PC Cooking has now become obsolete

[Hek Harris]

Am I that bad at english or are you guys TRYING to misrepresent/misunderstand me?
What is the chance of getting food poisoning on the first thing you eat? 4%. 2nd? 4%. 3rd? 4%.

I never said anything else.

What is your chance of getting food poisoning AT LEAST ONCE when consuming 3? 12.5%

THIS is what I meant. Go ahead and read it again.

I do not need to stop, you need to either tell me how I should have said this or YOU need to stop. Because I am right.

Honestly... read it again. I never said anything that foodpoisoning chance increases per food consumed, but that the overall chance that you will get food poisoning once is increasing.

I... I can't anymore. Why can I admit when something I said was wrong but you still harper on something that I never said... is it really me? Am I really that inept at using the english language that what I say and mean differ this much?

Ok, let's try this : let's say you have 1% chance to have an accident when you go to work. According to you, if you go 100 times to work, you have 100% chance to have an accident. Am I right ?

 

[Viktoriusiii]

Credibility has just called: it won't come until you've worked your maths. But thank you, it's good to laugh sometimes.

again. read again what I wrote, maybe I am just to stupid to explain.

Lets say you eat 3 servings of a 50% poison.

If you have a 50/50 chance:

50% that on your first try, you have been poisoned. So there are only 50% of cases, where you even get to the 2nd serving without poisoning.

Now you only have 50% left so 50 becomes the new 100.

50% of 50 is? 25.

So you only have a 25% chance to get to the third serving without food poisoning.

Now 25% is the new 100. 50% of 25= 12.5

So the chance of getting 3 of these 50% poison foods in without beeing effected is 12.5%

So the effective propability of getting food poisoning for 3 servings is 87.5%, Even though every single serving has a 50% chance.

 

[Kalarro]

WTF roland, you are failing basic probability.

If you eat 3 things with 4% probability, ofc the last one still has only 4% chance, but the total chance of beeing poisoned eating the 3 does increse.

Lets do it the easy way, using inverse probability which makes it easier when trying to calculate "at least 1" cases. The probability of beeing poisoned after 3 times with 4% each time is 1 - the probability of not beeing poisoned, so:

0,96*0,96*0,96=0,88 probability of not beeing poisoned.

1-0,88= 12% chance of beeing poisoned, close to what Vik said

EDIT: the result of 12% beeing the same as 4%+4%+4% is just a coincidence. You dont sum them up, but the fact several order of which one is the poisoned one are valid, plus the possibility of more than one, and so on adds to the probability. All that is simplilfied by using inverse probability like I did. Another way would be to calculate all possible outcomes (first one beeing poisoned +second one + first 2, and so on). And all that happens to be 12% same as 4*3, but its just a coincidence.

Still, its 12% like Vik said

And still more posts saying he is wrong xD

 

[SnowDog1942]

Ok, let's try this : let's say you have 1% chance to have an accident when you go to work. According to you, if you go 100 times to work, you have 100% chance to have an accident. Am I right ?

Nailed it

 

[Viktoriusiii]

Ok, let's try this : let's say you have 1% chance to have an accident when you go to work. According to you, if you go 100 times to work, you have 100% chance to have an accident. Am I right ?

Nope.

It would be:

99% safe

1% poison

99% becomes the new 100:

1% of 99= 0.99

98.01% becomes the new 100:

1% of 98.01= 0.9801

...

So your effective chance of getting food poisoning from eating 100 servings of a 1% poison would be *calculator*

63,4%

 

[Roland]

What is your chance of getting food poisoning AT LEAST ONCE when consuming 3? 12.5%

THIS is what I meant. Go ahead and read it again.

I do not need to stop, you need to either tell me how I should have said this or YOU need to stop. Because I am right.

Math is a universal language so stop describing in words and show us your math of how you arrive at 12.5%. Also please show me the math for the chance to puke if it is about to be my 26th meal of bacon and eggs and I still have never puked. and to get really ridiculous let’s see your calculations for the probability of puking if it is about to be my 150th meal of bacon and eggs and I’ve never puked.

Spoiler

It’s a 4% chance

 

[Viktoriusiii]

Here in incremental stacks to better visualize (with the 1% chance hek harris called for):

10 servings: 9,6%

25 servings: 23,3%

50 servings: 39,5%

75 servings: 53%

100 servings: 63.4%

200 servings: 86.6%

350 servings: 97%

500 servings: 99.35%

Thank you Kalarro. At least one person with a basic understanding of probability.

