• Good day, Stranger! — Are you new to our forums?

    Have I seen you here before? To participate in or to create forum discussions, you will need your own forum account. Register your account here!

Magic Academy Battle Recipes

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser6472

Guest
My main point is that if you have luck beyond reason there must be a 3rd factor playing.
So it does not mean you cannot experience it. but there must be a reason for it.

  • Either your unlucky and those recipes appear at moments you are not online. (you might be able to fix this with better rotation times)
  • You might craft and not pick up the recipe in time, so you miss many rotations
  • You might not have made the once time only buildings once so they never reapparear.
  • You "think" something as you feel that way, but in reality it's not correct, you are fooled by your own brain (example you use more pet food then you think you do)
And there might be other 3rd factor reasons. again it's possible to be unlucky for a week, maybe 2, but you cannot be unlucky all the time.
bad times are always mixed with good times.

And these buildings are valuable recources, you should treat them as such. you should cherish them and use them conciouncely
Once common issue is that people after a "good" period think thats the norm, and are shocked when they get an average or bad period.

In there mind it's not a correction for good luck, but being screwed by RNG, this is the main downside of RNG. we as humans put more empahasis on bad things than on positive thing. bad things you want to avoid so they are much more vivid, this is part of our survival mechanism. good experiences take a long time to keep hold of your mind and when a good and bad experience clash the bad always wins.

This is a psychological issue thats branded in our DNA and hard to deal with. only fact based numbers are able to make us think otherwise as you might not have another choice and then still people want to object.

And what do you know, a lesson in anthropology and genetics, a double whammy. You guys are cracking me up lol.
 

Sir Derf

Adept
This is a psychological issue thats branded in our DNA and hard to deal with. only fact based numbers are able to make us think otherwise as you might not have another choice and then still people want to object.

Says the player named @CrazyWizard.

Additionally, as I recently described, I semi-object to your wording of your first proposed reason.

  • Either your unlucky and those recipes appear at moments you are not online. (you might be able to fix this with better rotation times)

(It took me three attempts to try and get this thought down clearly...)

I think it is okay to describe a below-average outcome from an incomplete sampling to be unlucky.
I think it is okay to say that you might have seen a better outcome, both in total and on average, had you had a more complete sampling.
I think it is wrong to say what you seemed to be implying, that "the missing outcomes that could have balanced your average might have been in the missing samples".

Let's me describe in with simple numbers - assume 25% chance of Pet Food, 1 week of 28 possible rotations.

With this scenario, 7 is the most common outcome at 17+%. Suppose you miss 8 rotations, and only see 20. Now out of those 20, you get 2 Pet Food. 2 out of 20 represents a 10% payoff, significantly lower than the expected 25%, and this 2 out of 20 outcome had a 6.7% chance of happening, 2 or less out of 20 had a 9+% chance. I'm fine with describing this as 'unlucky'. That is as far as I am willing to apply 'luck' in this scenario.

Yes, there are 8 additional rotations that were not observed. And yes, it is likely that, had they also been looked at, you would have had a better outcome, both in total and on average. But these 8 unobserved rotations are themselves independent events; they didn't know they were part of a 28-rotation set that should conform to percent outcomes at that scale. With 8 additional rotations, you would expect to see an additional 2 pet Food, raising your total from 2 to 4 and your payoff from 2:20 10% to 4:28 14.2%.

The implication is your unluckiness was that you should have gotten 7, and that 'those recipes', the 'missing' 5 were in the 8 you did not observe. But 5 out of 8 is a 2.3% chance, a highly unlikely event separate from the already evaluated 'unlucky' scenario of only getting 2 Pet Food in the 20 that were observed.
 

CrazyWizard

Shaman
I agree, but there is a 3rd factor in this example that makes it more plausible to happen.

In your example from those 7 2 are expected to be in the missed rotation. having 5 in them is unlucky.
But because you missed 8 rotations the chance to be unlucky has been massively increased.

2,3% unlucky but a common result, thats 1 in every 44 players. So you could say it's a very, very, very common result. so while the number sounds low. it's not uncommon. and with every week a compounding similar result becomes more unlikely. but lets say for 3 weeks in a row is still in the realm of potential reality, unlikely but still in the realm of potential reality. 1 in 82189 players after 3 weeks is still a possible number.

Lets make it easy and use easy numbers for easy calculations
Compare the chance to get 0 in case of seeing all recipes, and the chance those 7 all fall in those 8 missed rotations.
The chance to get 0 seeing 28 rotations is 1 in 523.828.085.474.749
If you get 7 petfood the chance to get them all 7 in those 8 missed rotations is 1 in 4096

Thats what I mean with a 3rd factor it could make all the difference.
The first one is just an insane claim that makes no sense at all, the second claim is totally reasonable. unlikely but nothing you could claim is not true.
enough people would experience such a result every now and them.

These differences in odds are just to large to ignore and this way you can see how much your odds can be screwed if you miss rotations.
So thats when I say then when someone would claim they see all rotation and see weird odds for a prolonged period of time it's simply not true. the odds are just so small it's more likely to find aliens in the next few years.

But when there are other factors in play, it's possible, unlikely but possible. but even that has it's limit
Because even that part snowballs into impossible numbers fairly quickly. I mean 1 in 44 snowballs into 1 in 82129 in merely 3 weeks imagine 7 weeks thats already 1 in 293,700,812,439 players

Thats a chance that that would happen with 1 million active cities is once every 39.536 years

Guess how often we see similar claims? I am not 40.000 years old but I have seen plenty of claims on the different forums.
 

