwise (if im wrong please quote the exact part). The ambiguity some people talked about comes from the difference between percentage and percentage points. For example if our current market board tax rate was 10% and they said "increased the market board tax rate by 5%" it could mean that the new tax rate is 15% (added 5 percentage points) or 10,5% (added 5% of the original 10%). In this case it would be pretty obvious that they mean 15% (pecentage points added) but in the case of our favors, the old spawn rate which was about 10% for each depleted node was increased to 300% (by 200%) of those 10% (10% -> 30%) and definitely not by 200 percentage points (10% -> 210%). So thats where our wording can be ambiguous.

Please take these stupid posts about whether it is an increase TO 300% or BY 300%. I think we all understand they are different things, it would appear that the case is that it's increased TO 300%, but was mistranslated, but ultimately, who cares.

To get back on topic, I completed this week's favors, 9 sets of 5, and for each 5-set I came out around 20 mats, just as I did pre-patch. No real noticeable difference.

Rare mats, as before, are very hit and miss, sometimes I'd get three, other times none at all. Again though, it was like this before

I'm going to ask SE to change the name of this forum to Items, Synthesis, Gathering, and Communicating Percentage Change ;D

Honestly, all this talk about "what does 300% increase mean" is sort of pointless. It can mean whatever you think it means, but the proof is in the pudding. Seems like most posters are reporting 4 mats per favor. And that's all that matters. If I recall, I was getting about 4 per favor before the patch as well.

However, they didn't actually address the problem. Gatherers spend their time getting red scrips for their token-exchanged gear. Crafters spend their time gathering favor mats themselves since gatherers aren't doing it since the only thing crafters have to offer gatherers are useless OH tools.

Put crafter-made gatherer gear (10 iLvl lower, but meldable) and gatherers will start posting more favor materials. And then there will be an actual viable economy with this ridiculous scrip token concept SE forced on us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dspguy

Honestly, all this talk about "what does 300% increase mean" is sort of pointless. It can mean whatever you think it means, but the proof is in the pudding. Seems like most posters are reporting 4 mats per favor. And that's all that matters. If I recall, I was getting about 4 per favor before the patch as well.

---

But how many nodes were you clearing in 15 minutes, vs how many in 5 minutes?

The 4 concealed nodes take a much larger portion of your time in 5 minutes. Starting next to two nodes, pre-striking 4 nodes, and being able to hit one after the buff has worn removes a larger portion of your downtime, so that makes up for some of it. In the end it's 12+ nodes in 5 minutes vs 40+ in 15 minutes, which is why I thought increased by 300% would make sense for 1/3 the duration.

Time cut to 1/3 ... chance multiplied by 3. Mathemagically, that results in the same average number of Favor Mats per Favor.

I'd hoped, however, that the English patch notes were correct, and the time was cut to 1/3, but the chance was quadrupled. 4/3 the materials, yes please!

Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roth_Trailfinder

Time cut to 1/3 ... chance multiplied by 3. Mathemagically, that results in the same average number of Favor Mats per Favor.

I'd hoped, however, that the English patch notes were correct, and the time was cut to 1/3, but the chance was quadrupled. 4/3 the materials, yes please!

Oh well.

---

This should be the idea based on notes but i seem to be getting 2 to 3 mats after 3.07 compared to 4 to 5 average per token before the patch. Its either i'm lucky before or i'm unlucky now. Can only blame RNG on this.

I like the time cut, makes it easier to gather. But still crafting is broken, so i'm saving most of the gathering tokens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenventa

This should be the idea based on notes but i seem to be getting 2 to 3 mats after 3.07 compared to 4 to 5 average per token before the patch. Its either i'm lucky before or i'm unlucky now. Can only blame RNG on this.

I like the time cut, makes it easier to gather. But still crafting is broken, so i'm saving most of the gathering tokens.

---

I made a post with some tips to help get the same amount of items with the new change. I think the biggest thing is to not bother gathering the clusters from the concealed nodes, you can just grab the item and move on. Leaving it up won't keep other concealed nodes from popping up, they will just overwrite the old one.

Just to add my own experience today ... I spent 4 RGT on Favors, two sets of CWH mining, and two sets of CM botanist.

First mining set I got 20 Red Ooids, and one Red Roundstone.
Second set I got 16 Ooids, zero Red Roundstones.
First botany set I got 25 (!) Wyvern's Wart, and two Dragon's Wart.
Second botany set I got 21 Wyvern's Wart, and two Dragon's Wart.

Other than that disappointingly low 16 Red Ooid, I think I came out fairly well.

Spent 15 favors farming Foxgloves which is one of the most spread-out set of nodes. Got 80 Foxgloves and 11 Bitter Foxgloves, so around 5.3 per favor doing the 4-node prep per favor.
I've still yet to run into the zero spawn favor (and I've done 50+ favors since the patch). This run seemed pretty good and I've gotten my share of 16/5 favor runs but overall seems about the same yield just way faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StouterTaru

But how many nodes were you clearing in 15 minutes, vs how many in 5 minutes?

---

It is semantics. Looks like most people were averaging about 4 mats per token. And are still getting 4 mats per token. What's the difference then? It just takes less time. It doesn't matter what the patch notes say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roth_Trailfinder

Just to add my own experience today ... I spent 4 RGT on Favors, two sets of CWH mining, and two sets of CM botanist.

First mining set I got 20 Red Ooids, and one Red Roundstone.
Second set I got 16 Ooids, zero Red Roundstones.
First botany set I got 25 (!) Wyvern's Wart, and two Dragon's Wart.
Second botany set I got 21 Wyvern's Wart, and two Dragon's Wart.

Other than that disappointingly low 16 Red Ooid, I think I came out fairly well.

---

Sounds about normal. Most sets of favors give me anywhere from 15-25 items, so it looks like the average is supposed to be around 20. Makes sense since an average of 180 items a week corresponds with the turn in requirements for 9 sets of normal quality red scrip materials.