Dawn of the Phoenix

[Hekata]

great, if it was a rune that is popular and most people have....but really the spire library, not too many people have that open and didn't bother to build it ....if that was their thinking then really, why just not make it a 30kp instant

I have the Timewarp icon showing in both my cities so it's either random or more likely chapter based since both my cities are chapter 15. Either way, it definitely is not an exciting prize, even with their KPs value because it's much more limited in use than an AWKP instant.

 

[strider-lauri]

1) Spend money or be super lucky (a.k.a. get a lot of shard returns from chests)
2) Fair? It never has been, it never will be. Pay2Win has always been part of Elvenar, even before it went mobile. Sorry.

I'm not agree with You. All events were earlier much more fairer, than they're now.

 

[Herodite]

For a moment I thought you were replying with good news to my customary quip about not getting the newsletter!

I cannot speak for the Newsletters!!

 

[Pauly7]

great, if it was a rune that is popular and most people have....but really the spire library, not too many people have that open and didn't bother to build it ....if that was their thinking then really, why just not make it a 30kp instant

Yeah, you're right. There's always a twist. Like how they're most likely to give LM troop instants.

 

[SkyRider99]

After watching a river of undesirable prizes flow past it is (eventually) a joy to actually get a worthwhile prize.

Maybe the game doesn't want to turn us into spoilt, over-indulged brats?

 

[CrazyWizard]

After watching a river of undesirable prizes flow past it is (eventually) a joy to actually get a worthwhile prize.

Maybe the game doesn't want to turn us into spoilt, over-indulged brats?

Thats it' if all prizes where amazing, then also all prizes where boring. a prize is amazing because it's better then the rest, if all prizes are the same there just well boringly the same and none would be worthwhile.

 

[alsael]

Bring back mana huts!
I do not say wells,bacause i don't think there is a chance for them.

 

[CrazyWizard]

Bring back mana huts!
I do not say wells,bacause i don't think there is a chance for them.

Brink back? I think they where offered very recently for a few diamonds I think, you could have gotten them there.

 

[SpaceCowboy]

What do you guys see in the lava egg? The 48 hr production makes it in line with other buildings for me.

The good thing is that you can decide to collect only every other day, skipping one mana decay cycle.

 

[Giraffi]

The good thing is that you can decide to collect only every other day, skipping one mana decay cycle.

If you can use it immediately. Not so sure if it holds true in the long run if you don’t use mana, but still collects as it becomes available.

 

[Laurelin]

[...] Not so sure if it holds true in the long run if you don’t use mana, but still collects as it becomes available.

As far as my experience goes, Mana collected from any source, including Lava Eggs, will decay as normal once collected, and the Lava Egg doesn't store any more than one production run, although its production (again, like all others I've so far seen?) doesn't start to decay UNTIL it's collected. On a related note, a former FS-mate gave me a good tip a while back - if you set your Main Hall to upgrade (MH in particular because it uses a lot of Mana and takes a long time to upgrade, but any other building should also work), you can cancel it at any point before the upgrade completes and the Mana will be returned to your pool without any decay, even if the incomplete upgrade period runs across the normal Server Decay Time. I'd assume that the same trick would work with any other decaying Resources, too - but I haven't tried any of this myself, so I'm not staking my life on it!

 

[Sir Derf]

More sky essence = more feathers = more daily prizes = more artifacts. As much as the traditional calculation is very detailed, statistics can only estimate the future not predict it. Going into more detail into something that is not exact will not make it more accurate.

For example, based on my current sky essence (2054) I got another two artifacts nearly guaranteed using average of 30 sky essence per feather not including any extra sky essence from possible wins. This is a very conservative calculation so the chances are nearly 100%. But I want more than that. Using the chests that I listed will give me the best chances of getting many more feathers on top of the two additional artifacts.
Based on Jack's calculation, the average is 25 sky essence per feather (not guaranteed as it's based on winning extra sky essence). Unfortunately, this is an arbitrary number as we all win different amounts of sky essence. And as much as I'd like to use it, it will only give me arbitrary result.

So really it comes down to whether you want to rely on statistical numbers that might give you what they're telling you (usually average result as they're based on averages) or whether you'll go for the highest possible gain and give yourself a chance of winning big. In my situation, I have nothing to lose but a lot to gain using the chests above.

