A while ago, I posted a message on here concerning
monster sub-types affecting a monster's weight. I
had no info on the subject, just a few casual
observations. I have been working on this for a
few months now, and i now have some (almost)
conclusive proof. I lack hex-figures as Lisa
suggested I use, due mostly to the fact that I
suck at giving values to most anything. But, I do
have actuall figures for once.

When I last posted (the post was deleated at my
request) several months ago, I used Golems and
Tigers as the base of the four monsters I
observed. Since then, I studied close to 500
monsters, and more than Golems and Tigers.

What I observed was a trend amongst certain
sub-types and a few constants amongst specific
combonations in regards to weight issues.
Specifically, which monsters went straight from
anorexic to overweight. This really has no
bearing on the overall gameplay, unless you like
having trim, normally built monsters.

I'll begin with the drastically fat monsters.
Now, it's not that they were always fat, it's just
that they tended to get fat more. Here's what I
worked out:

After training ALL my 500ish monsters exactly the
same (fish each month, light work for the first 3
weeks and rest on the fourth), I noticed 75% of my
monsters who were sub-Golem, sub-Jell, or
sub-Hare, were fat for 70% or more of their lives,
herbs and candy never used.

Conversely, 70% of my monsters who were sub-Pixie,
sub-Tiger, or sub-Dino, raised the same as stated
above, were under-weight about 70% of their lives.

Further, I noted that only 20% of sub-Gali and
sub-Monol species only had weight issues a few
times in their lives. For example, my 15-year-old
Angel, Angela, (yes, an exception to my study, but
worth noting) is Pixie/Gali as I'm sure you
already know, has only been anorexic after an
expedition or training, and only fat if she rests
on the first of the week after her meat. Buy week
three, she was normal again.

Now, shift over to my Vixens (Pixie/Golem). I
raised 10. Eight of them would be super-thin one
week, and fat the next. I thought it was purely
bad breeding the first 4 times, but I realized it
was the subspecies. None of the other 40 Pixies
had such drastic weight issues, except for 5 of my
6 Mopsys, who are sub-Hare.

Conversely, switching species, I also raised a
bunch of Golems. 60, actually. I always thought
the bigger, the better. That's when I noticed 5
of my 7 Ice Mans (sub-Tiger) had a tendency to end
up too thin for my liking, though I raised them no
different than the others. The same was true for
my Pink Jams (Jell/Pixie) and a few others.

I also noticed a trend in which monsters seemed to
have weight regarding main-species-size. It
seemed that if I combined I large monster (just
pick, there's more thatn enough) with a small
monster (again, your choice) They had a greater
tendency to have some form of weight problem.

As for Galis and Monols, I couldn't tell. I
tried, but it's hard to tell if a block or a cape
has gained weight...

Well, if anyone else has any other thoughts on my
now research-backed subject, let me know. I may
take a few days to reply though. Life is so
hectic I haven't even played MR for a week

Like I said before, the info we need involves the actual hex numbers gotten from a gameshark pro, sharklink or catela device. Whether or not you suck at giving values is irrelevant to this issue. The values are created by the programmers of the game, at Tecmo. The device displays them, so please write them down and post them, especially since you claim to have actual figures.

You also neglect to show any actual research whatsoever. All I see here are vague conclusions without any hard data to back them up at all.

I am also noticing a real lack of organization, and record-keeping. You do not mention is whether or not you took each of the "500ish" monsters and did the exact same thing with them every week of their lives, so that they all did the same thing on say, week 20 or week 300. You seem to imply that sort of thing but then veer away from it. For example, at first you say you fed only fish, but later you mention feeding meat:
"For example, my 15-year-old
Angel, Angela, (yes, an exception to my study, but
worth noting) is Pixie/Gali as I'm sure you
already know, has only been anorexic after an
expedition or training, and only fat if she rests
on the first of the week after her meat."
So, we can thus infer that these monsters were not fed only fish all their lives. Since they were fed a variety of foods, did each monster recieve the varying foods in the same weeks of life? Was there some sort of pattern? What registers changed?