 

[Viktoriusiii]

And just because I am really annoyed, here are the actual values for the 4%

3 servings: 12.5%

6 servings: 21.8%

10 servings: 34.6%

20 servings: 65.8%

50 servings: 87%

100 servings: 98.4%

 

[Kalen]

Math is a universal language so stop describing in words and show us your math of how you arrive at 12.5%. Also please show me the math for the chance to puke if it is about to be my 26th meal of bacon and eggs and I still have never puked. and to get really ridiculous let’s see your calculations for the probability of puking if it is about to be my 150th meal of bacon and eggs and I’ve never puked.

Spoiler

It’s a 4% chance

C'mon.... you're a math guy you know better.

100- ((1-chance)^num attempts)

So, 4% chance for 3 attempts

100-((1-.04)^3) = 11.5264

So if you eat 3 bacon and eggs with a 4% chance of getting sick, there is an 11.5264% chance that at least 1 of them will make you sick.

Of course each individual meal is only 4%.

 

[Roland]

WTF roland, you are failing basic probability. If you eat 3 things with 4% probability, ofc the last one still has only 4% chance, but the total chance of beeing poisoned eating the 3 does increse.

Lets do it the easy way, using inverse probability which makes it easier when trying to calculate "at least 1" cases. The probability of beeing poisoned after 3 times with 4% each time is 1 - the probability of not beeing poisoned, so:

0,96*0,96*0,96=0,88 probability of not beeing poisoned.

1-0,88= 12% chance of beeing poisoned, close to what Vik said

EDIT: the result of 12% beeing the same as 4%+4%+4% is just a coincidence. You dont sum them up, but the fact several order of which one is the poisoned one are valid, plus the possibility of more than one, and so on adds to the probability. All that is simplilfied by using inverse probability like I did. Another way would be to calculate all possible outcomes (first one beeing poisoned +second one + first 2, and so on). And all that happens to be 12% same as 4*3, but its just a coincidence.

Still, its 12% like Vik said

And still more posts saying he is wrong xD

I understand that someone who doesn’t play the game has a 0% chance “to win” and someone who plays more has a theoretical higher chance “to win” the more they play but what does any of that actually matter when each and every next meal is always 4%.

Theoretical probability is great for a thought exercise or for trying to prove a point about a game mechanic you don’t like but the reality is that theoretical probability only works looking forward and it is just that. Once you’ve eaten 24 meals and never puked, theoretically that 25th meal is a certain puke. But the reality is that once you’re past those 24 meals and staring at that 25th plate of bacon and eggs, the real and actual probability is still just 4%.

That feeling of “I’m due” is just a feeling that prevents you from eating and compels you to buy a $5 scratcher.

Yours and Vik’s thinking is what dupes millions of people into playing the lottery....

 

[Kalen]

I understand that someone who doesn’t play the game has a 0% chance “to win” and someone who plays more has a theoretical higher chance “to win” the more they play but what does any of that actually matter when each and every next meal is always 4%.
Theoretical probability is great for a thought exercise or for trying to prove a point about a game mechanic you don’t like but the reality is that theoretical probability only works looking forward and it is just that. Once you’ve eaten 24 meals and never puked, theoretically that 25th meal is a certain puke. But the reality is that once you’re past those 24 meals and staring at that 25th plate of bacon and eggs, the real and actual probability is still just 4%.

That feeling of “I’m due” is just a feeling that prevents you from eating and compels you to buy a $5 scratcher.

Yours and Vik’s thinking is what dupes millions of people into playing the lottery....

You're right, but its all a question of when you look at the probability. If you flip a coin 1000 times it's almost 100% certain you'll get heads at least once. But the 1000th flip still only has a 50% chance.... (so does the 567th or 32nd)

 

[Hek Harris]

Yours and Vik’s thinking is what dupes millions of people into playing the lottery....

