# D&D.SCP: Anomalous Acquisitions Evaluation & Ruleset

  
This is a follow-up to [](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/boLvvZiRazNqipup7/d-and-d-sci-dungeoncrawling-the-crown-of-command) [last week's D&D.Sci scenario](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2ikirGAsPufYAxhcu/d-and-d-scp-anomalous-acquisitions): if you intend to play that, and haven't done so yet, you should do so now before spoiling yourself.

A web interactive to test your solution is available [here](https://aphyer1992.github.io/scp_dev).  This also presents the thrilling* conclusion to the story, with a wide variety** of skillfully-written* endings depending on your actions***!

*\*Maybe.    \*\*Five.      ***And on your luck.*

Full generation code is also available [here](https://github.com/aphyer1992/dndscp/blob/main/DND_SCP.py) if you are interested, or you can read on and find out.

RULESET
=======

An SCP object has a Value and a Danger.

When an object is successfully stolen, Marshall Carter & Dark security teams attempt to reduce its costs, while MC&D sales teams attempt to maximize revenue gained. 

Revenue gained starts at a baseline of $2MM * (Value^2).  This is multiplied by (3+1d6)/6 depending on performance of sales team.

Costs start at a baseline of $2MM * (Danger^2).  This is multiplied by (9-1d6)/6 depending on performance of security team.

Profit is equal to Revenue minus Costs.

Overall, an object whose Value equals its Danger will average a slight profit.  Objects with Value > Danger will tend to generate profits, while those with Danger > Value will tend to generate losses.

The squaring of Value and Danger means that e.g. Value 6 Danger 5 is much more profitable than Value 1 Danger 0 (with a baseline of $72 MM revenue and $50 MM costs being much better than a baseline of $2 MM revenue and $0 costs).

You have very good insight into the Danger of an object via the SCP Foundation's classifications:

*   Any object with Danger 5+ is classified as Keter.
*   Any object with Danger 3-4 is classified as Euclid.
*   Any object with Danger 0-2 is classified as Safe.

There was low-hanging-fruit available in preferentially targeting Safe objects (though this was not always optimal).  

The more difficult problem was figuring out how to use tags to identify objects with high Value.

However, there were also two Anomalies hidden in the dataset - SCPs that broke the usual rules.  If you fed the data into a machine learning program without sanity-checking it first (cough), these may have shot you in the foot.

ANOMALIES
=========

Two SCPs in the dataset were anomalous - they did not operate under the same rules as the rest of the data, and instead existed as horrible tricks to sabotage people who did not sanity-check their data.

SCP-1182 is an infohazardous object.  **All data** pertaining to it is corrupted, taking on false values.  Rows for this object showed up with:

*   A random other date.
*   A random other SCP object's ID.
*   A random location other than its actual location of Site 2.
*   A random classification other than its actual classification of Keter (so Safe or Euclid at random).
*   All flags set incorrectly (listing it as having every property except for 'infohazardous')
*   If no team was sent, a random team will be listed as having been sent - if a team was sent, a random other team or 'none' will be listed.
*   Since the object has never been stolen (in part because any team sent to retrieve it went to the wrong place) the correct value in the profit column is always 0 - this will be replaced with a random non-zero profit value.

SCP-537 is a Very Loyal Robot Dog.  It imprints on its owner (currently Foundation Senior Researcher Valdez on Site 2).  When its owner calls to it, it returns to them - regardless of its current location, whether it is constrained, or even whether it has been disassembled or destroyed.  The SCP Foundation is aware of this ability, and uses it to their advantage - they conceal its precise ability, but ensure that potential thieves are aware of it.  MC&D has stolen it half a dozen times under different heads of Acquisitions, and every time it has returned itself (leaving MC&D with zero profit).

DATASET
=======

The remainder of the dataset was generated according to a consistent ruleset.  The central theme of this dataset was Bayesian inference.

There are four possible S**ources** for anomalous objects:

SCP SOURCES
===========

**CREATORS** (e.g. Dr. Wondertainment) produce anomalous objects to accomplish something.  These objects are designed to be useful, and while they may be dangerous the danger is a side-effect of a desired function.

An SCP object produced by a Creator rolls 1d5 and 1d3.  The 1d5 result is its Danger.  The sum of both results is its Value.

This means that SCP objects produced by Creators will always be valuable, and will be more valuable the more dangerous they are (since Value 7 Danger 5 is better than Value 3 Danger 1).

