June 29, 2011 · File under Fun and games
Design your sign-based grinder floors as 1-wide strips with 2 spaces between them. Or possibly a grid of 2x2 blocks.
I've done some analysis of sign-based mob grinder design in Minecraft. The results surprised me, so I'll give them here.
For background on the kind of thing I'm talking about, watch this video, but the basic idea is to build surfaces for mobs to spawn on with signs placed on the edges, which tricks the mobs into walking off and falling to their deaths.
In that video, the spawning surfaces are laid out as 3xL strips (where L might be 14, at a guess), with 2-wide gaps between them. What I've done is try to compare the efficiencies of various alternative layouts. The layouts I'm considering are 1) a grid of NxN blocks with 2m between them, and 2) arbitrarily long N-wide rows of blocks with 2m between them. For both cases, N = 1, 2, 3 and 4 are considered.
The simplifying assumptions I've made for this analysis are:
Here are the calculated values of:
Layout d T F s U 1x1 11% 1 9 44% 4 1x∞ 33% 2 6 67% 4 2x2 25% 2 8 50% 4 2x∞ 50% 4 8 50% 4 3x3 36% 6 16.67 48% 8 3x∞ 60% 6.67 11.11... 40% 4.44... 4x4 44% 4.833... 10.875 44% 4.785 4x∞ 67% 10 15 33% 5
The 1x∞ layout drops the most mobs per unit space (has the lowest F value).
If the best efficiency per sign placement is paramount (placing the signs is truly tedious), all the 1x and 2x designs are tied.
Mobs tend to move in a single direction for some period of time, so the assumption that mobs move randomly from block to block probably gives an unfair disadvantage to the NxN designs. Thus, it's not unlikely that the 2x2 design is the most efficient in practice.
The Nx∞ layouts have the additional advantage that they are easier to build.
Perhaps peaceful mobs might require only a 1-wide gap to fall, which would allow for more efficient designs.
I'll give the calculation of the values for the 3x∞ case as an example.
Let A be the average steps before falling for the middle row, and B be the same for the edge rows. so the grinder layout looks like:
... ... ...BBBBBBBBBBBBBB... ...AAAAAAAAAAAAAA... ...BBBBBBBBBBBBBB... ... ... ... ... ...BBBBBBBBBBBBBB... ...AAAAAAAAAAAAAA... ...BBBBBBBBBBBBBB... ... ...
A step in each direction is equally likely, so falling will take 1 more step than a step from each neighbor. Thus:
A = 1 + 2/4 A + 2/4 B B = 1 + 1/4 A + 2/4 B + 1/4 * 0
A = 8 B = 6
Spawning is on a B block 2/3 of the time, and an A block 1/3 of the time, so
T = (A + 2B) / 3 = 20/3
Also, the repeating pattern is: space, block, block, block, space, with two signs, so
d = 3/5 = 60% s = 2/5 = 40%
F = T/d = 6.66... U = F*s = 4.44...
A collection of posts about things that suck, and posts that suck about things that don't suck, and busywork and argle-bargle.