Talk:Fate

personal observations on fate:

1. fate seems to diminish over playing time, and regenerate over time when logged out.
   • no specific experiment, just general observation in that fatespawns seem more common when first logging in, and rare if ever the last hours before logging out.
2. lore events, or the actions that affect lore events, also seem to affect fatespawns.
   • EXPERIMENT 1: found a bolete, checked a willow tree: no lore event, picked the bolete, checked willow tree again: got willow lore event.
   • EXPERIMENT 2: same one as described below. after picking the first bolete that was on meadow, went onto forest to look for the other one, went back onto meadow and got the grass lore event.
3. obtaining a fated item diminishes your fate.
   • EXPERIMENT 1: found 2 boletes in 2 different chunks close by eachother, made an alt stand guard at one to keep it from refreshing, collected the other, when i went back to the first one i couldn't see it anymore.
   • EXPERIMENT 2: same thing, on a separate occasion.
4. a fated forageable appearing, but not being picked, does not diminish your fate.
   • EXPERIMENT: not picking a bolete resulted in me seeing 2 more boletes in under 5 minutes. normally picking a bolete results in not finding one for a day or so.

these lead me to believe that fate is a modifier value (possibly the same one that lore events use) that enters the required forage level formula as a chance: $fatedforageable=perception*exploration*fate$, that goes down by doing certain actions (like the ones that trigger lore events), and goes up by being offline.

some extrapolations that are probably incorrect, but might be true to some extent:

quoting jorb: Sketchbook pages can be bought from the store, or crafted using a rare fatespawn.

this might be a pleonasm, but it could imply there are also common fatespawns that we don't even realize are fatebound, and only reduce fate slightly. possible common fatespawns might be lady's mantles on meadows and frog's crowns in swamps. one experiment with a bolete and picking meadow lady's mantles didn't cause it to disappear, but this might just mean they only lower fate slightly and my fate was still up high enough to see boletes.

questions. questions that need answering

1. do all fated forageables require the same fate (whether it be a minimal value or a random seed)?
   • finding 2 different fated forageables on the same screen means they do not need a specific random seed, but rather either a minimal value or a general specific seed to see all fated forageables.

--Turtlesir (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2015 (EST)

I think you are overthinking a lot of this. My hypothesis is that fate locks your ability to see specific foragables or craft additional items (pearls), behind 2 gates: time and lores. I will use this hypothesis to provide counterpoints.

Point 1: this would be because the more active you are playing, the more likely you are only gated by the time requirement, not the lore. It would however be possible that you are gated by lores, in which case your fate will be unlocked when achieving a lore. (This is testable)

Point 2: exp 1: This point could explain some nuances in how the two systems are related, no argument here.

Point 2: exp 2: When you unlock Boletes, you don't just see one, you ability to percieve all of them becomes unlocked, and you lose this upon foraging one. I have verified this myself and with several others, you can see for yourself.

Point 3: this is just related to exp 2 of point 2, when you unlock a fate foragable you can see all of them until one is picked up. These foragables are shared between different players as well (2 seperate villagers of mine saw the same bolete, and the one who didn't forage it found a couple more)

Point 4: see points 2 and 3

$fatedforagable=perception*exploration*fate$ would imply that a lower perc*exp would make fate curios less visible, and higher would make them higher. This seems inconsistent as then there would need to be an associated number for each different fate curios, when clearly you can any of bluebells, boletes, edels, or flotsams without being able to see the others. Considering some people saw bluebells and edels on day 1 and 2 with low perc*exp and before "fate" could build up, I think this is just flat out wrong.

I think only specific fate items are related to fate, not things like mantles or crowns in uncommon biomes, those seem unlikely.

To reiterate, I believe that the ability to see fates is based off of a time gate, as well as a threshold of lores needing to be seen. There could be other factors (stat growth/LP gain), but that might not be true either. Please let me know what you think of this, and keep in mind that the system is more likely to be very simple rather than very complicated. --ApocalypsePlease (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2015 (EST)

yeah i didn't think thoroughly about that formula, i just meant that it's probably simply one extra number or check that's done for a fated forageable.

i still think there is something to common fatespawns, i haven't foraged any known fatestuff all week, and i haven't seen any of them either. so it's probably not just timebound. maybe it is randomized seeds (like how crop in-/decreases work). i haven't kept track of lore events, but i haven't actively sought them out as i'm over 20k exp now, so your theory of certain amount of lores within a (logged in) timeframe could be true as well.

i am probably making this more complicated than it is, but the points above were just facts, my plan was to pool other findings together and maybe scrape enough of them together to form some sort of hypothesis. --Turtlesir (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2015 (EST)

I can confirm that fatespawns do eventually stop showing up if you don't forage one. I had a Bolete which I let time out and it stopped appearing within 48 hours or so. This type of system could support lesser fatespawns (lady's mantle on grasslands, frog's crowns in swamps), though there are still some reasons I have that make me think this is not the case. We should have a discussion sometime to compile our understands. --ApocalypsePlease (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (EST)