Forum:Raise Charm log minimum
The current minimum charm log submission requirement is 50 kills and honesty.
Being 50, if they get 1 charm it is 1/50.
If they get 2 charms it is 2/50.
Which is then converted to the % of charms dropped being 1-100%.
So it is just logical that for more accurate numbers of charm drops. The requirement to submit a charm log be 100 kills for ease of %'s.
18:42, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Would you be willing to keep track and slay something such as 100 Corporeal Beasts to add to the charm log? It's easy to get lost, even with small monsters such as giant spiders. Keeping it at 50 is a decent estimate without going too overboard. One final note is that we state on the charm log these are approximations, nothing is perfectly confirmed if I get only 2 blue charms in 50 monster kills. Coelacanth0794 Talk 18:46, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
- I would hope that the charm log minimum for high level monsters like the Corporeal Beast would stay at 15. 19:22, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - It can be seen more logical, yes, but it doesn't make much of a difference. The reasoning behind the 50 minimum is just to make sure that it looks good, rather than a 5 charm minimum which could screw some things up (ex.50 people entering 5 gold charms, nothing else). Right now, 50 isn't even messing up our charm data, as it just dumps into the big charm log, slightly altering the percentage. Of course 100 would be fantastic, but to ask that from our user database is hard to do, as they are voluntarily putting in the data for us. Hair 18:48, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Previous discussion. I'm against this. The only argument you have is to make it easier. Really? I mean, our computers have a calculator built in if you don't want to do the math in your head. By the way, 1/50 is 2% which is the same as 2/100. 2/50 is 4% which is the same as 4/100. 19:22, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Per above.01:39, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Pathetic - Glad to know the wiki users are just basing their own opinion off of each others. Love,05:40, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Just because opinions are similar does not necessarily mean that they are based off each other. 06:44, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
- How is it at all? What you are calling pathetic is the basis and beauty of our consensus centered community. Arguments aren't just here to make a point; they're doing more than that: swaying others to their way of thinking. MolMan 17:35, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Misunderstanding of statistics. Raising the minimum wouldn't make anything more accurate, nor would it make it easier -- the only reason we have the 50 kill requirement is to prevent people from only reporting good drops (which isn't really an issue with charms in the first place). Charm logs are a mess to begin with, but this just raises barriers to entry. ʞooɔ 06:09, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Contrary - I just signed up for a 14-day trial and for a slayer daily challenge, I looked up the Mazchna page. Leaving out cyclopses and wall beasts from the long list, all his assignments are no less than 40, which is what I think the lower limit should be set at. The next slayer master, Vannaka, requires a combat of 60 (not that easy to obtain now that prayer and summoning are out) compared to Mazchna's 30. I know this is a minor reason, but it's one to consider for the new players. Alchez 08:16, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind lowering the minimum to 20 or something. We'd get a bit of a selection bias that could make it less accurate, but we're kidding ourselves if we think what we have now is totally correct. ʞooɔ 20:28, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Most of what I've seen being added to the charm logs aren't random stat geeks like Cook trying to get numbers, they're just regular joes who have finished a slayer task. Setting the minimum over what most masters will assign is kinda counterproductive. MolMan 17:35, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Maths isn't hard when you have a calculator.21:46, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - It seems to me your entire argument for raising the limit is to make it easier to calculate. This is already done automatically, so raising the limit would be pointless. If anything I'd rather see it lowered to around 2517:08, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
This thread seems almost at an asymptote, and may turn around soon; I support the opposite of what has been proposed which was kinda proposed by a few users. Lower the charmlog limit, per this. It should also help us to get more entries due to the less exclusive access. Not to mention that most vandalism is 1000, 5000, 9000, or 89271743234 kills. MolMan 21:43, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Forum:Charm_log_limits in case you didn't see. I would also support lowering the kills (as I did last time). 21:54, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, as the current minimum is fine. The percentages are approximate anyway. To achieve a visible, significant increase in precision, huge samples would have to be used - thousands as a minimum, not hundreds. 5-x Talk 22:02, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
Closed - There is no consensus to raise the charm log minimum. Hair 23:24, January 6, 2013 (UTC)