**SPACETIME SHENANIGANS** (e.g. objects that have fallen through time portals from future or parallel universes) are valuable as mechanisms that can be worked with and sometimes even reverse-engineered.

An SCP object resulting from Spacetime Shenanigans rolls 1d6 for its Danger, and has a constant Value of 5.

This means that SCP objects resulting from Spacetime Shenanigans will usually be profitable, and more so the less dangerous they are.

**ANART OBJECTS** are produced by 'anomalous artists' who create curiosities.  In most cases these are neither particularly dangerous nor particularly valuable - they're created by people who are trying to make something *artistic*, not something *useful*.

An SCP object resulting from anartists rolls 12d6.  Its Value is equal to the number of 6s rolled and its Danger is equal to the number of 1s rolled.

This means that SCP anart objects are usually not very valuable, though low-danger ones are usually slightly profitable.

[**VILLAINS**](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aphyer1992/dndscp/main/a_scarlet_warning) (e.g. the Disciples of the Scarlet King, the Church of the Broken God) are trying to use anomalous means to destroy the world/conquer the world/immanentize the eschaton.  These objects are designed to be dangerous.

An SCP object produced by a Villain rolls 1d4 and 1d5.  The 1d4 result is its Value.  The sum of both results is its Danger.

This means that SCP objects produced by Villains are never a good idea to pursue.

Expected profit from an object based on source and classification:

|     | **Creator** | **Spacetime** | **Anart** | **Villain** |
| **Safe** | $24.0M | $49.6M | $9.8M | -$5.2M |
| **Euclid** | $44.4M | $31.3M | -$10.9M | -$15.9M |
| **Keter** | $61.8M | -$1.7M | -$44.7M | -$58.5M |

Your overall goal, therefore, is to identify and pursue Creator-made objects (especially high-danger) and Spacetime-made objects (especially low-danger) while trying to avoid Anart and especially Villain-sourced objects.

TAGS
====

Tags are not directly relevant to Value or Danger.  Instead, Tags are informative about Value and Danger by being informative about Source.  Different sources have different probabilities of exhibiting a given tag:

| Tag | Creators | Spacetime | Anartists | Villains |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Humanoid | 40% | 10% | 1%  | 10% |
| Infohazardous | 20% | 20% | 40% | 10% |
| Location | 15% | 1%  | 50% | 10% |
| Organic | 50% | 1%  | 10% | 15% |
| Predatory | 15% | 5%  | 5%  | 30% |
| Mechanical | 1%  | 60% | 10% | 20% |
| Mobile | 50% | 40% | 5%  | 40% |
| Replicating | 1%  | 20% | 5%  | 30% |
| Virtual | 5%  | 40% | 30% | 1%  |

For a given source, tags are independent of one another (with the exception of Humanoid and Location, which are mutually exclusive).

A full analysis of what tags imply what is quite deep.  A few sample things to point out:

*   'Predatory' is generally a bad tag to see.
*   'Organic' and 'Mechanical' are both good tags in isolation (with Organic tending to mean something that came from a Creator and Mechanical tending to mean something that came from Spacetime).  However, Organic and Mechanical *together* are quite bad: as Creators very rarely make Mechanical things and Spacetime very rarely produces Organic things, this tends to mean something that has both those traits came from a Villain.
*   'Virtual' objects very rarely come from Villains, and usually come from either Spacetime or Anart.  This means that low-danger Virtual objects are usually pretty good bets.
*   'Mobile' is strong evidence against Anart - this is good to see if you have e.g. a Virtual object, which you're already fairly sure is either Spacetime or Anart.  It's pretty much meaningless if you're trying to figure out whether a Predatory Organic Humanoid (already extremely unlikely to be Anart) is from a Villain or a Creator.

Tags also had a secondary effect on retrieval teams:

*   Location SCPs cannot be stolen by Infiltration teams (your infiltration teams are not [Carmen Sandiego](https://carmensandiego.fandom.com/wiki/The_Taking_of_the_Tower)).
*   Humanoid SCPs cannot be stolen by Legal teams (even if MC&D could convince a court to assign them title to a person and compel the Foundation to hand them over, the PR risk would be too high, and your lawyers will not do it).
*   Virtual SCPs cannot be stolen by Paramilitary teams (even if you run off with the computers, Foundation data security and backup tech is very reliable and your paramilitary operatives are not trained to work around it).

