[MENTION=92]YoshiEnVerde[/MENTION]

I'll be frank, I sound rushed because I'm impatient by nature and wary of the time passed and the lack of update to the wiki (and lack of update to the chart on this thread itself for that matter). Admittedly a wiki that has partial or inaccurate information can throw off its readers but I prefer that over one that is outright missing information that forces readers to try to make conclusions of their own (as I am currently doing with more success because of your criticism, thank you very much, I am not being sarcastic, it seriously does help).

So yes, I am willing to step on a few dozen landmines for the sake of feedback and results, maybe pass myself off as arrogant so that we can move forward in some way.

The way we draw our conclusions and understandings is from calculating the data and observing possible patterns and stating them as theories, knowing full well that without the publicly revealed algorithms (which you likewise stated wouldn't be made available to us), we will never be able to establish said theories as fact. Said theories are simply shot down when a piece of data comes in that conflicts with it, to which then it's just removed, simple as that.

My point is, I WANT criticism and conflicting data because they help take down any hypothesis I made that was premature while keeping ones that may either be true or close enough to the truth to count for something. Making something off of those still beats the questionable page I walked into in the wiki. If you disagree on that note and think the original was alot better, then let me know and I'll go ahead and reverse EVERYTHING I've done on that page so far.

And yes, I do intend to write up my theories on the wiki with the understanding that at any given time if they are proven untrue, they are subject to modification or removal to be replaced by something closer to the fact if not factual itself. At least from all the wiki sites I've been on, that's how it usually happens.

I'm still gonna propose my ideas. If conflicting data shows up within my view (and I observe alot), I'll go and remove it myself, either replace it with a new theory or leave it an unknown (or if you'd prefer I'll turn all my ideas into "suggested possibilities" and keep it like that for eternity because they'll never evolve beyond that.

And for the sake of this, confrontational is good, it's constructive so long as it's backed by reason, and by reason it has been backed so I'm satisfied.

Now, regarding the theory rejections:

Originally Posted by YoshiEnVerde

You can't get only two items. You can get 1 too.

I meant to say that you can only get "as many as" 2 items, as in it doesn't extend to 3 or more items (4 if you include the damned candy) in a single Kurito return. Yes, you can also get 1, I've noticed that.

In all the data I've looked over, I have yet to see one Kurito return that involved more than 2 consumable items (excluding candy, yes I am excluding candy, I will explain later)

Originally Posted by YoshiEnVerde

And you should not be sepparating candies from the other prizes, as if they are some extra tacked in the end, and not part of the prize itself.

I am separating them because from what I've seen in the data so far they don't directly correlate with the prize, only with the wait time (in fact, the candy amounts don't even match up with the nut color/shape, just disproved that myself a few hours ago so I'm yanking that theory). All of (okay, maybe not all but every single one I've seen and recorded) the Kurito returns I've seen for certain tiers involves combinations of items that sometimes have the candy, sometimes do not, and during these times have no other form of alteration to the returns content. While the idea itself isn't going to be fact (because nothing I propose as a theory can be one, I know), I find it to be plausible most of the time...and in fact I'm even proposing likely parameters of data that would reject the theory.

In the candy case, the only rejection I can think of is a Kurito return that has only candy and nothing else. That would suggest that candy can't be just an addition because otherwise there is no intended prize at all. Probably a bunch of other ways to disprove it, I'm open to suggestions and plausible rejections on that front, seriously.

Originally Posted by YoshiEnVerde

Oh, and my alt account just got Urumi Aiba (R card) and 15 candies in the same reward, so that invalidates another of your points

Noted and accepted, I will yank that theory, even yank the one that says candy correlates with wait time if your kurito return didn't come from the 00:40 wait time (maybe, maybe not, there is still that possibility that limited cards are considered a tier of their own in relation to candy and...alright, I'll yank it if it wasn't 40 minutes).

Truthfully, I only proposed that idea because so far all of my Kurito returns involving limited girl cards didn't have candies attached. Finding Limited Cards in the first place is fairly uncommon so the lack of data made that theory pretty unstable. Nonetheless, good to know that I can scrap that one.

I'll say it again, I'm doing this for the sake of building a model that's at least 85% (random number, I just mean usually passable) accurate about your typical visit to kurito's nest. I'm not looking for perfect, we can't do perfect without Nutaku's cooperation. So the best alternative is more data, conflicting data especially, just more things that close the gaps and remove as many incorrect ideas as possible. I'm open to that, just don't want to see something were we get like no data and no effort to work on anything.

So someone other than me, please start/keep rejecting my ideas and even better, join in on the brainstorming. At least we're getting somewhere.