Hunting in Derr- An analysis of SB+ and Crunchy use
With the introduction of two brand-new and very powerful physical traps, Derr has become embroiled in a battle of “Which trap should I use?” We at MH Analytics love to do our best to answer these questions, and so here it is: a comparison of the four top-tier Derr traps using a couple of different cheeses. Rather than make guesses based on the CRE tool, let’s look at the logs themselves, shall we?
Using SB+
PB/Magma/SB w/ shield
Cheese cost (pp) = 0
Number of hunts = 814
Attraction rate = 98.77%
Number of catches = 521
Catch rate per attraction = 64.8%
per hunt = 1275
per hunt = 2252
Stones per hunt = 0.53
Chillbot/Magma/SB w/ shield
Cheese cost (pp) = 0
Number of hunts = 904
Attraction rate = 99.34%
Number of catches = 591
Catch rate per attraction = 65.81%
per hunt = 1346
per hunt = 2265
Stones per hunt = .52
Cracker/Magma/SB w/ shield
Cheest cost (pp) = 0
Number of hunts = 1814
Attraction rate = 99.22%
Number of catches = N/A
Catch rate per attraction = N/A (I’ll get this ASAP)
Points earned per hunt = 751
Gold earned per hunt = 2306
delicious stone per hunt: 0.41
Rhinobot/Tribal/SB w/ shield
Cheest cost (pp) = 0
Number of hunts = 4154
Attraction rate = 99.37%
Number of catches = 2409
Catch rate per attraction = 58.36%
Points per hunt = 1140
Gold per hunt = 2122
delicious stone per hunt: 0.41
Rhinobot/Magma/SB w/ shield
Cheese cost (pp) = 0
Number of hunts = 1806
Attraction rate = 98.67%
Number of catches = 1045
Catch rate per attraction = 58.64%
Points per hunt = 1202.89
Gold per hunt = 2010
delicious stone per hunt = 0.45
Conclusion
This settles the debate on this one: the Rhinobot clearly is the most inferior of the high-end traps, with a lower rate of stones AND a lower amount of gold per hunt. It also doesn’t matter whether you’re using the Magma or Tribal; both of them produce lesser results, with the tribal getting more gold while the magma gets more stones.
However, the debate on the other three remains open. The Cracker, Partybot and Chillbot all have a VERY similar catch rate. While the cracker does have more gold per hunt, it also gets less stones per hunt, which does make it a less viable option. Still, the Chrome Drillbot is showing no signs of being a remarkable trap for catching physical mice. The variance in our data is small enough that you could attribute the differences to the simple nature of statistics never being perfect (you never flip a coin and get heads 50 times and tails 50 times). Which means:
Verdict: Using SB+, you will have the same results with the Partybot, the Christmas Cracker and the Chrome Drillbot. For SB+, there is no visible reason to buy one if you have the other. Even Rhinobot users won’t see a large increase in catch rate if they switch to another trap, although considering how expensive the Rhinobot is, it definitely proves that the trap is a waste for anyone who has one of the other traps.
Crunchy Cheese
PB/Magma/Crunchy w/ shield
Cheese cost (pp) = 0
Number of hunts = 2872
Attraction rate = 98.75%
Number of catches = 1090
Catch rate per attraction = 38.43%
per hunt = 2346
per hunt = 2651
Seeds per hunt = 0.46
Chillbot/Magma/Crunchy w/ shield
Cheese cost (pp) = 0
Number of hunts = 2233
Attraction rate = 98.97%
Number of catches = 933
Catch rate per attraction = 42.22%
Points per hunt = 2654
Gold per hunt = 2955
Seeds per hunt = .51
Rhinobot/Magma/Crunchy w/ shield
Cheese cost (pp) = 0
Number of hunts = 3756
Attraction rate = 98.96%
Number of catches = 1398
Catch rate per attraction = 37.61%
Points per hunt = 2256
Gold per hunt = 2577
Seeds per hunt = 0.43
Conclusion
Once again the Rhinobot falls swiftly to the bottom of the barrel. However, the difference between the Partybot and the Rhinobot is negligible. The Chillbot, on the other hand, provides a substantial increase in the catch rate, the profit per hunt AND the seeds per hunt.
We don’t have any Cracker stats on Crunchy yet, so I can’t post them. However, it seems to safe to say that the results will be similar to those of the Partybot.
Verdict: The Chrome Drillbot is the best trap for catching Derr’s Big 3, by far.
Final Conclusion
First and foremost, we can put to rest the debate of how the Rhinobot fares when put up against a Limited Edition Trap. It does just fine. Sure, it’s not as good as the others, but the difference is not as large as people would lead you to believe. Having said that, if you own a Limited Edition trap, you can confidently ignore the Rhinobot and save your 940k for something else (the Clockapult of Time comes to mind).
