July 05, 2020, 09:16:10 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Ziggyny

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Extreme Universe / Re: bugged
« on: April 30, 2010, 06:34:44 PM »
Theoretically if they have tons of ships to group defend with they could send them in waves. Each wave is big enough to kill your fleet and they work to recall the ones you'd see with a probe after a potential slow attack...

But that's being paranoid... Right? ;)

Extreme Universe / Re: can't get a moon
« on: April 28, 2010, 08:53:17 PM »
Yes, for sure. If moon size ever becomes a factor and is based on debris field size then you absolutely want to go as big as possible.

Extreme Universe / Re: can't get a moon
« on: April 28, 2010, 06:30:38 PM »
Quote from: "Master"
How it works is that 20% shots start out with a higher efficiency rate ie it would take more than 2500 Artemis to get a 20% chance for a moon if they are broken up into smaller groups.

However 1% shots have less loss of efficiency with each shot allowing them to catch up with the odds of 20% shots later on.

Since you are more likely to acquire a moon before you have spent 50 million in ships (100% shot split up) your odds are in your favor to do the larger shots since they are more efficient for that first 50 million worth of ships.

This isn't true! 1% shots are only 'less efficient' if you consider these two things to be true:

- Extra ships are worthless
- You only want exactly 1 more moon

To try to explain this, consider having precisely 2500 arties. How should you spend them to have the best chance at a moon?

1 20% shot - 20% moon, 80% no moon
2 10% shots - 10% moon + 1250 arties, 9% moon, 81% no moon

Now you can look at that and say '20% > 19%, you must be better off with the 20% shot over the 10% shot' but that's only true if you assign no value at all to those extra 1250 arties. Sending them off to join your fleet has value. So does sending them off as a moonshot on another planet. Doing that will get you a second moon 1% of the time, so you can really look at the result matrix as being:

1 20% shot - 20% moon, 80% no moon
2 10% shots - 1% 2 moons, 18% moon, 81% no moon

Expected value wise you end up with the exact same thing with either split. 20% of a moon.

Take a full 12500 arties (100% moonshot, if such a thing could happen). What are the possible outcomes?

5 20% shots - .032% 5 moons, .64% 4 moons, 5.12% 3 moons, 20.48% 2 moons, 40.96% 1 moon, 32.768% 0 moons
10 10% shots - negligible chance at 10-6 moons, .1488% 5 moons, 1.1116% 4 moons, 5.7396% 3 moons, 19.371% 2 moons, 38.742% 1 moon, 34.8678% 0 moons

In both cases your expected value is 1 moon. By splitting them up into smaller chunks you're more likely to get many moons and more likely to get no moons at all. The full 20% shots make you more likely to get 1 or 2 moons with every other outcome less likely. But in the long run, assuming you can find value in either extra ships or in extra moons then it does not matter how you split up your shots. In terms of overall moon acquisition it is exactly the same.

Now, if you only want exactly 1 moon, and if you have no use for extra ships, then you should use full 20% shots. Beyond that it doesn't matter and you should use whatever you want.

Extreme Universe / Re: can't get a moon
« on: April 27, 2010, 08:55:45 PM »
The number of people in the game who can take 2500 artemii without losses is less than the number of people in the game that want moons. It cannot hurt to break up moonshots, it can only help (and will mostly be irrelevant). Your claim earlier was that it costs more in the long run if you break them up. I'd like to see your logic showing that to be true since as far as I can tell you were just wrong.

Extreme Universe / Re: can't get a moon
« on: April 27, 2010, 08:46:02 PM »
Quote from: "the420penguin"
100% isnt a guarantee xD

you need 35 20% shots to get to 96.96% chance

And I never said it was. I'm talking about how much you can EXPECT to spend at any given time to get a moon. That value is equivalent to a 100% moonshot. Or 5 20%s. Or 100 1%s.


And your math is wrong. After 35 20% moon shots you have a 99.9594% chance of having hit a moon. (1-.2)^35=.000406

Extreme Universe / Re: can't get a moon
« on: April 27, 2010, 08:42:42 PM »
To work out a specific example because I think you're going to need it, with 20% moonshots.

.2 - first try, spent 20 total.
.8*.2 - second try, spent 40 total.
.8*.8*.2 - third try, spent 60 total.
.8*.8*.8*.2 - fourth try, spent 80 total.
.8*.8*.8*.8*.2 - fifth try, spent 100 total.
.8*.8*.8*.8*.8*.2 - sixth try, spent 120 total.
.8*.8*.8*.8*.8*.8*.2 - seventh try, spent 140 total.
.8*.8*.8*.8*.8*.8*.8*.2 - eighth try, spent 160 total.

Expected value spent:
.2*20 + .8*.2*40 + .8*.8*.2*60 + .8*.8*.8*.2 + 80 + ...

