Oh. Hang on. Maths speak. Unlikely = lower than 50% chance. It is unlikey.
I HATE statistics.
I HATE statistics.
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!
You're wholly right, and if it were not for how huge my Forum spiels already are, I'd have pre-addressed the points you've made, as well as any others which could readily be predicted as a consequence to my initial points (as I usually try to do, when presenting any argument in full - an old habit from my days of writing philosophy essays and engaging in academic debating contests) - but even I have some compassion for the few remaining members of the EN Forum and their (no doubt increasing) desire not to be faced with my vast walls-o-text in amongst every post they read![...] Your tactics of face value have worked in the past, due to a bigger margin on gaining the full grand prize. [...] From now on choosing face value will be a guarantee to NOT complete the grand prize, while choosing the best average will give you a chance of completing the grand prize. Nothing (but spending money) will give you a guarantee to finish the grand prize. [...] This will probably be the most money generating event in Inno´s history! And that means it is highly unlikely they will give us more event currency next time. They are most likely still looking for that sweet spot where the event is bad enough to make people spend money to make it better, but it can´t be too bad so people completely ignore the whole thing. [...]
... Yes, it's true! (Aaargh...!) But to give full disclosure on this particular point, since there are actually two [legitimately distinguishable] points here (i.e. explaining my own personal rationale to spend vs a much broader argument regarding other rationales than my own motivation alone):[...] And this is exactly the reason why this is happening. this event would have made even you spend money on it! [...]
See all of these above scenarios have exactly the same outcome: death, I have not the least interest which one of them is "better" than the other. Since our wiz cannot be a little less dead.Scenario 1. You throw 6 11's, a 10 and three 8's. All near-average individual rolls, totaling 100 and averaging to exactly the middle 10.0.
Scenario 2. You throw 4 20's, 2 6s and 4 2s's. Now, you threw multiple heroic values, but those were subsequently canceled by other low values, totaling 100 and despite the heroic initial rolls, ending with the same average 10.0.
Scenario 1. None of the throws give a bonus. Internal average 10.0, No Bonus.
Scenario 2. The first four beacons give bonuses, you're up 320 SK, average bonus 80 per becaon with 100% success rate from a 10% likely beacon. The other 6 beacons give no bonus, and you're at the same internal average of 10.0 as Scenario 1. However, you're still up 320 SK, average bonus 32 SK per beacon with a success rate of 40% from a 10% likely beacon.
You are so wrong about this one, again RNG works best with as little attempts as possible.My four bulleted descriptions of games goals were for the dice game, because the answer will be different depending on what the goals are in the dice game.
As I keep explaining to you, it doesn't matter what your goals were in the the Elvenar beacon game. The answer is always the same.
What I'm trying to say is, 27 beat 89 every time, all the time, for equal input and equal luck.
- If you want the best chance to get 200 staffs, 27 beats 89.
- If you want the best chance to get 400 staffs, 27 beats 89.
- If you want the best chance to get 2,000,000 staffs, 27 beats 89.
- If you want the best chance to get in the top 10%, 27 beats 89.
- If you want the best chance to get in the top 1%, 27 beats 89.
- If you want the best chance to get in the top 0.001%, 27 beats 89.
- If you want the best chance to beat a player who spent $10 on extra SK, 27 beats 89.
- If you want the best chance to beat a player who spent $1000 on extra SK, 27 beat 89.
- If you want the best chance to beat a player who spent $1,000,000 on extra SK, 27 beats 89.
- If you want the best chance to get the highest score, 27 beats 89.
The odds of you achieving any of the above goals will vary. It will be easy to get 200 staffs, very difficult to get 400 staffs, and camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle difficult to get 2,000,000 staffs (It probably involves an industrial-strength blender, a very thins straw and a heavy-duty suction pump), hut in all of those cases, the 27 will have a better chance of accomplishing it than the 89. That's what the math appears to say.
I actually only singled you out as an example, because I figured all of those above from what you said earlier, and not actually having spent money made you a good scapegoat (errr example), because you didn´t actually lose anything, so it´s a harmless example... Yes, it's true! (Aaargh...!) But to give full disclosure on this particular point, since there are actually two [legitimately distinguishable] points here (i.e. explaining my own personal rationale to spend vs a much broader argument regarding other rationales than my own motivation alone):
1. I paid InnoGames, once ever, £20 in real money, once I'd waited for the inevitable +100% extra Diamonds offer which many players know that most F2P games will cough up in the end; if I'd waited longer, and/or left the game for a while, I'd have seen the near-mythical +200% extra Diamonds bonus which those who do so are offered (again, quite a common tactic)... but at the time, I needed something to divert my mind, so +100% was good enough for me. It also represents what I personally consider the game to be worth, in its entirety (not least because even the greatest of City building games, like Sim City of old or Cities: Skylines, since EA greedily murdered Sim City, cost less than that to actually OWN, outright).
2. Although we can now see, with hindsight across the actual results of almost the entire Event, that refraining from gambling on the larger-value Chests would have resulted in a (near?) guaranteed loss of the final Grand Prize building, or perhaps even more than that, due to the precisely calculated [nobody should ever understimate the abilities of Inno's statisticians!] nerf to the amount of Event Currency between Beta and Live release, I personally am not mathematically capable enough to have been sure of this, and while some players who are more maths-minded than me were warning from the outset that the nerf would probably force most players into spending [to complete the Set], none was actually certain - despite their well-justified suspicions - whether it were still possible, with a determinedly Grand-Prize-only focused strategy, to scrape through without gambling.
3. While I realise that unwilling spending still = spending from Inno's perspective, just as they will also be taking the (historically well-founded) view that game-sourced Diamonds spent = more chance for real money to be spent, sooner or later, in order to replace those 'free' Diamonds (NB: the quotation marks are there because player time spent acquiring 'free' Diamonds is actually not without value), you will be unsurprised to learn that any Diamonds I would have needed to spend would have come from a stored amount which I have acquired from in-game sources.
4. The particular Grand Prize on offer answers a pressing and specific need (yes, artificially created by InnoGames) which I now have, thanks to the latest Tournament change and which, if not answered somehow (and there seems no other option), will soon force me into the kind of (in my view) overly taxing, too-many-online hours-per-week style of gaming which I don't intend to adopt. If any similar game changes are forthcoming, that's my cue to retire into far more casual activity as far as Elvenar is concerned and devote more time instead to other pastimes. Time will tell, on this point.
Sorry if you had already done this before, this is what I was looking for, I must have missed it in all those pages and pages of intertwining storyline :/ But heck the story alone was worth itIn summation, if our goal is to save Louie the lobster (Oh, look, now I've named him. I really, really, really have to do my best to save him.) and my only two options are to pick from 89 chests or 29 chests using my initial 6000 SK stake, take the 27 chest. The only way to save Louie with the 89 chest is the singular heroic outcome of sweep 89 at 2.02*10^62 odds, but when you combine all the possible ways you can save Louie with the 27 chests you have 7.45*10-43 odds, 19 orders of magnitude better. "All that matters is death or not death."