As for the comparison of the limited edition traps themselves: Using SB+, all three are pretty much interchangeable. Up against the Big 3, the Chrome Drillbot takes a clear lead over the competition.
So for all hunters wondering on whether or not to buy the Chrome Drillbot: with the Christmas Cracker coming as a free gift from Larry, it’s up to you whether or not you want to spend 897,400 on it. It will make a difference against the Guardians, Gladiators and Derr Chieftains, but doesn’t seem to do much for any other mouse.
In the words of many people on the forums, you should consider buying this trap for precaution’s sake. There are going to be more areas released in Mousehunt, and those areas will inevitably be tougher than the areas we have now. Seeing as the Chrome Drillbot is a runaway victor against tougher mice, it seems logical that it would see more play in future areas.
A big thank you to everyone who has submitted logs for the Chrome Drillbot already. This article was possible because of you!
We’ll get to work on some gouda stats as soon as we can. For now, keep sending in your logs so we can keep churning out the results!
Categorized as Analytics Articles
It will certainly be interesting to see results from the Crunchy cheese. Everyone PLEASE post your hunting journals in the link above so we can get the most out of this new trap (or not) :)
How about a Christmas Cracker vs Partybot vs Chrome Drillbot analysis? That would be even greater!
All in good time, hopefully! So long as people keep submitting christmas cracker logs in Derr, we should be able to give those results soon enough!
Yeah! Hope so, still deciding whether to spend 900k on it or just get the Cracker. Thanks!
I would try out Christmas Cracker with Magma with SB+ and submit the login.
Does anyone use gouda in the dunes?
Hello,
I’d really LOVE to see how the Rhinobot does in Derr compared to the Chrome Drillbot !
I’ll submit my hunts with the rhino !
Thank you for all your stats and help, keep up the good work Pooflinger !!
Why the Rhino with Tribal and SB? Magma is much better
On the SB+ analysis you are using Rhino/Tribal, which isn’t a fair comparison against Chill/Magma, since Magma should give Rhino a better profit and stone drop rate. Considering that the Rhino is surprisingly close to the Chill, it might make it nearly neck and neck.. I guess at the end of the day it doesn’t matter since Chill is superior, and to your point, may remain that way for the rest of the year…
Ah, just saw your new reply.. If Tribal is better for normal Derr hunting, why doesn’t the Catch Rate Estimator reflect that? Particularly using SB+ (so no staling), Magma seems better in every way according to the CRE.. With Gouda it is better, but that isn’t what the other comparisons were based on?
What happened to the link?
In response to the comments about Rhino/Tribal versus Rhino/Magma, I’ve simply put them both up so that you can decide for yourselves which base you prefer.
In reference to crunchy catches:
“The Chillbot, on the other hand, provides a substantial increase in the catch rate, the profit per hunt AND the stones per hunt.”
I assume you mean seeds per hunt. I was confused for a moment =)
Great article.
Bang up job Sean!! And good for you to be able to overcome your personal underwhelming experience with the ChillyB.
This makes me feel better as I was having a hard time trying to fit an underperforming CHillbot into a reworking of how luck works… (oh and also cuz I bought one LOL).
Good article, but not complete. Please add the hunts with Gouda, as it definitely matters.
Also – I would be interested to see the exact attraction rate of each mice, as from my hunts with Cracker/Chillbot with SB+ I notice a huge difference in the % of attracted low tier 3 mice in Derr (Wordsmith, Trailblazer, Healer) compared to the % I am used to with Partybot. With PB it seems to be around 20% of all attracted mice, where with the other too its over 30, and I am wondering if that is just coincidence.
Thanks for this Sean. I’ll do a little maths now to try get the CCT catch rate out (together with the revised points/hunt, just for completion’s sake), where do I email it?
Now if only we could get more people to read this…
Gah. It looks like there’s a good chance ALL the data collected prior to these few days will be come obsolete. A little annoying, and will be a huge pain getting data for different set-ups all over again :/
Another job well done, Sean. Next we would probably need data on hunts with Gouda.
I think this is really interesting (and thanks so much for doing this and all the other things on this fantastic site), but I wonder a little about the Rhino statistics, which seem excessively low to me. Certainly my experience (based on some log summarising of my own) is that the Rhino is invariably much better than the Pooflinger estimates, and also than the Chillbot. Two things:
1) do the Rhino statistics include data from before 29 Aug 2009 when its power and luck were raised? These data would surely bring the overall stats down.