Sir Derf

Adept
Okay, first, before I read anything else, I just have to say...

"... the chance to be unlucky has been massively increased. " ???!??!!!

Okay, let me read the rest before I decide how much ire I need to address to, absent reading your explanation, what sounds like might pseudo-mathematical non-sense.
 

Sir Derf

Adept
Okay, skimmed, still absorbing, but...

First off all, I understand the built-in bias I have for my locally-agreed-about formatting nomenclature, but switching between "." and "," as the thousands-separator? Really? You're just trying to push my buttons, aren't you? ;) :mad:

Second, I understand the difference between a low 2% and a microscopically low 1 in 500 trillion, but, come on, 2% is low and unlucky on reasonable scales.

But now I need to spend a good chunk of time to digest what you wrote, ponder on what you mean, consider what my position is, and work out a response that I think others will be able to read to properly understand my thoughts.
 

Sir Derf

Adept
Literally my ninth approach to writing a response.

You were originally listing explanations for how someone could think they had a really bad, unlikely outcome.

I was picking apart what I considered the inappropriate word choices you used to describe qualitatively describe one of those explanations, namely "Either your unlucky and those recipes appear at moments you are not online.". I was not addressing how to compute or judge a long term observation. I was confining myself what I thought was a nuanced imperfection in the description of the benefit in possible unseen rotations.

Your reply refocused back on assessing long term observations. Your reply ends up working at cross-purposes with what I was saying.

The portion of your post that I charitably think most dovetails with my point is, if I have correctly interpreted your intent, more directly worrisome than the phrasing I started with. But, if on the other hand, you were not trying to address the point I was making, and instead were always focused on your point, well than it's a complete non-sequitor.

"But because you missed 8 rotations the chance to be unlucky has been massively increased."

I read that as "But because you missed 8 rotations the probability to get an unlikely bad outcome from those 8 missed rotations has massively increased." Because my post was all about computing and describing the benefits you could have received if you had picked up those missed rotations. And that interpretation is exactly the mathematical nonsense that I was addressing. The 8 missed rotations are an independent event, unrelated to the 20 observed rotations. It doesn't matter if you saw 2, or 7 (or 0 or 20) Pet Foods in the 20 you observed, you will always expect that you were most likely to have seen 2 more if you had observed the other 8. (It doesn't matter if you looked had looked at the other 8 and had seen 0, or 1, or 8, you still would have expected that 2 was the most likely). Odds don't mature.


But, given your conclusion was about compounding effects, snowballing into 3 week and 7 week outcomes, maybe what you wrote was meant as "But because you missed and keep missing 8 rotations a week you are more likely to have a worse outcome over 3, or 7 weeks, has increased compared to if you had seen all the rotations each of those weeks.." Which, well, is obvious.



Outside of that, I have issues with your math, both in the computations you compute, and the comparisons that you make. First, let's start with questionable computations.

Direct errors (I think)

The chance to get no Pet Food in a single event is 75%. The Chance to get no Pet Food in 28 is (75%)^28, which is 0.032%, or 1 in about 3150, nowhere near the 1 in 523.828.085.474.749 value you give. I don't know where you got that value. The really unlikely event, the odds of getting 28 Pet Food in 28 is (25%)^28, and is about 1 in 7.206*10^16, or almost 14 times lower than the number you gave.

The chance to get 7 Pet Food in 8 is (25%)^7 * (75%)^1 * Combin(8,7), or about 0.037% or 1 in 2730, not 1 in 4096. Among other possibilities, 1 in 4096 is the odds of getting 0 Pet Food in 6 rotations.


A poor choice of equivalence

Then, there's the matter of your opening discussion of 2.3% The 2.3% outcome, that you equate to 1 out of 44 people, was the percent of people who, having already gotten 2 Pet Food out of the 20 observed rotations, would have been expected to get the 5 out of the 8 missed rotations such that they would have had an overall average outcome. That's 2.3% out of an original 6.7%, or about 0.15%. about 1 in 649 people.


Comparisons

What's the point of these computations? Big number, small number, okay, but why? what do they mean. I get the feeling that at this point because I think you are mixing and matching conditional probabilities, you are comparing, not so much apples to oranges, as the tip of an apple slice to a portion of an orange section and then comparing them both to a drop of jelly made from three and a half grapes. It would is useful to compare the odds of 2 vs 5 out of 8 missed rotations. It would be useful to compare the odds of 2 vs 7 out of 28 total rotations. Whether using your comically dissimilar (and wrong) 1 in 523.828.085.474.749 compared to 1 in 4096 , or what I believe are my correct (and way closer to each other) values of 1:3150 compared to 1:2730, I don't see any meaning in comparing the odds of 0 in 28 total rotations with those of 7 in 8 missed rotations.


*Whew* That took me a bit, but I think I actually covered my problems with that post, in a way that I think people will have a chance of correctly inferring what I've tried to imply.
 

anonglitch

Co-Community Manager
Elvenar Team
Our developers always make sure that the Magic Academy is working as intended. If it weren't, we would get not a hundred but thousands of tickets. You can explore many cities from our most tournament-savvy players, and you will see they use several of these buildings.

They drop. You need to be patient. And keep something in mind, like attracts like, so try not to be angry at the Magic Academy, but happy because those Unleash Unit Upgrades are dropping nonstop!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top