Talk:Garden (Old)

What exactly does Chimerose do? The tooltip on the plant says "+1% reindeer frequency", but the combined effects list says "reindeer cookie frequency". Does it make reindeer appear more often, or do they have a higher chance of unlocking a christmas cookie?

84.173.211.77 10:56, April 29, 2018 (UTC) Dangerous Beans

Harvest All (Shift+ctrl+click) in macOS

shift-ctrl click in macOS in Chrome doesn't work. Is there an alternative for this function in macOS?

137.229.78.147 16:40, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Duketater

Dunno if anyone cares, but I found new plant (I think, cuz I can't find it anywhere on the wiki page)

Edit; nvm, found it in the wiki, kindly remove this bit please

-creativeProcrastinator

CreativeProcrastinator (talk) 21:22, March 7, 2020 (UTC)

Juicy Queenbeets: add Note

Hi I don't know how to use the wiki editor at all, but can someone make a note that juicy queenbeets can't be planted? It's nowhere on the wiki page and its a very important detail.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PyrusKrome (talk • contribs) on 01:01, August 26, 2021 (UTC)

optimal 4x5 layout:

In my solution finding algorithm I came up with this:
[0, 0, 0, 0, 2],
[1, 2, 0, 1, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[2, 0, 1, 0, 2]

Which has 1 fewer conflicts than the posted one (4 cells can product the 'wrong' variant rather than 5)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tadpoleloop (talk • contribs) on 13:13, September 14, 2021 (UTC)

level 4 farms

Wouldn't GYGY be more optimal than GYYG? then you wouldn't have any tiles with possible unwanted crops. Aepokk ∀ulpex 04:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, you'd have the same amount of tiles with possible unwanted crops, but instead of just unwanted combinations of the yellows, you can get unwanted combinations of yellows or greens.

  R R    |    X R    |  G = Parent plant 1 / Y = Parent plant 2
G Y Y G  |  G Y G Y  |  R = Unwanted combination of two yellows
  R R    |    X R    |  X = Unwanted combination of two greens

- Princess Nightmoon (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Weeds?

Is weeds just a synonym for fungus here? I think not, because fungus is listed distinctly from it in so many places. But there's no clear definition on the page of what are considered "weeds" in this game. Aepokk Vulpex (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The only weed is Meddleweed, which is specifically mentioned as being a weed. Beyond that, there is no mechanical definition of "weeds". - Princess Nightmoon (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

So then the descriptions for Fertilizer and Wood Chips refers specifically to Meddleweed? Okay. That's why I was wondering if anything else was affected, like if "weed growth -90%" meant a lower chance of cross-breeding a plant that would be a fungus. Aepokk Vulpex (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

About GC mutation setups

The GC mutation section has been edit back and forth a few times recently. While I did not know that gildmillet + baker's wheat yields a higher percentage chance of mutation than ordinary clovers, and it was definitely a mistake not to include it, I don't think it should be presented as the "best" method (in particular, I think the picture for OC mutation setups should be put back). Here's why :

I ran the numbers, and using GM+BW gives a 5.089% mutation chance per tick (assuming wood chips and no other modificator), while using Clovers gives a 3.677% mutation chance. I can show the math if you want. It is certainly higher for GM+BW, but there are other factors at play.

First, GM+BW has a much higher chance of producing ordinary clovers (3% base chance vs 0.7%), which not only effectively reduces the chance of GC spawning (this was taken into account in the percentages above), it also means you have to regularly take out the ordinary clovers to maintain optimal GC mutation rate. Ordinary Clover setups can also produce new ordinary clovers, but at a lower rate, which makes it easier to maintain.

More importantly, the mutation probability per tick is not the only relevant figure to find the "best" mutation setup. As a player, what I care about is how long I will have to wait until I get a GC. Of course, a higher mutation probability per tick is correlated with a shorter time before a mutation happens, but it does not automatically imply it, especially when the plants considered have very different lifespans and maturation times. GM and BW's shorter lifespans is currently presented as a bonus, but I argue it is the opposite : Clover setups last longer, which means you will spend less time waiting for plants to grow, and more time actually producing mutations. Moreover, they once again require less active maintenance.

As far as I know, the best way to use GM+BW is to plant GMs first, then BWs 5 ticks before the GMs mature, and then plant BWs again when the first batch dies. (the second batch of BW should die at around the same tie GMs do, so you can't grow another batch). Using the plants' average maturation time and lifespan (this does not take the growth variance into account, but I don't know how to do that without just running simulations), this means one "cycle" will last around 37 ticks, 16 of which can actually produce mutations. In other words, a cycle will take 143 minutes and has a 56.6% chance to produce a GC. Again, this assumes active maintenance, and the percentage can go down if you're not careful. You can easily lose precious mutation ticks if you forget to check the game for a few minutes and don't change soil at the right time. If you don't check your game for 30 minutes, you may ruin the entire attempt. For Ordinary Clovers, one cycle lasts 58 ticks and has 38 mutation-producing ticks. So one cycle lasts 250 minutes and has a 75.9% chance to produce a GC.

I do not think it is fair to look at the figures in bold and deduce that the first setup is automatically better. It may be faster if you're a bit lucky and are actively maintaining your garden, but if you're unlucky and don't get a GC on your first cycle, you will have to do another one, at which point you will probably be slower than an OC setup.

I argue for the wiki page to present both setups as equally valid, with their respective pros and cons explicited.

Elekitu (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Juicy Queenbet layout

Can someone explain why it would be better to make 4 independent queenbet rings? Sure, having the rings share queenbets means that when one dies both rings die. But wouldn't that be canceled out by having a higher chance of both rings surving longer?

I think having independent rings makes for evened out queenbet ring life times, while having shared rings have a higher variance, but they are the same on average.

What do you mean by having a higher chance of surviving longer? If the one in the center dies all

the rings are invalidated.

I mean that while having a shared piece(s) means that you will more likely have both rings ruined by bad growth rng, (shared piece grew much faster or slower than the other plants) it is also more likely to still have both rings live longer if the shared piece(s) has good rng. (having a very average growing speed for shared pieces)

If you have two seperate center lines instead of a shared one, it won't be as likely that both die too soon or mature too late, but it will also be more likely that at least one of them has bad rng.

Maybe another way to think about it: Focus only on one ring with 8 queenbets. This ring has a certain predicted average active time. (active in terms of time where all of the 8 queenbets are mature at the same time) And why would this predicted active time be longer or shorter, just depending on whether some of those queenbets are shared with another ring or not?

When queenbeet rings are not planted independently, 9/21 of the queenbeets, if they die, make 2 or more rings unusable. The chance of those 9 queenbeets all having good rng is so low that planting non-independent rings is not worth it.

I'm fairly sure (though not 100%) that independant and non-independant rings have the same chance to grow jqb on average, in the sense that the total number of rng rolls for jqb mutation has the same expected value. But non-independant rings definitely lead to a higher variance, so it's worse than independant rings.

Elekitu (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both, that it has the same expected value but also a higher variance. Do you think higher variance is worse in general or only for getting at least 1 JQB for the garden reset? I understand why variance would matter for the garden reset because in that case getting two JQB would not be "twice as good" as getting one JQB, you would just care about the likelyhood of getting at least one instead of an average. For people who don't want to do the whole garden all over again and just want to farm as many JQB as possible variance wouldn't matter, right? Just thinking about it... independant rings also have the advantage that you can plant 8 elderwords around a spawned JQB for faster growth.