2) as you presumably know, the log summariser has a bug, in that it if you enter an old log that contains a date (eg “17:47 on 29 December 2009 I sounded the Hunter’s Horn. I was successful in my hunt! I caught a 1 oz. Treant mouse from the Festive Comet worth 1,300 points and 601 gold”) it reads the date and the weight as points and gold, with the consequence that the summary says for this one: Horn Treant 29 2009 1 -1 Did catch. ( eg 29oz worth 2009 points and 1 gold)
Do these faults get picked up in the database as a whole, or is it possible that the Rhino stats are being brought down by faulty logs suggesting that it returned a very low gold? It would be a shame if that were the case. The Chillbot stats are unlikely to have many, if any, of these faulty entries, as it hasn’t been out long enough.
Is there going to be a Giant Speaker vs. 2010 Blast-Off vs. Horrific Venus Trap comparison?
oh nice one! :))) i like this :))))
Everyone is saying, “Post Gouda, post Gouda!” but according to the Catch Rate Estimates, Brie is a better choice in Derr for gold. So, post Brie, post Brie!
Excellent, I will soon be submitting my own crunchy logs with CDB2/magma/LGS.
Thank you for posting the data! Very useful and heartening to know.
I will personally offer up my next run of crunchy using the CCT if you will please! not! call! it! the! chillbot!
Also — can we please put to rest the (baseless) rumor that luck has been changed in the Isles?
or at least if you’re going to post that, please post some proof of the concept.
@ CDC, To answer each individually
1) the data is the most current set of rhinobot info
2) Yes, those glitches are checked for and are cleaned out
While I understand that the results seem low to you, they ARE accurate. Even if we had managed to accidentally miss some incorrect submissions on the rhinobot, surely we would have missed those same glitches on every other trap, thereby keeping it balanced anyway.
@KWM: Yes, as soon as we have sufficient information on the 2010 to do such a comparison.
according to CRE, gingerbread base is better than magma for gold, and also brings in less stale cheese, shouldnt the best base be gingerbread?? and yes, MTL is right. BRie earns more in Derr dunes (more FTAs, but cheese cost is lower) according to CRE, please look into this thnks :)
@Daniel
That is because of the stales when using Gouda and Brie. I am pretty sure with SB and Crunchy, the Magma beats Gingerbread hands down.
very useful articles…i’m wondering what if i don’t have the magma base, which offered both power and luck, then which one is better? Chillbot/candycane or Chillbot/firecracker/gingerbread ?
thanks
@DJ
ok, u have a fair point there…
but assuming SB costs 1k pp, wouldnt gouda/brie be better for gold? so gingerbread is the best base right?? yes, i agree with you for crunchy, and those who DONATED instead of BUYING SB, then yes, magma base is best, both for gold and stones, but ONLY those who donated.
Catches:
Derr Dunes: 6 Renegade, 7 Spellbinder, 4 Guardian, 6 Wordsmith, 6 Seer, 5 Mintaka, 5 Trailblazer, 3 Gladiator, 5 Grunt, 1 Healer
Ronza’s Traveling Shoppe: 1 White, 1 Bionic, 2 Gold, 1 Steel, 1 New Year’s
Nerg Plains: 1 Alnilam
Total catches: 55
Average weight: 6 oz.
Gold and Points:
231,655 gold gained, 4,798 gold lost
157,370 points gained, 19,289 points lost
226,857 net gold, 138,081 net points.
Cheese:
Crunchy:
Attracted a mouse 23 times out of 23 hunts.
23 were eaten, 0 went stale and 0 were stolen.
Gouda:
Attracted a mouse 66 times out of 85 hunts.
66 were eaten, 16 went stale and 14 were stolen.
Swiss:
Attracted a mouse 5 times out of 9 hunts.
5 were eaten, 2 went stale and 0 were stolen.
Super Brie:
Attracted a mouse 1 time out of 1 hunts.
1 were eaten, 0 went stale and 0 were stolen.
My attraction rate was good.
Loot:
Delicious Stone (x40)
Red Pepper Seed (x9)
sorry dont know where else to leave my log
I’m restraining myself from changing up my set up so I can give you some logs tomorrow. I’m in Derr with Chillbot/Tribal/Brie/Active Shield. 1st 4 hunts though have been bad. 2 pieces stolen, 2 stale and set me back 2,505 points.
@Daniel
It is hard to say, because I have personally not done any runs with Gouda/Brie in Derr, and I find the profit from SB decent enough even at 1200pp.Gingerbread by the looks of it does seem to work best when using Gouda/Brie, but then again, I cannot say for sure because I have not tried various setups using Gouda/Brie. I guess we would have to wait for data on Gouda/Brie hunts to be released.