In this regard, the French lottery had a slogan: "100% of the lottery winners had bought a ticket". This slogan had greatly increased the number of punters

 

[A Nice Cup of Tea]

They don't combine. You are committing a fallacy. Each event is independent of the one before. The probability resets each time. Only in the anxiety and worry in your mind are you adding up how many times you've escaped and then thinking that you're due so the probability must be sky high. It isn't true.
By the way, you say that the probabilities are multiplicative. When you multiply decimals you get smaller decimals. So if you are trying to combine probabilities through multiplication you will only get smaller probabilities. I'll make it easier for you. Try multiplying .5 and .5 and see what you get.

Viktoriusiii is indeed getting it wrong, but you're being a bit misleading when you say they're totally independent - they are technically independent, but when calculating the probabilities for a string of consecutive independent events you still combine them in some situations.

Let's say you are on 20% food - very hungry - and you wish to get yourself to 100% food.

You have a choice of either eating two Lobster Thermidors that will give you 40% food each, or sixteen Caviar Canapes that will give you 5% food each. Either of those has a 4% chance of giving you food poisoning, and therefore a 0.96 probability of being fine.

To fill yourself up with the two Lobster Thermidors, you need to get the 0.96 chance both times. Each of those "die rolls" is independent, but you need a series of two successes. So the chance of eating two Lobster Thermidors is 0.96^2 = 0.9216, or approximately 92%.

To fill yourself up with the sixteen Caviar Canapes, you need to get the 0.96 chance all sixteen times - since any one hitting the 4% will make you vomit and have to start again. Again, each of these "die rolls" is independent, but this time you need a series of sixteen successes in order to reach 100% food. So the chances of eating sixteen Caviar Canapes without vomiting is 0.96^16 = 0.5204, or approximately 52%.

So while it is correct that each event is independent of the others, it's also correct that eating fewer large meals is far less likely to make you throw up than getting the same total food amount from many small meals. Just not in the way that Viktoriusiii says.

(Nervously waits for the math teacher to check his work...)

 

[Roland]

You're right, but its all a question of when you look at the probability. If you flip a coin 1000 times it's almost 100% certain you'll get heads at least once. But the 1000th flip still only has a 50% chance.... (so does the 567th or 32nd)

Exactly. And Vik’s fallacy was using a theoretical projection to describe the next meal counting the meals already eaten. Kalarro wouldn’t be so quick to back Vik if he could see that Vik isn’t looking at the probability of puking at least once over the next 3 meals and thinking there could be a 12% chance of it happening. Vik is looking at the meal in front of him and saying that he didn’t puke up the last two so now in this moment he has a 12% chance to puke it up.

No. It’s 4%.

Putting it into your terms I would say there is a 99% chance a player will puke at some point while they are playing if they play for 100’s of hours. But all that really matters when playing the game and eating a meal is that you have a 96% chance of being just fine.

And if you do puke without any backup food you’ll have 100% chance of suddenly having goals and objectives that will make for an interesting story.

 

[Viktoriusiii]

Yours and Vik’s thinking is what dupes millions of people into playing the lottery....

Are... are you for real still not acknowledging that you are wrong? Is... this some sort of cruel joke to make my heart explode or something?

YES EVERY SINGLE LOTTERY NUMBER HAS A 1/100.000.000 chance (or something) which is a 0.000001% chance for every ticket.

But why do you think there are still lottery winners? BECAUSE ENOUGH PEOPLE PLAY IT.

If I were to buy 10.000.000 tickets, I had a 10% chance of winning.

If I were to buy 100.000.000 tickets I had a 63.3% chance of winning.

The reason why lottery is humbug is not that you can not win. It is that you would need to pay a multiple of that what you could potentially win.

If I buy 100.000.000 tickets... do you think my chances are still 0.000001%?

Because that is what you are saying.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. And Vik’s fallacy was using a theoretical projection to describe the next meal counting the meals already eaten.

NO I'M NOT!!! READ IT AGAIN! I SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT I KNOW THAT THE NEXT SERVING IS STILL 4%

Are you for real roland? I guess you really DO need to learn to read.

 

[Kalen]

Exactly. And Vik’s fallacy was using a theoretical projection to describe the next meal counting the meals already eaten. Kalarro wouldn’t be so quick to back Vik if he could see that Vik isn’t looking at the probability of puking at least once over the next 3 meals and thinking there could be a 12% chance of it happening. Vik is looking at the meal in front of him and saying that he didn’t puke up the last two so now in this moment he has a 12% chance to puke it up.
No. It’s 4%.

