Question Pilgrims Forge - other means to get it?

[DeletedUser501]

I feel exactly the opposite, the spire (and MO) gives out so many, that I have far more diamonds than I need. Of course I am not complaining, but the need for diamonds will certainly not make me buy any more. I now treat this as donations to a game I like. Not because I need diamonds.

I spend a considerable part of my diamonds in Crafting spins, that´s why I said: " in my point of view ", and this is probably the same point of view of those who do the same. (Yes we search combat buildings in those spins). (No, if you don´t spin time to time in crafting obviously you´ll have lotta more diamonds than the people that do).

 

[Pauly7]

since many players (especially new) won´t get the whole set,

You're right and this will lead to a further imbalance in the trader, as @Hekata pointed out. Of all the players who are active enough to be able to get the marble building built up with max link bonuses, probably only a small proportion of them will have pushed through and got the steel building at the end.

 

[DeletedUser501]

They are very very very easy to get if:

• You are active in the spire, aka 2 levels or a full spire each week
• When your fellowship also reaches 2 levels or a full spire.

I play on 2 worlds both gold spires, boith reaching the top and I get a little under 1000 diamonds a week on average from the spire alone.
That accumulates very fast into large numbers if you are one of those players in that situation.

I´ve been in a gold Spire FS since a year or so, and I´ve been buying diamonds when there´s a good diamond offer ( when they give you a +100% in your purchase) and I´m always short of diamonds, but as I said above, it is my isolated case and maybe of those who spin a lot in the MA.

 

[Hekata]

You're right and this will lead to a further imbalance in the trader, as @Hekata pointed out. Of all the players who are active enough to be able to get the marble building built up with max link bonuses, probably only a small proportion of them will have pushed through and got the steel building at the end.

Yaay I've been summoned to rant about this issue again! Fun fact the problem would be much smaller if instead of making the steel building the last piece of the set they've made that useless plaza the last piece of the set. Obviously there wouldn't be ANY problem if each building just produced boosted +1/+2.

 

[Pauly7]

Yaay I've been summoned to rant about this issue again! Fun fact the problem would be much smaller if instead of making the steel building the last piece of the set they've made that useless plaza the last piece of the set. Obviously there wouldn't be ANY problem if each building just produced boosted +1/+2.

Yep, but people wouldn't spend money on completing it if they put that building last.

 

[CrazyWizard]

I´ve been in a gold Spire FS since a year or so, and I´ve been buying diamonds when there´s a good diamond offer ( when they give you a +100% in your purchase) and I´m always short of diamonds, but as I said above, it is my isolated case and maybe of those who spin a lot in the MA.

You need a lot of diamonds to unlock everything, I think I calculated it somewhere yesterday, I currently own between 350-400K diamonds worth of houses, workshops and expansions. I bought about 3-4% of that.

But I also owned hundreds of wishing wells, craft myself crazy, and do gold spires for a long while now on 2 worlds ect.
Lets say with 2 worlds spire + crafting gives you about 1000-1100 diamonds on average. thats still 350-400 weeks of work, aka 7-8 years.
So there is plenty of reason why you are still having a place where you can spend diamonds on.

Why I am quicker, as I did this in 3-4 years, where only in the past 2 years 2 worlds were aviable and before that only 1 world?
Because I am crazy and a wizard , I always know how to squeeze out the last bit of diamonds out of a situation, and those hundreds of wishing wells who gave about 450 diamonds a pop
helped me a lot, and each ghost for example is about 1100 diamonds during it's lifetime and I have some of those as well, in fact I still run 2 of them in my secondary world. but unfortunately the ability to aquire hundreds of wishing wells is not more. that said the spire is still very nice

 

[sentimil]

There will be a promotion (possibly tomorrow) to buy SK at a much cheaper rate. It always happens.

Yes, I heard about this. However, I feel that Inno should get some money for making this game, and that EUR20 is just a small part of what they deserve. At this point, I was already considering the idea to sometimes buy diamonds to this goal, despite that I never used them until now. So I bought the diamonds / SK I needed at the current rate, and am not sorry at all.

Are you suggesting that taking one beacon makes it less likely to appear the next time. I think that's some advanced computations that Inno is unlikely to wade into, even if they saw a benefit.

In this case take the 89. It's not a bad choice. Avoid 30 and 54 like the plague if you want the staffs.

I maintain servers for almost two decades already, and have sometimes seen such advanced computations to predict and direct users where I wouldn't expect them. So, I just don't know what Inno does or doesn't.

30 usually gives 1 point (30 SK / point), 54 gives 2 (27 SK / point), and 89 gives 3 (29.66 SK / point). 30 and 89 usually offer better chances than 54, but I almost always was interested in obtaining the complete set, so I went for the best SK / point ratio - in this case, 54.