What exactly do you mean when you say: "But, I do have actuall figures for once." Where are they, and why aren't you showing them to us?

Why didn't you post data on each monster, each week of life, as I asked you to show us before?

Why don't you know exactly how many times you tested monsters of each type, or the total numbers for anything?

Where is the actual research data, meaning those memory locations for each weight event being triggered?

You call your work research backed, you say you have figures, and you throw around results as percentages, yet you are unable to tell us exactly how many monsters you raised or what you did to them each week. (If you don't know how many monsters you worked with, you therefore cannot by definition have any way to create accurate percentages about them! Welcome to 4th grade mathematics!)

Since you do not provide us with any records, we have no way to confirm any of your conclusions. The basis for any and all work on this site, is the fact that we share our methods and data so that as a group we can come to a consensus on the meaning of the results.

And, if you are not using the research devices that you imply you are using, I suggest you stop blindly mucking around without a better, more scientific plan to extract data.

500ish comes from the fact that I lost the last
three pages of my notebook after only two
calculations. Those were deleted and a then
recaulated for the 496 I still have. I was simply
remembering that I had three pages more and what
the rough results were. I know that's in no way
scientific, but I was going for thurough, and felt
mentioning them was in some way necessary.

Second, I'm not wasting money on a device to give
me Hex numbers if I wouldn't use it for anything
else. I don't even understand why Hex is
important to you. Anyone can SEE really fat or
really thin. All I was trying to document was
their appearence, not a value. I see monsters as
too thin, too fat, and just right, so I guess MY
Hex would be A, B, and C. I'm sorry if that
bothers you.

As for why I didn't list 496 monsters worth of
data, it would take me three days and people would
fall asleep reading it. I know of no one who
would like to read 10+ pages of carefully
documented Pixie Blubber. I didn't record how
long they lived because that's completely
irrelevent to their form. I can guarentee that
they lost a significant amount of weight when they
died, if that's any consolation. I observed how
many times they were over-weight, or how many
times they were under-weight. Not actually owning
the game, and only being able to borrow it for two
days every other week, makes it a little hard to
maintain laser-precision all the time. Last I
checked I was still human, and inherently
not-perfect.

Needing "Memort Locations?" My Memeory Card has
my game, my paper has my memories as results, and
my Mind has my memories of what I did. What else
you mean, I have no idea.

The reason I rounded my percentages is because,
like most scientist and poilticians know, no one
is going to care that, in truth, that 70.763853%
of my monsters got fat easily. Also, I know that
my percentages aren't really accurate anyway
because of those three pages I lost. It seemed
safer to say "About 70%" than "70.763853%" when I
know that lost data is still somewhere out there,
making a "sure" percentage false. Close, honest
amounts are better than lying for precision's
sake.

In terms om Angela, I told you she was an
exception. I keep alive with Golden Peaches
becasue she has both maxed Int and Ski, and is my
expedition monster. She wasn't a part of my study
in any way shape or form, but I just wanted to
throw her in as an example of sub-Gali effects.

The way I trained them was:

Month 1:
Week 1: Feed them a fish, work on Cart
Week 2: Work on Logging.
Week 3: Work as Guard.
Week 4: Rest

Month 2:
Week 1: Fish, work in Forest
Week 2: Work in Field.
Week 3: Work on Hunt
Week 4: Rest

Shake well, lather, rinse, repeat. Why that
particular order? Why not? And due to my
methods, yes, each monster did the same thing on
week 20 or 300 (if they lived that long) as all
the others.

Since you obviously don't believe I did anything,
I could go out and waste $400 getting a scanner I
wouldn't know how to use, simply to try and scan
in my paperwork for you, but I can't see wasting
money on a device I wouldn't use again. Wait, I
already said that. Besides, pages 3 and 4 got
smudged, so you can hardly read them anyway.
Scanning them would result in a large, gray smear,
not numbers.

I'm sorry my best isn't good enough for you. I
was hoping to inspire others to simply watch for
the same thing in their own games. Guess I must
have to be either a rocket scientist or God for
you to care though. I'm neither, and I'm
perfectly happy with that.

