Make your own then. All I did was copy the old 1 onto a new locked 1 so we wouldn't be trolled. I didn't do the formulas and I'm not counting my steps while keeping track of all of my eggs and everyone else's. If you don't like it then do your own. We had a problem with trolling, I fixed it end of story. Beyond that, I'm not a genius I don't know how to do that stuff. If you do and want to take time out of your day to keep track of everything then be my guest. If you want to make your own and show me how to update it I'd gladly do that part but it must stay locked to 1 or 2 people otherwise we'll have trolling problems againYour spreadsheet has a fatal flaw.
The game procedurally produces eggs, regardless of whether or not the daycare man has an egg to give to the player.
Eggs produced while he does are wasted. This means that the results are not valid. At all.
The way around this would be to ensure that each player takes less than 500 steps post-egg generation. 250 before and after the next egg has been created. A common method is to release the pokemon in your party in a systematic fashion, usually alternating between 3 and 2 hatches.
I'd like to point out the other misgivings that I have about your spreadsheet, but there's little point unless you address the problem above. The results are useless, I'm afraid.
Not true. It doesn't matter how many eggs are produced and discarded by the game, because each egg, collected by the player or discarded by the game, has the the same probability of being a shiny pokemon. Sure, it would suck to think that we missed an opportunity to get a shiny pokemon, but it doesn't alter our findings. If the game is discarding eggs, then what we're doing is testing a random subset of the data, which is a very common practice in all types of experiments in a wide range of fields. You don't count every cell in an assay or survey every human being on the planet when taking a poll. If we can collect enough pooled data of these random subsets, we can be reasonably confident that the shiny charm does or does not influence Masuda method breeding, which is the goal.Your spreadsheet has a fatal flaw.
The game procedurally produces eggs, regardless of whether or not the daycare man has an egg to give to the player.
Eggs produced while he does are wasted. This means that the results are not valid. At all.
The way around this would be to ensure that each player takes less than 500 steps post-egg generation. 250 before and after the next egg has been created. A common method is to release the pokemon in your party in a systematic fashion, usually alternating between 3 and 2 hatches.
I'd like to point out the other misgivings that I have about your spreadsheet, but there's little point unless you address the problem above. The results are useless, I'm afraid.
Midnyte - you're doing a great job, and we all appreciate your efforts :)Make your own then. All I did was copy the old 1 onto a new locked 1 so we wouldn't be trolled. I didn't do the formulas and I'm not counting my steps while keeping track of all of my eggs and everyone else's. If you don't like it then do your own. We had a problem with trolling, I fixed it end of story. Beyond that, I'm not a genius I don't know how to do that stuff. If you do and want to take time out of your day to keep track of everything then be my guest. If you want to make your own and show me how to update it I'd gladly do that part but it must stay locked to 1 or 2 people otherwise we'll have trolling problems again
Edit: oh and btw most of us collect the eggs we pledged 1st, then hatch them so I don't see how your "flaw" in the spreadsheet is actually a flaw
Thank you! Im trying ^_^Midnyte - you're doing a great job, and we all appreciate your efforts :)
An adequate response to criticism, I'm sureMake your own then.
At a first glance. Sample size is often glossed over in experiments, and affects the very nature of the study. In other words - it'll mean that you're not doing what you've set out to do. Testing a random subset of data is fine - but the larger the odds get, the bigger your sample size needs to be. Throwing away half of your sample means that you've tossed a margin of sampling error into the mix.Not true. It doesn't matter how many eggs are produced and discarded by the game, because each egg, collected by the player or discarded by the game, has the the same probability of being a shiny pokemon. Sure, it would suck to think that we missed an opportunity to get a shiny pokemon, but it doesn't alter our findings. If the game is discarding eggs, then what we're doing is testing a random subset of the data, which is a very common practice in all types of experiments in a wide range of fields. You don't count every cell in an assay or survey every human being on the planet when taking a poll. If we can collect enough pooled data of these random subsets, we can be reasonably confident that the shiny charm does or does not influence Masuda method breeding, which is the goal.
It seems like the data we've collected so far fits finely in to the projected probability for the MM and Shiny Charm, so it's not like we're missing something huge here. I think you were bored and saw something that you could nitpick. A lot of people are working hard on this project, and I have faith that it is accurate enough to make a reasonable conclusion within 90% certainty. Which is good enough for us non-scientists hatching eggs on Pokémon.An adequate response to criticism, I'm sure
At a first glance. Sample size is often glossed over in experiments, and affects the very nature of the study. In other words - it'll mean that you're not doing what you've set out to do. Testing a random subset of data is fine - but the larger the odds get, the bigger your sample size needs to be. Throwing away half of your sample means that you've tossed a margin of sampling error into the mix.
