Welcome to the Cave of Dragonflies guestbook.
nevermind
no need to answer this but for the "Favorite Pokémon Picker" I think a cool/useful option would be the ability to increase how many pokemon can be in your "Found Favorites", because at a certain point I can't narrow it down anymore without not picking one of my actual favorites.
Happy new years TCoD! What a year this has been and i'd like to give some new years thanks of my own to everyone on the TCoD forums!
Great update to the Safari Zone calculator. It's so great that TCoD celebrated its 18th birthday this year.
So… now that TCoD is an adult, will it be moving out?
(Joking)
The graphs chart a couple of particular special cases, with each individual data point precalculated by the calculator (as in, I literally used a calculator that works like the actual calculator to get the result for 100/100 HP, then 96/100 HP, then 92/100 HP… and then took that list and hardcoded it onto the page so I could tell Google Charts to plot it out). There is no simple predictive formula behind those graphs; these are just the numbers that you get when you plug these particular parameters into the calculator. If I wanted to make charts for any other catch rate, or for any situation where there's also a status condition, I'd have to calculate each data point there individually from scratch using the calculator.
The limit of 255 doesn't really have anything to do with making it difficult to generate true randomness. All random number generators used in games, etc. are pseudo-random - they consist of applying some kind of formula that gives results that appear random. This RNG design in particular just isn't fully thought-out; there are many other random number generator algorithms that would not have this problem and would genuinely give the expected results.
REALLY impressive work from all of you who've looked into this! I would've never expected a limit of 255 to make generating true randomness so difficult! Or did they make it more complicated than it needed to be..?
Just an offhand wonder about the new calculator: you say it's a heavy machine now, but you already have stats onhand for the predicted theoretical & real performance of these balls caused by this rng system, that you even put into graph form. Is it that these stats weren't satisfactory to apply as plain percentages during the simulation.. or that they weren't satisfactory for your ambition? 😛
Haha, they weren't exactly made to be standalone! Like, I've been posting them in places as cool RNG art, because they just look cool, but I absolutely don't expect them to convey much of any information without the accompanying explanation. That's why they are presented with all that explanation!
I'm not sure that they'd be all that useful standalone even with labels - like, even if I labeled the different colors, you wouldn't actually know what the patterns mean and they would just make it harder to tell how much green there actually is, proportionally, right? I could also label the axes, but the axes also aren't going to mean anything to anyone who isn't familiar with RNG internals as explained in the article. At best it might make the image more intriguing, I suppose, as a thing to post alongside a link to the article?
Yooooo, congrats on finishing this! It came out really nicely, and I think you did a good job breaking down what's going on with the RNG and how it has an impact on capturing. The capture plots are a really cool way to visualize what's going on… you can definitely see when the RNG is having a big effect based on how chaotic they get, heh. They're fun to look at as little pieces of art!
It might be nice to put some labels/legends on them, though, since without the paragraph of explanation about what's going on they're basically impenetrable. Compromises the arty look a bit, but would make them more standalone, I think.
What do you mean, both ways? I was suggesting the form should return an error and not let you submit if you type something that doesn't start with an http(s):// (because it will always be an invalid link).
However, wouldn't that lead to a broken link both ways?
Mainly that sometimes people type something like "none" or "don't have one", which shouldn't be a link either way.
So then what are the pitfalls of appending an http:// or https:// to the beginning of a guestbook link which does not start with http:// or https://?
I haven’t read through this yet but this looks amazing!! Nice work, this must have been quite the research/testing task :D
A relative link is a link to another page on the same website. When one of my pages links to another one of my pages, I don't need to type the full https:// URL, because it's assumed by default that the link goes to another page on the same site. If I do want to link to a different website altogether, I need to include the http:// or https://, because that's what tells the browser it's a full (absolute) link, rather than a relative one.
What's a relative link?
It's the formatting of the website address; they didn't include the http:// (or https://) part, which makes it a relative link.
I should probably just have the guestbook refuse to post the post if you don't include it.
The previous website link to pidgeot.uwu.ai leads to a 404 on Butterfree's page on a page formatted as "https://www.dragonflycave.com/guestbook/pidgeot.uwu.ai".
However, other links in the guestbook appear to directly link to the site, such as, for example, the Grenincarizardlup's link on the guestbook directly linking to https://greninlucarizardlupplace.webnode.com/ without having an intermediary link in the guestbook. This is also shown in your website linked on your comments in the guestbook, and I have not seen it before this specific instance despite browsing several pages of the guestbook and clicking on four of five other user links, which seem to function like greninlucarizardlup's and yours.
Why is that? Is it something related to the formatting that the user placed in the website address? Is it something about the domain name being different? Is it a new update in the linking of the guestbook?
aw i'm late but happy birthday to tcod! i believe i found this site around 9 years ago but i honestly am not sure. i always enjoy browsing and i love your work!
Wow, congratulations on 18 years! I can't believe I'm basically as old as this website. This was one of the first few websites I visited for this fandom and you have always impressed me with your dedication.