Once again, more proof that you really do not understand what is being asked of you, or what is expected in terms of research. The Hex numbers are the memory locations of the data I asked for, in detail long ago when you first posted on this topic. At that time, I told you about the hardware you need to use to derive the data. This is precisely how all the MR2 data was acquired, as I explained a few months ago. You clearly do not have the programming expertise to undertake this project. Instead, you have chosen to make snide comments.

"As for why I didn't list 496 monsters worth of
data, it would take me three days and people would
fall asleep reading it. I know of no one who
would like to read 10+ pages of carefully
documented Pixie Blubber."
Don't make assumptions about other people's ability to read and comprehend research topics. We want to see real data, not your personal conclusions, either about the game or our capabilities as researchers.

A scanner is not necessary. A simple table, typed out the way the rest of use type tables, would be a nice start, in terms of posting some sort of actual hard data about your "experiment". You might also want to clarify your use of terms such as "thin", "anorexic", "under-weight", "super-thin", "too-thin" and "thin". Are these 6 different levels of observed weight loss? If so, they would be easier to substantiate by precise numbers gotten from analyzing the actual program. You also need to clarify what weeks they all went to training. "Shake well, lather, rinse, repeat." does not make the grade at all in terms of outlining everything these monsters did, and when exactly weight gain was noticed, and what level of weight gain was noted. But, again (like I said months ago), it's not conclusive without real numbers to back it up.

But then "Not actually owning
the game, and only being able to borrow it for two
days every other week, makes it a little hard to
maintain laser-precision all the time. Last I
checked I was still human, and inherently
not-perfect." how can you have any sort of accurate guage for comparing different breeds, or weight levels, if what you mainly rely on is memory rather than measurements? (Even simply applying a ruler to the TV screen?) Essentially, you make this comment as an 'out', so that we must doubt any and all information you post. (Memory has been the culprit in far too many incorrect statements for us to ever trust anyone using it as a basis for any work.)

In the end, nothing you have posted is anything more than an invitation for someone else to go out and do the real work of deriving numbers to support or disprove your sporadic observations.

(And, I would remind you that, in addition to the dog eating your homework, the claim of raising "close to 500 monsters" is a bit unusual, in concert with your "Not actually owning the game, and only being able to borrow it for two days every other week" claim raises serious concerns. See, it takes about 20 minutes to get a year to pass in the game. -That's just sleeping a monster, no time-consuming items being fed, no battles, etc. At an average of 6 years of life, times 500 monsters equals 60,000 minutes. That's a thousand hours. You first posted your hypothesis a few months ago, and you only have the game two days every other week. Hmmm, at 9 a day hours straight -with no breaks for eating, bathroom etc. that boils down to a little over 111 days. (remember this is as fast as possible, no battles, no feeding, etc.) So, that would mean that at 52 days a year (2 every two weeks), you spent over two years working on this. Now, if we allow for battles, feeding and other fussy and time consuming tasks, you'd need to add half again as much more time, that is, add an extra year.But, wait! You posted your hypothesis a few months ago....)

I DID record all my data while I borrowed the
game. I simply brought up not owning it to show
that I had to work real fast. And I wasn't saying
anyone on this site was too dumb to read about
flub, just that no one I know has wanted to yet,
and I doubt anyone would WANT to. From what
you've said, I now have no desire to finish the
table I was working on, because you
seem to think I'm too dumb to even do that.

As for your clear disbelief of everything I
say, I can't do anything about that.

As for everything else, BLAH BLAH
BLAH.

I know I'm coming off as rude, and I'm sorry, but
I'm not getting anything different off you.

let me try.

we need to see things set out a certain way to accept them as valid. it doesn't have anything to do with belief or disbelief. it has to do with support, and lack of support.

this is a research site. most people do not attempt to do research, because of their knowledge of the burdens that researching entails. those who do, do so with the understanding that they have to "show their work", so that others can replicate it and/or build on it.

so you shouldn't worry about "boring" other people with your tables, charts and the like. supply the necessary back-up for your conclusions, and, if they are valid, they will be archived.

but if you just want to say "good enough should be good enough" then that's ok. but that will get you nowhere here.