Your predecessors knew the first two of these things, and did not send Infiltration teams after Locations or Legal teams after Humanoids.  They did not know the third, and frequently sent Paramilitary teams to fail in retrieving Virtual SCPs.

EDITED TO ADD: Aside from their dependence on tags, your predecessors' actions were almost entirely random, sending 2 teams of each type plus 1-5 additional random teams (1d3 at first, up to 1d4 in 1950 and 1d5 in 2000) to target random SCP objects.

LOCATIONS
=========

There were six sites in-game.  Site 1 is Foundation overall administration and headquarters, SCP objects are not stored there.  

There is no Site 5.  You are not cleared to know what happened to Site 5.  Do not enquire further.  Be vg jvyy unccra gb [lbh](https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/we-need-to-talk-about-fifty-five).

These had a relationship with Sources:

*   Creators operate mostly in Europe and Asia (Site 4: Moscow and Site 6: Geneva).  Creator-made objects are twice as likely to appear here as in other areas.
*   The Anart scene is most active around Site 2: Washington D.C. and Site 7: Shanghai.  Anart-made objects are twice as likely to appear here as in other areas.
*   Spacetime shenanigans tend to happen most near the equatorial portal zone, near Site 3: Kinshasa and Site 8: Tehran.  Spacetime-sourced objects are twice as likely to appear here as in other areas.

They also had a modest effect on retrieval teams:

*   Paramilitary teams work best in regions lacking a strong and protective centralized governance with an effective monopoly on force.  They have (when dealing with non-Virtual objects) a 90% success rate near Kinshasa and Tehran, a 60% success rate the rest of the time.
*   Legal teams work best in regions with a governance that is maximally responsive to MC&D's influence.  They have (when dealing with non-Humanoid objects) a 90% success rate near Shanghai and Moscow, a 60% success rate the rest of the time.
*   Infiltration teams have cultivated contacts in the areas where other teams function less well.  They have (when dealing with non-Location objects) a 90% success rate near Geneva and Washington D.C, a 60% success rate the rest of the time.

STRATEGY
========

With a theoretical perfect understanding of how the system works, optimal strategy is to:

*   Use Bayesian inference on tags, locations, and classification to predict which sources are likely for any given object.
*   Attempt to steal preferentially high-danger objects produced by Creators, and low-danger objects produced by Spacetime.  (If attempting to minimize profit, instead attempt to steal high-danger objects produced by Villains.)
*   Send the correct team type to each object.

The SCP objects you had access to, their source probabilities with evidence taken into account, and the resulting expected profits, were:

