Stat Breeding: Birth Stats Formula Update March 12

I’m waiting on two litters, so I can contribute more data soon. I really you think you found the right formula, very neat! (Maybe it’s (total stats x .2) rounded up + 20-30?)

Mine is mainly looking at overall stats and which ones are passed down higher over the others but take a look at my Stat Genetics guide

Edit: Added info on individual stats to my guide based on my own and collaborated research. Just like with total stats the percentage range changes every 100 stats

I've still consistently been getting only a 4 stat difference at certain values on individual stats with data I've collected. Do you think the formula changes based on total parent stats?

I also wonder if having a 100 or so pups from a specific stat total would help pin it down at all? I.e. the total for the parents stat in strength would all equal 200, and perhaps do that at specific stat ranges? 

Litter 1

Mom 42, 39, 40, 39, 41

Dad 74, 70, 60, 57, 57

Pup 45, 44, 43, 42, 40

Pup 47, 45, 42, 41, 41

Litter 2

Mom 142, 69, 66, 86, 72

Dad 47, 45, 43, 50, 55

Pup 62, 46, 46, 53, 49

Pup 65, 47, 44, 53, 49

Litter 3

Mom 82, 65, 52, 51, 51

Dad 106, 120, 81, 62, 77

Pup (largest puppy) 66, 63, 49, 46, 50

Pup (runt) 58, 60, 46, 43, 48

Pup 66, 62, 52, 45, 49

Pup 62, 62, 50, 46, 51

Hey! Now that I know this exists, I will be contributing my stats as well starting now. I have MANY litters on the way, most bred from the same father.

I also plan to make a calculator via Javascript to help us make the statistic gathering quicker when enough information is gathered. Is there a Discord server for this that will help is share data quickly?

Statistics Update 2: November 28, 2020

The graph is plotted from 645 individual birth stats (129 puppies). The lowest parents’ total individual stats is 150 and the highest is 463, with a mean of 251 and a median of 245. Parents’ grand total stats ranged from 956 to 1,779, with a mean of 1,216 and a median of 1,144.

The line of best fit for the data is y = 0.2013x + 26.364. This means that the average pup’s individual birth stat is equal to 20.13% of its parents’ total individual stat + 26.364.

The graph has remained substantially unchanged from the first update. At this stage it is quite clear that stat breeding follows a linear formula.

It also seems that the top-up range is actually 21-31, as opposed to 20-30 as I initially expected and I hereby formally amend my formula. From the graph one can see that the top-up usually falls between 24-30, with 21, 22, and 31 happening infrequently.

I will still be collecting breeding data on my own, and will update without a fixed schedule or if I spot unusual trends in my data.

@Badger; I think the trend is clear at the current stage. It'll be interesting to see if it remains the same as stats grows higher (when parents are at 2000+). Rounding is definitely in play with the top-up, I think it's safe to say right now that it's 21-31 after rounding. We'll see if we actually get anything 20- and/or 32+. I think the formula as it is right now is sufficient to use for a rough estimate when stat breeding.

@IceOrthus; The steady decline in grand total stats as a % of parents' grand total stats is due to the y-intercept (or the top-up component). Based on my formula, you essentially cannot breed a puppy lower than 105 stats. At a lower parents' grand total stats, the 105-155 top-up will account for a large % of the pup's birth grand total stats. You can basically use the top-up to project the grand total stats as a % of parents' grand total stats.

(Drag to new tab for large image).

Based on my calculations, at 500 parents' grand total stats, the top-up accounts for 21%-31% of the parents' grand total stats. When combined with the 20% in my formula, grand total stats as a % of parents' grand total stats becomes 41% - 51% where the average is 46%, which is within the rough range of what you calculated in your thread (40-42%). Similarly, at 900 parents' grand total stats, the top-up accounts for 12%-17% of the parents' grand total stats. When combined with the 20% in my formula, grand total stats as a % of parents' grand total stats becomes 32% - 37% where the average is 34%, also comparable to your stats of 33-34%.

Individual stats follow a similar manner as above.

Favouring stats at birth is determined based on parents’ total individual stats. If parents' total individual stats are 400's in strength and 100's in speed, then the pups will have 101-111 in strength and 41-51 in speed. 

@Magpie; I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the top-up. The top-up is used to predict the possible birth range of all litters, ,and not the difference in a single litter. It's essentially saying that in all breedings where parents' total individual stats in strength is 400, then the lowest pup the pup can ever have is 101 and the highest 111. It is not saying that in one single litter, the pups will have a 10-stat spread. As you can see from the Top-Up Range chart, most of the range do fall between 24-30. However, the simple fact that there are pups that falls on 21, 22, and 31 means that the formula must be that wide to capture all possibilities. I am trying to find a fit-all formula, and based on what I'm seeing so far, I don't think the formula changes based on the stats of the parents. I will provide updates if I find unusual trends in my data.

I do agree with you that in a single litter, the spread is quite close together. However, I am not currently studying the spread between a single litter.

I'm not sure if I understand your second paragraph.

@Luyene; thanks for the interest, but I am currently not seeking data contribution. I do want feedback on items such as if the formula worked on your litters and if not what are the variances. This is currently just a one-person project so no discord is up.

Disregard 

Hey, I've made a spreadsheet that does predictions with your formula- I got sick of having to do the math manually for every litter I wanted to do, haha.

Is this something you'd be okay with me distributing publicly (with credit to you, of course), or would you rather me not?