I see your posting as the Elvenar equivalent of a Flat Earther who says that you can't trust NASA information about a round Earth, but as proof that the Earth is flat they point to a statement in the middle of a NASA document which they say shows NASA acknowledging flatness. You're willing to accept that the math you do is proof of your optimization, but other math analysis is 'arbitrary'.


Look, you can't argue this both ways. If the randomness of the RNG is such that I can't make predictions, then that means that you can't make predictions either. If, on the other hand, you can do math to reach a conclusion that there is a maximizing strategy, then so can I. And if you can factor positive RNG as boosting your potential outcome to make your strategy potentially better, then I can too.

 

[CrazyWizard]

Statistics need a lot of datapoints, the more datapoints you have the more accurate statistics become.

So when we look at a single event with limited datapoints we know RNG plays a role in the outcome of that single event.
But when we look at overaching event, then you will have good events, bad events and anything in between over time. you'll get average
So it's a short term gamble, with a long term fixed result.

ps. if you hate random, you can always use the fixed rate chests as much as possible then most of the random is removed

 

[SkyRider99]

If the randomness of the RNG is such that I can't make predictions, then that means that you can't make predictions either.

RNG reigns supreme. RNG has no soul. RNG cares not for the woes of mortals.

 

[Sir Derf]

Using the chests that I listed will give me the best chances of getting many more feathers on top of the two additional artifacts.
Based on Jack's calculation, the average is 25 sky essence per feather (not guaranteed as it's based on winning extra sky essence). Unfortunately, this is an arbitrary number as we all win different amounts of sky essence. And as much as I'd like to use it, it will only give me arbitrary result.

This also bugged me, but I assume it is a language issue.

I don't think 'arbitrary' is an appropriate synonym of 'random' to be used in this context. Some chests have a stated chance of giving extra Sky Essence. INNO arbitrarily decided that the 61 chest would have an 8% chance at giving 100 Sky Essence, as there is nothing that forced that value for that chest. However, including this in the computations for the expected outcomes of the various chests is not arbitrary. Yes, you can't guarantee that an 8% chance of getting 100 Sky Essence from the 61 chest means you will get 800 Sky Essence from opening 100 of those chests. An individual's actual result will vary; opening 100 chests might result in getting 800 Sky Essence, or 900, or 300, or 4,000. It will be random; it will be unplanned, it will be uncontrolled, irregular, indiscriminate. But to use the available numbers to compute an expected outcome is not an arbitrary computation, and the value of 800 is not an arbitrary value.

Ironically, your decision to not include the extra Sky Essence in your evaluation of the "highest possible gain" and the "chance of winning big" is an arbitrary decision.

 

[Silly Bubbles]

I see your posting as the Elvenar equivalent of a Flat Earther who says that you can't trust NASA information about a round Earth, but as proof that the Earth is flat they point to a statement in the middle of a NASA document which they say shows NASA acknowledging flatness. You're willing to accept that the math you do is proof of your optimization, but other math analysis is 'arbitrary'.

Look, you can't argue this both ways. If the randomness of the RNG is such that I can't make predictions, then that means that you can't make predictions either. If, on the other hand, you can do math to reach a conclusion that there is a maximizing strategy, then so can I. And if you can factor positive RNG as boosting your potential outcome to make your strategy potentially better, then I can too.

Obviously, you can't handle other people having different views and not agreeing with you. You still don't understand what I was getting at. Let people decide for themselves and choose whatever makes sense to them or works for them. If statistics could predict the future, life would be so much easier. Not everything is black and white, there's a lot in between and that makes it so much more interesting. Math is a great tool but doesn't create the world around you, you still need to use the right variables and understand the difference between what is guaranteed and what is just an estimate.
Anyways, live and let live. Nobody's obliged to comply with anyone's views.
Also, I'd work on your emotionality, it clouds the brains. Personal attacks will not make you win an argument that involves logic.

This also bugged me, but I assume it is a language issue.

I don't think 'arbitrary' is an appropriate synonym of 'random' to be used in this context. Some chests have a stated chance of giving extra Sky Essence. INNO arbitrarily decided that the 61 chest would have an 8% chance at giving 100 Sky Essence, as there is nothing that forced that value for that chest. However, including this in the computations for the expected outcomes of the various chests is not arbitrary. Yes, you can't guarantee that an 8% chance of getting 100 Sky Essence from the 61 chest means you will get 800 Sky Essence from opening 100 of those chests. An individual's actual result will vary; opening 100 chests might result in getting 800 Sky Essence, or 900, or 300, or 4,000. It will be random; it will be unplanned, it will be uncontrolled, irregular, indiscriminate. But to use the available numbers to compute an expected outcome is not an arbitrary computation, and the value of 800 is not an arbitrary value.