| SCP (Classification) | Creators | Villains | Anartists | Spacetime | Expected Profit if Stolen ($MM) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SCP-2797 (Keter) | 93.44% | 6.39% | 0.02% | 0.14% | 54.0 |
| SCP-3273 (Safe) | 0.04% | 0.05% | 0.70% | 99.21% | 49.3 |
| SCP-4449 (Safe) | 0.03% | 0.04% | 8.21% | 91.72% | 46.3 |
| SCP-537 (Safe) | 1.01% | 5.50% | 3.94% | 89.56% | 44.8 |
| SCP-3936 (Euclid) | 98.54% | 0.92% | 0.49% | 0.06% | 43.5 |
| SCP-3440 (Safe) | 0.32% | 2.61% | 11.87% | 85.20% | 43.4 |
| SCP-4834 (Euclid) | 97.18% | 2.71% | 0.04% | 0.08% | 42.7 |
| SCP-4004 (Keter) | 82.10% | 14.98% | 2.89% | 0.03% | 40.7 |
| SCP-3668 (Keter) | 78.71% | 15.26% | 0.05% | 5.99% | 39.6 |
| SCP-4026 (Euclid) | 89.43% | 7.07% | 0.08% | 3.42% | 39.6 |
| SCP-2720 (Keter) | 80.97% | 18.69% | 0.15% | 0.19% | 39.1 |
| SCP-5117 (Euclid) | 87.74% | 7.74% | 3.98% | 0.54% | 37.4 |
| SCP-2719 (Euclid) | 81.02% | 12.06% | 6.55% | 0.37% | 33.4 |
| SCP-5087 (Euclid) | 76.73% | 4.28% | 18.97% | 0.01% | 31.3 |
| SCP-2325 (Euclid) | 74.73% | 15.76% | 8.75% | 0.76% | 29.9 |
| SCP-4957 (Safe) | 66.79% | 7.34% | 5.92% | 19.94% | 26.1 |
| SCP-1282 (Euclid) | 0.10% | 0.17% | 16.84% | 82.89% | 24.1 |
| SCP-2628 (Keter) | 66.12% | 28.84% | 0.01% | 5.03% | 23.9 |
| SCP-3212 (Safe) | 96.87% | 1.88% | 0.95% | 0.29% | 23.4 |
| SCP-2253 (Safe) | 89.18% | 6.70% | 0.11% | 4.02% | 23.1 |
| SCP-1970 (Euclid) | 61.35% | 18.26% | 19.82% | 0.56% | 22.3 |
| SCP-1720 (Safe) | 15.41% | 5.08% | 51.90% | 27.61% | 22.2 |
| SCP-4931 (Euclid) | 57.88% | 35.13% | 1.76% | 5.23% | 21.5 |
| SCP-4027 (Euclid) | 1.66% | 23.07% | 0.70% | 74.57% | 20.3 |
| SCP-3339 (Safe) | 68.94% | 4.01% | 25.80% | 1.25% | 19.5 |
| SCP-3597 (Safe) | 30.33% | 5.00% | 51.08% | 13.58% | 18.8 |
| SCP-4271 (Safe) | 30.33% | 5.00% | 51.08% | 13.58% | 18.8 |
| SCP-3699 (Safe) | 63.14% | 0.69% | 36.16% | 9.627278703124244e-05 | 18.7 |
| SCP-3850 (Safe) | 63.14% | 0.69% | 36.16% | 9.627278703124244e-05 | 18.7 |
| SCP-2942 (Euclid) | 0.24% | 3.25% | 29.17% | 67.35% | 17.5 |
| SCP-4390 (Safe) | 1.49% | 0.09% | 81.55% | 16.87% | 16.7 |
| SCP-1466 (Euclid) | 41.30% | 42.79% | 1.69% | 14.23% | 15.8 |
| SCP-4709 (Safe) | 11.16% | 3.68% | 75.17% | 9.99% | 14.8 |
| SCP-5136 (Safe) | 24.60% | 0.24% | 75.15% | 0.02% | 13.3 |
| SCP-4625 (Safe) | 22.76% | 6.84% | 69.99% | 0.41% | 12.2 |
| SCP-2122 (Safe) | 2.32% | 0.03% | 97.21% | 0.44% | 10.3 |
| SCP-4370 (Safe) | 0.22% | 2.348960832571748e-05 | 99.69% | 0.09% | 9.9 |
| SCP-3656 (Keter) | 45.94% | 40.07% | 0.02% | 13.97% | 4.7 |
| SCP-2883 (Euclid) | 9.60% | 7.20% | 74.47% | 8.73% | -2.3 |
| SCP-4565 (Keter) | 0.46% | 1.42% | 0.17% | 97.95% | -2.3 |
| SCP-4579 (Keter) | 5.63% | 6.71% | 1.78% | 85.87% | -2.7 |
| SCP-4550 (Euclid) | 14.10% | 1.98% | 83.70% | 0.22% | -3.1 |
| SCP-1785 (Euclid) | 3.99% | 1.12% | 94.76% | 0.12% | -8.7 |
| SCP-4222 (Keter) | 3.16% | 5.64% | 18.99% | 72.21% | -11.1 |
| SCP-2699 (Euclid) | 1.08% | 94.06% | 1.22% | 3.63% | -13.5 |
| SCP-4412 (Keter) | 0.20% | 29.98% | 0.04% | 69.78% | -18.6 |
| SCP-2898 (Keter) | 0.05% | 45.01% | 1.2563922948750266e-05 | 54.94% | -27.2 |
| SCP-4424 (Keter) | 2.21% | 47.78% | 0.02% | 49.98% | -27.4 |
| SCP-2964 (Keter) | 1.48% | 48.01% | 0.28% | 50.23% | -28.1 |
| SCP-2603 (Keter) | 14.84% | 69.03% | 2.74% | 13.39% | -32.6 |
| SCP-5058 (Keter) | 14.84% | 69.03% | 2.74% | 13.39% | -32.6 |
| SCP-3781 (Keter) | 11.84% | 73.45% | 0.46% | 14.25% | -36.1 |
| SCP-2626 (Keter) | 11.48% | 86.43% | 0.03% | 2.06% | -43.5 |
| SCP-1838 (Keter) | 10.16% | 86.05% | 3.42% | 0.37% | -45.6 |
| SCP-2116 (Keter) | 0.16% | 87.03% | 0.38% | 12.44% | -51.2 |
| SCP-4036 (Keter) | 4.11% | 92.78% | 0.90% | 2.21% | -52.2 |
| SCP-3577 (Keter) | 0.04% | 88.98% | 0.12% | 10.86% | -52.2 |
| SCP-2178 (Keter) | 0.23% | 88.86% | 0.87% | 10.05% | -52.4 |
| SCP-3279 (Keter) | 3.887982652533503e-05 | 92.26% | 0.05% | 7.69% | -54.1 |
| SCP-4654 (Keter) | 1.27% | 94.03% | 3.74% | 0.96% | -55.9 |