The result of this strategy appears good: I am a new and inexperienced player, and during the first 10-15 quests had a wrong impression on the event mechanics, resulting in bad beacon choices. Also, I don't remember having luck with chancing on extra SK. (Except that since I bought all SK I needed and spent them, I chose 3 times more with the remaining SK, and hit the 80 extra SK twice! ). I bought the equivalent of about 22 points. Those put me into the Silver League; without them, I would still be above the average for the Bronze League.

 

[Sir Derf]

89 is in reality marginally better than 54.

You are computing what in other threads has been referred to as "Face Value", computed as direct cost divided by direct staffs, and ignoring the possibility of bonus SK as a reward. When factoring in the 10% chance at 90 bonus SK, the 54 drops from 27 SK/staff to 22.5 SK/staff, and when factoring in the 12% chance at 200 bonus SK, the 89 drops from 29.66 SK/staff to 21.67. the 54 went from what looked like a slightly better choice to in actuality a slightly worse choice.

Having said that, I'm glad you are happy with your results.

 

[sentimil]

89 is in reality marginally better than 54.

You are computing what in other threads has been referred to as "Face Value", computed as direct cost divided by direct staffs, and ignoring the possibility of bonus SK as a reward. When factoring in the 10% chance at 90 bonus SK, the 54 drops from 27 SK/staff to 22.5 SK/staff, and when factoring in the 12% chance at 200 bonus SK, the 89 drops from 29.66 SK/staff to 21.67. the 54 went from what looked like a slightly better choice to in actuality a slightly worse choice.

That depends on how lucky one is, and that factor may differ between people. Given my life experience, I should assume very close to zero luck - which makes the face value the realistic strategy for me.

(That was confirmed by the event record. Based on my choices, before deciding to buy some SK I should have won bonus SK at average almost 4 times. In reality, that was once or never, I can't remember exactly. While after making the buy / not really needing SK anymore, I chanced on bonus SK 2 out of 3 times. )

 

[Sir Derf]

Basing your future decisions on the basis that one person will be luckier than another, or that making one decision will be luckier than another, is an unfair assumption called 'special pleading'.

That said, even if player A is going to be luckier than player B, it still doesn't matter in Elvenar, because when it comes to the math of beacons, a lucky player pursuing better-on-average strategy will do better than an equally lucky player pursuing less-on-average strategy. In fact, a 10%-luckier-than average player pursuing better-on-average strategy will see an even larger improvement than a an equivalent 10%-luckier-than-average player pursuing less-on-average strategy. More so with 20%-luckier than average players. Or 30%, Or any percent. The same is also true of equally unlucky players; they do worse and worse, but the better-on-average strategy player will still be an equivalent less-on-average strategy player. I've done the math. I've explained the math. No, it's not like rolling damage with dice. No, it's not like playing the lottery. No, it's not what most people think will happen. But that's what the math says will happen.

And no, I don't believe that this is confirmed by what you call 'the event record', because

1. I can't verify that you have been an unlucky person in the past.
2. You are citing only a single player's experience this time. You report having less-than-average results with respect to receiving bonuses. Half of all players will get less-than-average results at any given go - that's what 'less than average' means.
3. You indicate that your reporting isn't even necessarily accurate, stating "I can't remember exactly" To this, I'll throw the additional math fudgery of stating "average almost 4 times." as the difference between maybe 3 and maybe 4 shades how possibly bad your supposed outcome might have been
4. I can't verify your assessment of what you think average bonus awards should have been given your decisions.

 

[Hekata]

Yep, but people wouldn't spend money on completing it if they put that building last.

Right, but they could have made the plaza produce something else: seeds, supplies, kps, another CC... that way the imbalance in T1 wouldn't be as big and people would still want that last part and spend some cash.

 

[Sir Derf]

Or, looked at the other way, if you are aware of the imbalance, wouldn't that make your desire/need for that set piece even more pronounced, and thus make you more inclined to spend to get it?

 

[Gargon667]

Right, but they could have made the plaza produce something else: seeds, supplies, kps, another CC... that way the imbalance in T1 wouldn't be as big and people would still want that last part and spend some cash.

If balancing the T1 had been the main goal, those 3 would have been the first buildings handed out, they could simply have put the most desirable building (the main one) last to force spending. So the way I see it Inno has done many people a favour, including themselves, because handing out the main building early makes more people interested in completing the set in the first place.

 

[Hekata]

If balancing the T1 had been the main goal, those 3 would have been the first buildings handed out, they could simply have put the most desirable building (the main one) last to force spending. So the way I see it Inno has done many people a favour, including themselves, because handing out the main building early makes more people interested in completing the set in the first place.

Maybe, but I got the feeling a lot of people are more after the Manor CC than all the T1 and they can have the CC with just 6 pieces.