• 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!

Dawn of the Phoenix

Jackluyt

Shaman
I think there's two options to get the phoenix fully evolved. Either focus on artifact chests (usually low value chests) and get less daily prizes and a slim chance of getting the Phoenix fully evolved based on recent Events. Or focus on daily prizes chests (usually high value chests) and get more daily prizes and a still slim chance of getting it fully evolved based on your luck on getting additional currency as those chests usually give more. So to me, I'd rather focus on daily prizes chests so at the end if it goes wrong with evolving I at least have more of them.
It'll be great to have the Phoenix fully evolved, it should not be too hard to spare one pet food per week to use it at least on Spire. We'll see how it goes.

Even if you don't get it fully evolved, there is a good chance that you will be able to craft the artifacts in a RSK (Reward Selection Kit)in future events.

This time, for example, you can use 2 new phoenix artifacts to craft the Tome of Phoenix, which contains all kinds of previous Phoenix artifacts (original, Ashen, Coldfire). You can pick which one of them you want.
:)
Once you have made your choice, that artifact will move to your Instants section of Inventory.
There is a good chance that the current Phoenix artifact will be added next year, provided they have not found a better system of artifact management by then.
:) :cool:
 

anonglitch

Co-Community Manager
Elvenar Team
We added a video for Dawn of the Phoenix! It just arrived, check it out here!
 

Jake65

Sage
maybe the devs get a newsletter that gives them that much essence, that is, if they re lucky enough that inno didnt ban their emailadress for some reason :)
Maybe they use snail mail :D
 

Sir Derf

Adept
Making a call for people who do the even more Semi-Pointless Math (tm) than I to crunch the numbers or run the simulations or whatever for the true, correct Oppotunity Cost weighted Return on Investment computations for selecting chests.

As I worked out in other threads, the current calculations are not taking into account a real, mathematically sound aspect of chest selection. Under the right conditions, there is an advantage in taking low-cost, less immediately advantageous instead of high-cost, so-so advantageous chests, allowing the possibility of opening more highly advantageous chests in the future. The computations need to be done on each set-of-three chests separately, figuring that all 3 cost the same as the most expensive, and figuring the differences in costs as being part of the rewards.

For example, suppose you are offered the choices of 33, 61 and 65. These chests have payouts of the first costing 33 and giving 1 feather and a 20% chance at 20, the second costing 61 and giving 2 feathers and an 8% chance at 100, and the third costing 65 and giving 2 feathers and a 28% chance at 50. Under the current computations attempting to optimize for Grand Prizes, which is based on feathers, the 33 chest is the worst of the three options. Instead, they need to be judged based on all three costing 65, with the first giving 1 feather and 20% at 20 + 100% chance at 32, the second giving 2 feathers and 8% at 100 and 100% at 4, and the third giving 2 feathers and 28% at 50. Looked at this way, the 33 chest is the best of the three, because while it gives less feathers immediately, it gives a better chance at getting more chests, and more higher efficiency chests, and thus more feathers and more Grand Prizes overall.
 

Heymrdiedier

Enchanter
Making a call for people who do the even more Semi-Pointless Math (tm) than I to crunch the numbers or run the simulations or whatever for the true, correct Oppotunity Cost weighted Return on Investment computations for selecting chests.

As I worked out in other threads, the current calculations are not taking into account a real, mathematically sound aspect of chest selection. Under the right conditions, there is an advantage in taking low-cost, less immediately advantageous instead of high-cost, so-so advantageous chests, allowing the possibility of opening more highly advantageous chests in the future. The computations need to be done on each set-of-three chests separately, figuring that all 3 cost the same as the most expensive, and figuring the differences in costs as being part of the rewards.