While not all objects are classifiable, in many cases we can be confident about what source an object came from.  The most profitable object in expectation if stolen, SCP-2797, is a Keter-class object: but its tags are innocent enough that we can map it to a >93% chance of coming from a Creator, and only a <7% chance of coming from a Villain.

Once good objects are identified, we want to send the optimal teams.  The best targets are those where we can get a 90% success rate: SCP-2797 is not actually our best target, as it is located in Shanghai (where we would ordinarily want to send a Legal team for a 90% success rate), but is Humanoid (so we need to send a different team and accept a 60% success rate).  It's still in our top 9 targets, though.

One example of an optimal strategy to maximize profit is to send:

Infiltration teams to retrieve SCP-3668, SCP-2719 and SCP-4449

Legal teams to retrieve SCP-4004, SCP-5117 and SCP-3273

Paramilitary teams to retrieve SCP-3440, SCP-2797 and SCP-3936.

One example of an optimal strategy to minimize profit is to send:

Infiltration teams to retrieve SCP-3781, SCP-2603 and SCP-4036

Legal teams to retrieve SCP-4654, SCP-3279 and SCP-2178

Paramilitary teams to retrieve SCP-3577, SCP-1838 and SCP-2116.

LEADERBOARD
===========

| **Player** | **Expected Profit** |
| --- | --- |
| **Optimal Play (max)** | **$291.0 MM** |
| GuySrinivasan (max) | $169.5 MM |
| Measure (max) | $155.9 MM |
| Yonge | $151.4 MM |
| abstractapplic | $146.9 MM |
| Pablo Repetto | $143.2 MM |
| **Random Play (Safe SCPs only)** | **$104.1 MM** |
| **Entirely Random Play** | **$15.0 MM** |
| **Random Play (Keter SCPs only)** | **-$113.6 MM** |
| GuySrinivasan (min) | -$290.3 MM |
| Measure (min) | -$323.9 MM |
| **Optimal Play (min)** | **-$358.0 MM** |

If you're interested in looking in more detail, you can add lines like the following into the code and run it:

> print('\\nEvaluating max payoff plan:')  
> evaluate_strategy( myWorld, infil=\[ 3668, 2719, 4449 \], legal=\[ 4004, 5117, 3273 \], paramil=\[ 3440, 2797, 3936 \] )

Most players pursuing high profits avoided Keter objects.  **GuySrinivasan's** max-payoff plan (the most successful one) pursued 5 Safe, 4 Euclid and 0 Keter objects.  Most extremely, **abstractapplic** and **Pablo Repetto** pursued 8 Safe, 1 Euclid and 0 Keter.

While this approach was less risky if you couldn't distinguish good Keter objects from bad ones, it was not the highest-payoff approach: optimal play in fact pursued 3 Safe, 3 Euclid and 3 Keter objects (because the payoff from Keter Creator objects is the highest available, and several Keter SCPs can be fairly reliably identified as coming from Creators). 

Nevertheless, I support players who made this decision.  It's valuable to know what parts of a problem you can optimize at your current level of understanding and what parts to leave alone.   If you don't think you can distinguish good from bad objects at higher danger levels, trying to do that just risks shooting yourself in the foot.

FEEDBACK REQUEST
================

As usual, I'm interested in feedback.  If you played the scenario, what did you like and what did you not like?  If you might have played but in the end did not, what drove you away?  Is the timeline too long/too short/just right?  Is the underlying data structure too complicated to approach?  Or too simple to feel realistic?  Or both at once?

Thanks again to **simon** for the scenario idea (although he seems to have missed the scenario itself), and to **abstractapplic** for feedback on a draft, and thank you all for playing!