Ironically, your decision to not include the extra Sky Essence in your evaluation of the "highest possible gain" and the "chance of winning big" is an arbitrary decision.

A wonderful game of words that looks great but I can't see any different conclusion that I came up with.

 

[Sir Derf]

And you don't see what I'm getting at.

There's having a subjective, emotional opinion, and there's making an objective, measurable claim. You're more than welcome to prefer your method of playing the game, and to feel satisfaction in the outcomes you achieve, and to describe your system to others. It's when you say things like " higher chance of higher payout " and "the highest possible gain and give yourself a chance of winning big", claims of a numerical, mathematical nature, that's where I have the problem. Your system does not give a higher chance of a higher payout. The increasingly higher payouts in your system require increasingly better (and increasingly less likely) RNG outcomes. Equivalent RNG outcomes in the model you dislike give slightly better payouts. Head-to-head, side-by-side, your strategy does not offer "a higher chance of higher payout".

Additionally, where was there a personal attack? I believe that all of my posts have been directed at your arguments, at your math, at your logic, at your word choice, and your conclusions, as opposed to you directly.

 

[Silly Bubbles]

I believe that all of my posts have been directed at your arguments, at your math, at your logic, at your word choice, and your conclusions, as opposed to you directly.

Exactly, your posts are targeted at me and not at problem at hand. I still haven't seen any calculations that proves the solution I gave wrong.

 

[Sir Derf]

Calculations that prove the solution you gave is wrong? To quote a YouTuber I watch, this will be super easy. Barely an inconvenience.

Let the semi-useless semi-pointless math begin. (Edit - how can I forget my own catchphrase?)

These are chests that have the highest odds of the highest payout. Riskier than the above but higher chance of higher payout:

Chest​	Free SE​	Free SE %​	Average​
129​	500​	5.00%​	25.00​
112​	100​	22.00%​	22.00​
77​	150​	10.00%​	15.00​
65​	50​	28.00%​	14.00​
36​	100​	10.00%​	10.00​
61​	100​	8.00%​	8.00​
33​	20​	20.00%​	4.00​
46​	​	​	0.00​
26​	​	​	0.00​

Versus from @Jackluyt 's shared document.

Best Chest is at the top of list, using the least Sky Essence; worst at the bottom.


The goal is to maximize Artifacts, which is Grand Prizes, which is feathers.

Your assertion is that the your list, weighted by Average Bonus SE regardless of Chest Cost or Feathers per Chest, is the order that will give the "highest odds of the highest payout", better than that of the typical computation that includes Chest Cost and Feathers per Chest.

I started to compare your proposed top performer, the 129 Chest, again that of the typical computation's best, the 77 Chest. According to your list, I think you would expect a drastic difference, given the averages of 25 vs. 15 for 129 vs. 77 (129 supposedly about 66% better than 77). However, the typical computations rankings put them at very close values, with SE to Feather ratios of 20.7 vs 20.8 for 77 vs. 129 (77 about 0.5% better than 129). When I did the math the difference between the two chests fell in the rounding error, which while I recognized as demonstrating the 0.5% superiority of 77 over 129, it's not a very satisfactory demonstration.

Instead, let's look at your #2 and 3, the 112 and the 77 chest, which still have a wide difference with the averages of 22 vs 15 (112 supposedly about 46% better than 77), while by the typical computation they would be ranked #3 and 1, with SE to Feather ratios of 22.5 vs. 20.7 (77 about 8.6% better than 112). Having now done the math I will present below, I'll say that the results very clearly show which of the two approaches is correct.

For the 112 chest, starting with 5,000 SE, you could open 5,000/112 = 44 chests with 72 ES left over. At 4 Feathers per chest, that's 44*4 = 176 feathers directly. With an average 22 bonus SE per chest, that would be about 44*22 = 968 bonus SE, realistically between 9 or 10 successes, so 900 or 1,000 bonus SE.

For the 77 chest, starting with the same 5,000 SE, you could open 5,000/77 = 64 chests, again with 72 ES left over. At 3 Feathers per chest, that's 64*3 = 192 feathers directly. 192 is better than 176 (about 9% better). With an average 15 bonus SE per chest, that would be about 64*15 = 960 bonus SE, realistically between 6 or 7 successes, so 900 or 1,050 bonus SE. 900 or 1,050 is equal to or better than 900 or 1,000.