Sean: For completion’s sake, I’ve updated the points/hunt for the CCT numbers on Nathan’s data page. Also, for the 400+ hunts that the drop rate was gathered, CCT’s was 0.54 instead of the 0.41 listed here.
I apologise for what I said above in post 17, it was baseless, but I stand by that it did happen, but was a glitch. I would delete my post if I could, and will not bring it up again.
@DJ
The profit of Chillbot+Magma+Gouda is about the same as Chillbot+Gingerbread+SB according to catch rate estimates.
11:43pm
My last 1 day 12 hours of hunting:
Catches:
Derr Dunes: 14 Seer, 12 Grunt, 12 Mintaka, 13 Spellbinder, 15 Trailblazer, 7 Healer, 12 Renegade, 9 Wordsmith
Total catches: 94
Average weight: 5 oz.
Gold and Points:
369,805 gold gained, 38,119 gold lost
207,129 points gained, 7,153 points lost
331,686 net gold, 199,976 net points.
Cheese:
Super Brie:
Attracted a mouse 132 times out of 133 hunts.
132 were eaten, 1 went stale and 0 were stolen.
My attraction rate was near perfect.
Loot:
Delicious Stone (x75)
Inputs
Log size = 130 (10.83 pages of logs)
Cheese cost (pp) = 200
Key Stats
Number of hunts = 115
-> hourly check = 32; horn = 83 (own= 28, friends=55 )
Cheese used = 115
Number of attractions = 114
-> Attraction rate = 99.13% data not sufficient to calculate C.I.
Number of catches = 78
-> Catch rate per attraction = 68.42% ±8.97% C.I.
Net points earned = 159619
-> per hunt = 1387.99
-> per cheese = 1387.99
Net profit = 251775
-> per hunt = 2189.35
-> per cheese = 2189.35
http://apps.facebook.com/mousehunt/hunterprofile.php?snuid=670117177
Sry wrote wrongly –
The profit of Chillbot+Magma+SB is about the same as Chillbot+Gingerbread+gouda, according to catch rate estimates, if SB costs 1250pp.
is it more profitable to go to catacombs or derr dunes?
Any chance that Deathbot (Chrome Edition) will be added to this comparison of Derr? or is there simply not enough people with it who submit logs?
@ William
As you have said, you are using statistics from the catch rate estimates tool. The tool is based on the formula which has been proven to underestimate luck which is thus currently outdated, even Pooflinger acknowledges that (Check Luck Article here on Analytics). Therefore, I do not believe in any statistics or conclusions drawn from there, statistics from actual logs in big sample sizes are far more reliable.
@DJ
Some time ago I compared some of my 1000 hunt logs with the CRE (including one which had a very high luck configuration – i.e., blingbot/magma), and also these database articles. The figures matched up remarkably closely, *apart* from the fact that at the time steals were not modelled in the CRE. I don’t know if this has been changed recently or not. If there was an effect caused by the modelling of luck, it was negligible compared to the much larger effect of the steals not being modelled. Note also that I did not look at drop rates, nor capture rates of individual types of mouse. Overall I’d say the CRE is a great and invaluable tool, and I use it frequently, but when you are looking at the output you need to try to interpret the results allowing for steals.
Great article, thanks a lot!
On another note .. the styling on this entire site needs to be changed .. horrible for eyeballs everywhere.
Nice article :)
By the way, can you get Rhino/Tribal/Crunchy here as well? I heard it works better than Chrome Drillbot/Magma/Crunchy, but not sure..!
Great article!!
Many thanks to the Analytic team!
just wondering, can u guys do one for Gouda cheese?
on Chillbot vs cracker vs Rhino?
thanks!!
One more time: Excellent work, thanks!!!
At what cost does SB+ have to be in order for Gouda to create more profit?
How is it POSSIBLE that CCT wins Chillbot in derr using sb in terms of profit? Lets look at the stats:
Power:
Chillbot = 3900×120% (cos of 20% power bonus)
CCT = 3000×115% (cos of 15% power bonus)
Luck:
Chillbot = 26
CCT = 24
Attraction and cheese effect r immaterial cos its using SB.
I dont get it – how can the CCT win Chillbot in terms of profit based on the comparison above?
@ William
Concerning CCT vs. Chillbot:
The outcome you would expect between the two is quite similar so what you need to see statistical significant data is VERY large numbers of hunts. Unfortunately data size is not that big -> statistical errors are therefore quite large and you cannot see the differences between the two traps. In all MH data you see quite a large variability by the way. Actually this article would need a little bit of statistical evaluation if data is sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions.
@Willaim: its a 40 gold-per-hunt difference…
consider that the Chillbot has fewer hunts submitted, and then you realize that its a statistical flub-up….wait for more data to come in to even out both…chilll