For example, suppose you are offered the choices of 33, 61 and 65. These chests have payouts of the first costing 33 and giving 1 feather and a 20% chance at 20, the second costing 61 and giving 2 feathers and an 8% chance at 100, and the third costing 65 and giving 2 feathers and a 28% chance at 50. Under the current computations attempting to optimize for Grand Prizes, which is based on feathers, the 33 chest is the worst of the three options. Instead, they need to be judged based on all three costing 65, with the first giving 1 feather and 20% at 20 + 100% chance at 32, the second giving 2 feathers and 8% at 100 and 100% at 4, and the third giving 2 feathers and 28% at 50. Looked at this way, the 33 chest is the best of the three, because while it gives less feathers immediately, it gives a better chance at getting more chests, and more higher efficiency chests, and thus more feathers and more Grand Prizes overall.
i used to do the: always go for cheapest chest as well in the past. but havent done that in a while now, now sure if its better, depends on how much the cheapest one is and what feathers it gives.

The main problem about unpredicability isnt in my opinion what you get as payback and what not, but what you get as chest options.
Its all to random to have a good tactic imo , just go with whatever you want (unless ofcourse theres an exensive one with bad chance) and you sometimes end up in gold league, and sometime you end up in iron league.
 

Jake65

Sage
It's like playing poker, got to keep your eye on the chicken's expression to see which chest will give you more feathers. :p
 

Sir Derf

Adept
1) It's not as straightforward as being able to rank the nine chests in order; the relative worths of the chests isn't determined by comparing all 9 of them at once, but by comparing the 3 being offered at each opportunity. The cheapest chest is not always the best choice.

2) True, the game does not give an equally deterministic opportunity to every player; the RNG will present different players with different chest combinations in different proportions, and this means that different players, even when playing the same strategy, can and will experience different outcomes, possibly wildly different outcomes. Having said that, one should not conclude that there is no point to determining and implementing the optimal strategy. RNG will RNG, and sometimes, despite following the optimum strategy you will achieve sub-optimal results, but a bad specific result does not disprove a good general approach.
 

Silly Bubbles

Necromancer
RNG will RNG, and sometimes, despite following the optimum strategy you will achieve sub-optimal results, but a bad specific result does not disprove a good general approach.

That’s why it’s better to focus on what is guaranteed. It’s less frustrating to accept the worst case scenario and then get surprised when you get something extra, it’s like Christmas. To me there’s nothing worse than sacrificing daily prizes by focusing on artifacts and then not get the phoenix fully upgraded. Especially, when it’s possible to get it fully upgraded while just focusing on daily prizes and some luck. I can’t lose.

Of course, if you really want the phoenix fully upgraded, I’d get prepared to spend diamonds on it.
 

Sir Derf

Adept
@Silly Bubbles

A what I think overly charitable read of your post, you have different, more modest goals, pursue a different strategy, and are happily surprised when your approach gives you better returns than your modest desires. You can't lose, as you put it, because you have lowered your standards.

However, a less charitable read of your post, you appear to advocate for a person with a strong desire for a goal to avoid the strategy that gives the best (but not guaranteed) chance of maximizing a particular reward, because you might not achieve a particular quantity of that reward, and to instead pursue an alternate strategy with lower odds at maximizing the same reward, but, hey, that strategy might still hit that quantity anyways (although with a much lower chance than the first strategy). I find the logic of your argument highly unconvincing.
 

Silly Bubbles

Necromancer
@Silly Bubbles

A what I think overly charitable read of your post, you have different, more modest goals, pursue a different strategy, and are happily surprised when your approach gives you better returns than your modest desires. You can't lose, as you put it, because you have lowered your standards.

However, a less charitable read of your post, you appear to advocate for a person with a strong desire for a goal to avoid the strategy that gives the best (but not guaranteed) chance of maximizing a particular reward, because you might not achieve a particular quantity of that reward, and to instead pursue an alternate strategy with lower odds at maximizing the same reward, but, hey, that strategy might still hit that quantity anyways (although with a much lower chance than the first strategy). I find the logic of your argument highly unconvincing.

The circumstances of getting an Event building fully evolved got worse considerably this year comparing to last year. So far we’ve had one Fellowship Adventure instead of two so it covers two Events rather than one. That means that we’ll only get one additional artifact per Event to fully evolve buildings, we need to be able to get 8 artifacts instead of 7 and that is hard using the same strategy that is based on last year’s circumstances.

