Monster attributes - What each mainbreed is good/bad at (Summary/Analysis)

This link is a culmination of a lot of hard work, mostly not done by me. If you want to look at the original thread, it's called "Monster attributes - What each mainbreed is good/bad at" in the "Best monster to use" category. I put it over in a hidden corner of my website, because it's a bit large to post here. It's based on a numbering method chosen by RNA (details can be got in the original thread) as a way to compare monsters. Check it out and be sure to thank all the contributors, who did the real work.
mr2breedstat.txt

-- Lao (darklao@hotmail.com), February 04, 2000

Answers

Thanks to all of you who found these out!! This should forever put to rest all those questions about "which is the best monster to raise."

-- G.S. (gatsby@autobahn.org), February 04, 2000.

Now THAT'S an informative list. However, it doesn't take into account monster lifespans. From this list, nobody would ever bother with Mocks or Wrackys. Both of these monsters live a LOOOOONG time. Anyone up for compiling a list of average monster lifespans?

-- JSVB12 (JSVB12@aol.com), February 04, 2000.

Lao, I was wondering how you came up with that formula. From that, you are saying that the main breed is weighted at 2/3 while the subbreed is weighted at 1/3.

I always thought that they would be 1/2 each.

Here's an example: Your gooji(zilla/tiger) was rated at 3.00 - 4.00 - 2.67 - 2.33 - 2.67 -3.00. I specifically remembered raising one of these and I thought that it had one of the most averaged stat aquisition of any monster that I have ever tried.

Here's what I calculated with the breed and subbreed factors weighted at 1/2 each: 2.50 - 3.50 - 3.00 - 3.00 - 3.00 - 2.50.

I also remembered that a gooji would almost always get approx. 15pts in most drills, which is shown to be more accurate in my calculation.

Well, thanks for doing all the calculations for every monster.... However, you "may" have to do it again. Hopefully not.

-- RNA (RNA@Ribosome.nuc), February 04, 2000.

The list is fine for stat gains but doesn't cover less tangible aspects of a monster such as lifespan, guts recovery, and move selection. These factors can be as important as the stat gains on a monster when determining a monster to raise.

-- Dark Phoenix (Arax7@aol.com), February 05, 2000.

*laughs*

I didn't mean for it to be a conclusive rating system. As many have mentioned, of course, other factors would wildly skew those figures. For instance, how to account for the fact that most of Golem's have low hit %, so his low skill gains are crippling, whereas Beaclon's moves have really good hit %, so his skill gains aren't as important. So Beaclon's numbers could be adjusted upward, or golem's downward. Likewise guts regen. It's a little too tenous to include in the table. Faster guts regen makes Pixie blood wonderful, so maybe we should adjust the numbers for */Pixie up. But if you think about it, that depends highly on the main type. Pixie blood is going to drop a Naga's power gains, and its life and defense. Is a little faster guts regen going to really help it? Doubtful.

Lifespan, contrary to what has been argued, I don't consider as being as important as you'd think. For instance, my Jilt (Pixie/Wracky), who lived 8yr 6mo so far (frozen after Hall of Fame), offspring of a Mocky (Wracky/Mock) 6yr 6mo and a Poison (Pixie/???) 5yr 9 mo. One might be tempted to drop the Pixies' totals because of a theoretically short lifespan, but good raising techniques and parentage will easily offset that lifespan disadvantage.

Finally, I originally did weight Main and Sub breeds evenly, but when I looked over the numbers, they seemed skewed. For instance, that Pixie/Wracky. A evenly weighted equation would make her Skill Pixie(4) +Wracky(1)/2= 2.5. According to the rubick, a 2.5 would translate to an average of 7 or 8 on skill drills. With the doubled main equation, the Jilt's Skill comes out to an even 3, placing her in the 7 - 9 range. In practice, the Jilt during her prime returned Skill scores from 9 - 12, putting her actual number at about 3 or 3.5. Every time I looked at monsters I had experience with, the numbers were closer with the 2:1 method.

Ultimately, I didn't intend for this to be a mindless way to absolutely and without equivocation determine which breeds were best. Despite the numbers, I'll probably never play a Centaur, Henger, Gaboo, Mew or Mocchi. It is intended to be only a reference guide which will allow the experienced breeder to have a look at projected stats, and get an inkling of how the different subbreeds augment or mitigate the stat gains of a given breed.

Incidently, for RNA and others, I still have the original spreadsheet doc, and in a matter of about 5 minutes I can regenerate those numbers according to a 1:1 ratio. In fact, if you have Excel, I can mail you the file. Let me know.

-- Lao (darklao@hotmail.com), February 07, 2000.

I am thinking about starting a new project to determine lifespans of first generation mainbreeds. However, it will be much more difficult to do so, than the monster stat aquisition project. Each monster would have to be killed in the same raising style. Long-living monsters would die at about 2 years, and short-lived monsters would die at around 10 months. After all purebreed lifespans are recorded, a classification system can then be formed. I'm not sure if I'm up to it. Maybe somebody else can carry this out?

Well, it's good to know that you have some evidence to back-up your formula. I'll keep the 1:1 and 2:1 ratios in mind the next time I raise a cross-breed. I'll see if I can verify its validity. Can you simply post the 1:1 list here like the 2:1 list above? I find it easier that way.

Lao, I've noticed some deviations in the data obtained from some of the monsters. You may want to go back to the original thread and check now and then so that you can correct the mistakes in your lists as well. I am currently double-checking certain suspicious monsters to see if their stat aquisitions are correct.

-- RNA (RNA@Ribosome.nuc), February 08, 2000.