For the record, a global poll with a poorly judged sample size would be... horrific. It'd be subject to all sorts of problems.
See I was raised with the saying "if you don't like it, do something about it. If you don't want to do something about it then leave it alone." I didn't like being trolled and watching everyone's hard work go to waste so I did something about it. If you don't like what I did then do something about it. Otherwise leave it alone. It's that simple. That's all I was saying to your "criticism". And Criticizing the spreadsheet isn't helping anything. I've already said I wouldn't know how to change or fix this "flaw" of yours. So either you do your own or it stays the same. Those are the options here.An adequate response to criticism, I'm sure
At a first glance. Sample size is often glossed over in experiments, and affects the very nature of the study. In other words - it'll mean that you're not doing what you've set out to do. Testing a random subset of data is fine - but the larger the odds get, the bigger your sample size needs to be. Throwing away half of your sample means that you've tossed a margin of sampling error into the mix.
For the record, a global poll with a poorly judged sample size would be... horrific. It'd be subject to all sorts of problems.
(Plus no one is expecting you to bend over backwards to try to fix an imaginary "flaw" mentioned by some guy who made an account today just to harass you.)See I was raised with the saying "if you don't like it, do something about it. If you don't want to do something about it then leave it alone." I didn't like being trolled and watching everyone's hard work go to waste so I did something about it. If you don't like what I did then do something about it. Otherwise leave it alone. It's that simple. That's all I was saying to your "criticism". And Criticizing the spreadsheet isn't helping anything. I've already said I wouldn't know how to change or fix this "flaw" of yours. So either you do your own or it stays the same. Those are the options here.
A random sample of two people won't account for a population of 10 million.If the rejected eggs are random, then the sample is still random, and that's what ultimately matters.
Never propose a point with 'I was raised.' It implies that you're attempting to back your point up by appealing to the legitimacy of your parents. Argument from authority, if you will... this can be evidenced in the countless of religious indoctrinations across the globe. A significant proportion of parents will be wrong about their religion, if not all.See I was raised with the saying "if you don't like it, do something about it. If you don't want to do something about it then leave it alone." I didn't like being trolled and watching everyone's hard work go to waste so I did something about it. If you don't like what I did then do something about it. Otherwise leave it alone. It's that simple. That's all I was saying to your "criticism". And Criticizing the spreadsheet isn't helping anything. I've already said I wouldn't know how to change or fix this "flaw" of yours. So either you do your own or it stays the same. Those are the options here.
A random sample of two people won't account for a population of 10 million.
Of course, these aren't the odds here - but it highlights that the issue is with population versus sample size.
Criticism =/= harassment(Plus no one is expecting you to bend over backwards to try to fix an imaginary "flaw" mentioned by some guy who made an account today just to harass you.)
Less of the kneejerky ad hominem, thank you. Ignore criticism or address it - 'you're just an idiot LOL' really has no place in discussionPlease just go away, you're making yourself look bad.
Added. Thanx for joining :)I have some results here for you guys to enter. I don't want to mess with the sheet or make time to do so. over the course of 1000 eggs i hatched 2 shiny Absol's both with their hidden ability. I just started another batch for shiny fletchling and as of today i am at 735 eggs with only one shiny and unfortunately it had big pecks ability t(o^ot).
i used a japanese evee and english absol. currently using japanese fletchling and english fletchling.
edit: also my shiny eggs always seemed to hatch between the #350 to #500 range. it seemed that once i passed the 350th egg threshold i could expect a shiny.
Finished my first batch xD;; 100 eggs, 0 ShiniesI would like to join! :D
5iv US Ivysaur x JPN Ditto first, 100 eggs this batch.
You are also assuming that an egg is produced every single "Egg Cycle" And it's not. Even with the Oval Charm and Shiny Charm, I've gotten 4 to 5 cycles with no egg appearing. Your assumptions are skewed. There is no possible way to determine if an egg is going to appear or not. We can assume probability and likelihood of an eggs appearance, but that's the point. We can't assume and get results.Criticism =/= harassment
Less of the kneejerky ad hominem, thank you. Ignore criticism or address it - 'you're just an idiot LOL' really has no place in discussion
UpdatedFinished my first batch xD;; 100 eggs, 0 Shinies
Now my second batch will be same parents 60 eggs!
As long as you get the eggs after you saved and reset then it'll change the eggs. But if you saved before you hatch them the egg stays the same. So you save before you get the 1st egg. Collect all the eggs you want hatch then reset. Then get all the eggs againand does anyone know if saving, turning the game off and starting up again later reset the order of the eggs to be created from the daycare man. I ask because the Time Machine Method for getting 5-6iv pokemon requires resetting and does not change the order of iv's obtained.