Putting it into your terms I would say there is a 99% chance a player will puke at some point while they are playing if they play for 100’s of hours. But all that really matters when playing the game and eating a meal is that you have a 96% chance of being just fine.

And if you do puke without any backup food you’ll have 100% chance of suddenly having goals and objectives that will make for an interesting story.

Gotcha.... to be clear, I actually like the current system and don't really worry about food poisoning. Sure it's happened to me, but I don't really see it as a big deal, unless it's pretty early in the game.

Edit: Honestly, though I didn't think Vik was saying that.... I read it as he was looking at total probability not each individual meal.

 

[Viktoriusiii]

So while it is correct that each event is independent of the others, it's also correct that eating fewer large meals is far less likely to make you throw up than getting the same total food amount from many small meals. Just not in the way that Viktoriusiii says.

(Nervously waits for the math teacher to check his work...)

Where did I say that? I said exactly what you said. That the overall probability rises with every meal you need to take.

 

[Morloc]

Roland.

You're correct that each instance where a probability of 4% is defined will have a 4% chance of happening whether you do it once, or 10,000 times. If it comes up positive 9,999 times, the 10,000 try is still a 4% chance.

However...

The question at hand is defining your odds over a given number of attempts.

"Out of 100 tries, what are my odds of hitting a target at at least once?" The answer is no longer 4%.

(1-.04)^100 = 0.016870

1-0.016870 = 0.98313 x 100 = 98%

-Morloc

 

[Roland]

Viktoriusiii is indeed getting it wrong, but you're being a bit misleading when you say they're totally independent - they are technically independent, but when calculating the probabilities for a string of consecutive independent events you still combine them in some situations.
Let's say you are on 20% food - very hungry - and you wish to get yourself to 100% food.

You have a choice of either eating two Lobster Thermidors that will give you 40% food each, or sixteen Caviar Canapes that will give you 5% food each. Either of those has a 4% chance of giving you food poisoning, and therefore a 0.96 probability of being fine.

To fill yourself up with the two Lobster Thermidors, you need to get the 0.96 chance both times. Each of those "die rolls" is independent, but you need a series of two successes. So the chance of eating two Lobster Thermidors is 0.96^2 = 0.9216, or approximately 92%.

To fill yourself up with the sixteen Caviar Canapes, you need to get the 0.96 chance all sixteen times - since any one hitting the 4% will make you vomit and have to start again. Again, each of these "die rolls" is independent, but this time you need a series of sixteen successes in order to reach 100% food. So the chances of eating sixteen Caviar Canapes without vomiting is 0.96^16 = 0.5204, or approximately 52%.

So while it is correct that each event is independent of the others, it's also correct that eating fewer large meals is far less likely to make you throw up than getting the same total food amount from many small meals. Just not in the way that Viktoriusiii says.

(Nervously waits for the math teacher to check his work...)

Great example of how theoretical probabilities can help you plan and strategize. But what you can’t do after downing that 15th Caviar is look at the 16th in front of you and think, “I have a 52% chance of puking this up” because that would be the fallacy.

Theoretical probability is what drives you to plan to make the Lobster dishes but the only thing that needs to guide your action in the moment is the actual probability which is unaffected by the past.

 

[Liesel Weppen]

I play single player but also in multiplayer this should not be a big problem. The vending machines are restocked daily and you can easily get coins from the quests. In addition, these vending machines are located in many POIs and each machine has its own inventory.

(Canned) food was our biggest problem in the begining. Because your are 4 players, you don't get more loot than single.

And even if you can get anough out of traders and vending machines, you need to invest the time to get dukes, just to spend them on food later.

Some of our players also play singleplayer and all of them were surprised what issue food becomes in multiplayer.

Basically you maybe do not to want put skillpoints into cooking in SP, but in MP it's less "loss" to invest the skillpoints, since only one needs to learn the skills and can than cook for the others.

Can food gives you up to 15 food. A little more than grilled / charred meat and about halve of vegetable stew or bacon and eggs.

UP TO 15 food! Half of them only gives 5 or 10. And also half of the canned food deosn't restore health at all.

Bacon & eggs give you 36 food, thats already more than twice then the best canned food. But grilled meat and bacon & eggs is not what i call "cooking". Meat stew gives you 50, sham chowder 53 and hobo stew even 64 food. So basically over 3 times more then even the best cans!