Repeat through use of the bonus SE, and the numbers will continue in like fashion.

Done.

But wait... What if I'm luckier and get more bonus chests with the 112? Well, you need to get lucky enough in the first round to get 4 additional chests (16 additional feathers) in the second round just to equal what the 77 chest made in the first round, while the 77 chest player without additional luck again makes more in his second round than you, and so is still ahead. Give the 77 chest player equivalent luck, and he's again beating you, round after round.

Done-er.

So no. Your chart does not list the "chests that have the highest odds of the highest payout." Maximizing Bonus SE rates, ignoring the costs of the chests and the Feathers the chests give out does not maximize your total feathers received. Your chests are in the wrong order, and a player who plays prioritizing chest selection based on that list does not "have the highest odds of the highest payout."

 

[Silly Bubbles]

Calculations that prove the solution you gave is wrong? To quote a YouTuber I watch, this will be super easy. Barely an inconvenience.

Let the semi-useless semi-pointless math begin. (Edit - how can I forget my own catchphrase?)



Versus from @Jackluyt 's shared document.

Best Chest is at the top of list, using the least Sky Essence; worst at the bottom.


The goal is to maximize Artifacts, which is Grand Prizes, which is feathers.

Your assertion is that the your list, weighted by Average Bonus SE regardless of Chest Cost or Feathers per Chest, is the order that will give the "highest odds of the highest payout", better than that of the typical computation that includes Chest Cost and Feathers per Chest.

I started to compare your proposed top performer, the 129 Chest, again that of the typical computation's best, the 77 Chest. According to your list, I think you would expect a drastic difference, given the averages of 25 vs. 15 for 129 vs. 77 (129 supposedly about 66% better than 77). However, the typical computations rankings put them at very close values, with SE to Feather ratios of 20.7 vs 20.8 for 77 vs. 129 (77 about 0.5% better than 129). When I did the math the difference between the two chests fell in the rounding error, which while I recognized as demonstrating the 0.5% superiority of 77 over 129, it's not a very satisfactory demonstration.

Instead, let's look at your #2 and 3, the 112 and the 77 chest, which still have a wide difference with the averages of 22 vs 15 (112 supposedly about 46% better than 77), while by the typical computation they would be ranked #3 and 1, with SE to Feather ratios of 22.5 vs. 20.7 (77 about 8.6% better than 112). Having now done the math I will present below, I'll say that the results very clearly show which of the two approaches is correct.

For the 112 chest, starting with 5,000 SE, you could open 5,000/112 = 44 chests with 72 ES left over. At 4 Feathers per chest, that's 44*4 = 176 feathers directly. With an average 22 bonus SE per chest, that would be about 44*22 = 968 bonus SE, realistically between 9 or 10 successes, so 900 or 1,000 bonus SE.

For the 77 chest, starting with the same 5,000 SE, you could open 5,000/77 = 64 chests, again with 72 ES left over. At 3 Feathers per chest, that's 64*3 = 192 feathers directly. 192 is better than 176 (about 9% better). With an average 15 bonus SE per chest, that would be about 64*15 = 960 bonus SE, realistically between 6 or 7 successes, so 900 or 1,050 bonus SE. 900 or 1,050 is equal to or better than 900 or 1,000.

Repeat through use of the bonus SE, and the numbers will continue in like fashion.

Done.

But wait... What if I'm luckier and get more bonus chests with the 112? Well, you need to get lucky enough in the first round to get 4 additional chests (16 additional feathers) in the second round just to equal what the 77 chest made in the first round, while the 77 chest player without additional luck again makes more in his second round than you, and so is still ahead. Give the 77 chest player equivalent luck, and he's again beating you, round after round.

Done-er.

So no. Your chart does not list the "chests that have the highest odds of the highest payout." Maximizing Bonus SE rates, ignoring the costs of the chests and the Feathers the chests give out does not maximize your total feathers received. Your chests are in the wrong order, and a player who plays prioritizing chest selection based on that list does not "have the highest odds of the highest payout."

What if I don't care about feathers per chest but just purely about winning additional currency? Additional currency equals additional feathers anyway. I might sacrifice 5 feathers per chest based on averages (that personally wouldn't give me additional artifact) but I might win additional currency many times and very easily make up for the lost feathers and end up getting second phoenix base. That's what actually my calculation was about.