I don’t really see it as a modest goal. I aim to get both artifacts and daily prizes while covering the down side. When you focus only on artifacts, you’re sacrificing daily prizes and opening yourself to a loss of both. To me, it's not only about best odds to win, it's also focusing on reducing the odds to lose, both are relevant when comparing different strategies.

But I’d love to be proved wrong and avoid not being able to get full main prize and losing daily prizes in the same time. Odds of that happening have increased due to recent changes.
 

Sir Derf

Adept
Oh no, two competing types of rewards.
Oh no, if I focus on emphasizing one type of reward, I'm de-emphasizing the other.
Oh no, someone who wants more of one type of reward, and focuses on emphasizing one type of reward, might not get as many of that reward as they want.
Oh no, someone who is willing to accept less of the other type of reward, and focuses on de-emphasizing the other type of reward, might not get a lot of that other type of reward.

This is how I am reading what you are advocating:

I know you say you want more of one type of reward, and are willing to take an approach that emphasizes the chances of getting that type of reward over the other, but, and now hear me out, how about you do the exact opposite? I mean, you say you want more of that one type of reward, but why don't you try for less. And, I know you were willing to emphasize that reward over the other, but, you know, how about you try to get more of the things you didn't want. Doesn't that sound better?

How about letting the player who has decided what their priorities are actually attempt to fulfill those priorities, rather then selling them on settling for the exact opposite and liking it?
 

Silly Bubbles

Necromancer
How about letting the player who has decided what their priorities are actually attempt to fulfill those priorities, rather then selling them on settling for the exact opposite and liking it?

If I'm selling then you're selling too. I'd more call it sharing strategies, isn't it what this forum is about?
PS. Sorry that I don't agree with you and choose to have a different opinion supported by logic.
 

CrazyWizard

Shaman
5% reclaim is way too low to be wasting a pet food on, seeing that they rarely come up in the academy for me. Why can't it be raised to 50% reclaim to make it worth while? Dev's are always talking about "game balance" for a game that is not PvP, but when it comes to Inno offering rewards both in game and through diamond purchases, it's seriously "out of balance"

It turns out the building workts a bit differently.
It raises "up to" 5% of your squad size.

If it was 50% it would raise 100% of the dead units as long as you loose 50% or less of the squad.
So if in a battle you loose 10% of your unit size. then you get 5% returned which is a 50% revival rate.

The 5% is only if the entire squad dies. as long as less dies the revival rate will be higher than that 5%
 

Sir Derf

Adept
If I'm selling then you're selling too. I'd more call it sharing strategies, isn't it what this forum is about?
PS. Sorry that I don't agree with you and choose to have a different opinion supported by logic.
Perfectly fine to have a different opinion.

You are not presenting a better alternative path towards the goal of maximizing obtaining artifacts.
You are presenting an alternative goal and saying that the path is better because the goal is better.

I'm fine with discussing different strategies towards a goal.
I'm fine with discussing different goals.
I'm objecting to what seems like explaining that a different goal is a better way of obtaining the original goal.
 

Sir Derf

Adept
It turns out the building workts a bit differently.
It raises "up to" 5% of your squad size.

If it was 50% it would raise 100% of the dead units as long as you loose 50% or less of the squad.
So if in a battle you loose 10% of your unit size. then you get 5% returned which is a 50% revival rate.

The 5% is only if the entire squad dies. as long as less dies the revival rate will be higher than that 5%
So, I engage with 5 groups of Archers, each group has 1,000 members (for a total of 5,000).

In the above example, that's a fighting squad size of 1,000, yes?

In battle, my groups receive losses of 0, 25, 50, 100 and 500 respectively (for a total of 675).

With a fed Phoenix providing 5% revive, does that give me
  1. Up to 5% squad size (50), assessed on per squad loss, so 0 + 25 + 50 + 50 + 50 = 175?
  2. Up to 5% squad size (50), assessed overall, so 50?
  3. Up to 5% squad size (50), assessed per squad, but based on overall loss, so 5*50 = 250?
  4. Something else?
I'm guessing it's the first, but would like a more exact confirmation.
 
Top