After 1 try - 20% chance moon - 20 spent
After 2 tries - 20% chance moon - 20 spent. 16% chance moon - 40 spent. 64% no moon - 40 spent
EV              - 36% chance moon - 36 spent
After 3 tries - 20% moon - 20 spent. 16% moon - 40 spent. 12.8% moon - 60 spent. 51.2% no moon - 60 spent.
EV              - 48.8% chance moon - 48.8 spent

No matter how many 20% moonshots you take, your overall expected amount spent to get a moon is equal to your current odds of having hit a moon. The same will pan out no matter what your chunk is sized. In terms of getting a moon it doesn't matter what size shots you take.

What does matter, however, is losses you may take on your end to kill off the incoming moonshots. These are guaranteed to be lower if you break up the incoming attacks.

Extreme Universe / Re: can't get a moon
« on: April 27, 2010, 08:31:38 PM »
True, but you're missing the fact that you can stop after 1 2% shot if you hit. In formula form, the amount you're going to spend on average to get a moon is going to be:

i = 1
SUM (i*x)*(x/100)*(1-x/100)^(i-1)

Where x is the percentage chance you're shooting for.

Choose whatever values for x that you want and sum to infinity, you're going to get 100 no matter what you pick. You always expect to spend a single 100% moonshot to get a moon, no matter how you break it up.

Extreme Universe / Re: can't get a moon
« on: April 27, 2010, 07:57:26 PM »
That's actually not true. On average you'll spend less by taking very small shots than you will on taking max shots, but only by a small amount. (You may end up 'wasting' some of the 20% shot.)

Extreme Universe / Re: first triple inactive fleet crash
« on: April 27, 2010, 07:53:22 PM »
Read the Wiki, Penguin.

General Starfleet Discussion / Re: Advanced Pushing Technique
« on: April 16, 2010, 06:38:20 PM »
Apparently nothing. They're not building anyone up, they're shipping resources to an inactive planet by transporting to it. Then someone else comes by, attacks the planet 6 times, and scoops up 98% of what was deposited.

Why is this a problem? Well, the game has infrastructure in place such that a lower ranked person can't just ship resources to a higher ranked person. The game prevents you from doing it, but the technique detailed in the initial post gets around that hard coded rule and allows you to push 98% of the resources to someone else with only a small amount of extra effort.

I think it is important to post things like this to the boards since BFG already replied to the OPs bug report saying it wasn't an issue. The only way to get things changed if the support team is going to ignore the report is to stir up trouble on the boards and bring attention to the issue.

Quote from: "Vastet"
Quote from: "Sid82"
by the way you phrased your sentence it gives the implication that you think nobody would agree.

Wrong. You inferred something that doesn't exist, end of story.

I read it the exact same way. While your statement is vacuously true it doesn't actually mean anything at all without the implication Sid is associating with it. You can say his implication has no basis but then your statement doesn't either.

Quote from: "Vastet"
2: Because it's easily countered. 75+% of people (I'm not rescanning the thread to find whoever posted the average colourblind statistics, if anyone did) don't even have to try to counter it in order to counter it. The rest can find out in 10 seconds whether it's real or not. Less time than it takes to scan through someones planets to see if any are active.
3: Whenever these people ARE online, their subterfuge becomes transparent and obvious even to those who can't tell yellow from white.

I love how you're claiming it's "easily countered" and that only the lazy colourblind people won't counter it when the "easy counter" is non-intuitive and highly disruptive to the user. When would you ever click into a ranking system and search down to the user in order to see if part of their name is clickable? How can you possibly take the stance that it's acceptable to force some people to do this to achieve the same game effect of others?

Banning the names themselves seems extreme but I can't see how anyone could object to a system where colour wasn't the only determining factor used. A 'colour blind' GUI with different symbols for the flags would work. So would a seperate column for flags. Or changing the order the information is provided in.

People being online or not actually reveals _nothing_ about their subterfuge when they're doing it to user names and not planet names. Inactives often have activity marks because they get probed all the time.

Strategy / Re: Defense: A Strategical Discussion
« on: April 09, 2010, 08:27:23 PM »
Decoys are capped at one of each type. You should always build both on any planet with any semblance of a defense.

Extreme Universe / Re: question about def
« on: April 09, 2010, 03:07:08 PM »
You need enough defenses to be less profitable than your neighbours.

Extreme Universe / Re: slow attacks
« on: March 22, 2010, 05:01:36 PM »
I reported one last week and it was cancelled almost immediately. I am most certainly not a 'BFG poster boy', whatever that is.

Extreme Universe / Re: Slow attack when is it strategic?
« on: March 16, 2010, 11:58:55 PM »
But Redman, you're in Lords, not New Hope..

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5