• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Winter's SoK

  • Thread starter DeletedUser27184
  • Start date

DeletedUser31882

Alvadora said:
It baffles me still that people don't understand gutmeister's argument. I slowly start to suspect some trolling ... or is it really that difficult? Or are some too set in their ways?
Click to expand...

Sometimes, people just like to argue. The point of an argument is to lay-out the best way to communicate an idea. If people refuse and rebuke it on opinion basis, there is nothing more to be done or said.

As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

To add: Don't waste energy beating the stubborn horse in an attempt to force it to drink.

Let em drink on their own time.

[This was not an attempt to back-handily insult the 'opposing' viewpoint. If It was, I would have substituted donkey into the above saying. Get it!? HAHAHAHA I'm a subtle sledgehammer! Hahahahaha! Huh? *performs Picard maneuver* My timer alarm is going off. Chow!]
 

DeletedUser29055

You believe in a string of bad luck? Ugh ... you lost your credibility with that sentence.

You did not prove anything.

Please tell me you do not work in politics or science. . Although if you think that your anecdotal evidence proves anything you may work in politics but not in science.

Algona beat you, proof of gutmeister's argument? You would need to agree.

Thris yes, you are right. I tried not to say anything but got baited.
 
Salsuero

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
Alvadora said:
You believe in a string of bad luck?
Click to expand...

Really? REALLY?! I've HAD a string of bad luck and I can screenshot posts in our guild threads of others who have also had HORRIBLY bad luck. Go away. You're ignorant retorts are not working. Anecdotal evidence, right. I showed my numbers. That's proof enough that what I said could happen truly could happen. Spending just 20 stars and not hitting (a pretty high probability) would have prevented me from hitting my 6th SoK. That's all I need to remember next year. You can't possibly believe what you write... and it is you who I deem to be the troll. No need to respond to you further as you're simply trying to bait me at this point.
 

DeletedUser31498

Alvadora said:
No better resort?

It baffles me still that people don't understand gutmeister's argument. I slowly start to suspect some trolling ... or is it really that difficult? Or are some too set in their ways?

Let me try with another argument. Imagine you have all starsand you do not gain more stars. Socks are offered two days, one after another.

Player 1 tries their luck and gets a sock on fifth try and stops. Next das the board starts again and he goes for their next attempt.

Player 2 waits for the next day and hits a sock on fifth try and now to go for the second sock needs to find reshuffle (which in my case last time needed to clean the whole board, grrr, bad luck, it I divert). Player 1 doesn't,t b/c the second day starts with a clean board. Player 1 saves stars to hit the first reshuffle.

If player 1 hits a reshuffle and stops and tries the next day, he is not worse off than player 2 who hits a reshuffle on second day. A reshuffle before a sock does not waste stars as some wish to believe. It is the cost of playing that shuffle game. It is a failed attempt, it it is so on day 1or on day2.

As long as you stop on the first day before you run out of stars, trying for a sock is just better. It saves the need to find one reshuffle. Even if we get more stars on day two as in this game, it does not change the argument that you save stars b/c you do not need to find the first reshuffle. The odds to get a reshuffle before a sock are no difference. In sum, you have more stars overall to get socks. How many socks you get in the end is based on luck. Not whether you try the first day or wait for second day. Starting on first day just saves some stars.

And autocorrect corrects sock into sock and I keep that out of amusement. Enjoy all your socks.
Click to expand...

Well Alvadora we tried to trick Sal in to playing early and we failed, lol.

Idk I mean I'm honestly so baffled. I genuinely think Sal isn't an idiot, and yet to convince someone that playing now and hitting reshuffle first vs playing later and having the same bad luck is equivalent is just too hard on the internet. I'm genuinely shocked this is even a controversial topic.

I mean, imagine a situation where instead of the next day, what if you had one hour to play, and then the board will automatically reset. So you can try for SoK, and if you hit it, just wait an hour and it'll auto hit reshuffle for you and you can start again. Sal would STILL prefer to wait until the end and find reshuffle himself.

In short, I thank you for trying, but don't waste your carpel tunnel.
 

DeletedUser

gutmeister said:
I mean, imagine a situation where instead of the next day, what if you had one hour to play, and then the board will automatically reset. So you can try for SoK, and if you hit it, just wait an hour and it'll auto hit reshuffle for you and you can start again.
Click to expand...
You can imagine all sorts of situations. It still won't make you right. Almost every mention you make of finding the shuffle the second time assumes that you will find it in the same # of moves as the first time. The odds are that it won't be. Where it is each time determines whether your strategy is viable. That introduces a variable into your strategy that makes the outcome much more questionable. Our strategy doesn't depend on where the shuffle is, but on how many Stars you have to work with. That is not a variable, therefore where the shuffle is in either appearance of the SoK is largely irrelevant to the outcome. Now with both strategies, the shuffle can play havoc, but with ours there isn't the doubled chance of hitting it before the SoK. That is what you really neglect to mention.

Two identical setups. In other words, both players have the same presents in the same spots as each other. (But not in the same spots both times the SoK is offered.) In one, the player tries the first time, hits shuffle before the SoK and stops. In the other, the player saves his Stars for the second time. Second time, both players hit shuffle before the SoK. Now the second player has a clear advantage, depending on just how many Stars the first player wasted the first time. How do you not see that?
 

DeletedUser31882

Ognor the Hood said:
This thread makes me want to leave this forum entirely
Click to expand...
Don't go! Wait yes do go, also your wrong and everything you stand for is wrong! No wait, I Love you, stay!

Stephen Longshanks said:
Two identical setups. In other words, both players have the same presents in the same spots as each other. (But not in the same spots both times the SoK is offered.) In one, the player tries the first time, hits shuffle before the SoK and stops. In the other, the player saves his Stars for the second time. Second time, both players hit shuffle before the SoK. Now the second player has a clear advantage, depending on just how many Stars the first player wasted the first time. How do you not see that?
Click to expand...

The comparison is off. The second player would need to roll their second board to catch up to the first player for the comparison to be on the same 'page'.

The other problem is, once we compare two separate players, the thought experiment doesn't make sense as the outcomes will vary between players. The proper comparison is for a single player in two different timelines with all other variables controlled/static... wait a second...

I'm tapping out. I've had to resort to talking about timelines to make my argument make sense.

*Rides off with righteous indignation in his DeLorean DMC-12*
 
Salsuero

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
Titris Thrawns said:
The comparison is off. The second player would need to roll their second board to catch up to the first player for the comparison to be on the same 'page'.
Click to expand...

LMFAO -- just... LOL

Whatever... y'all don't see our point and we don't agree with yours. It doesn't matter. I got my 6 SoKs and I have no guarantee that I would have won one if I had played for it the first time. I really don't care what logic you need to understand that I played exactly as I wanted and got results. Oh... and by the way... all that "you assume it's going to be back a second time" -- funny how us experienced folks nailed that one, right? Probably should give us at least half credit for being right about that one.
 
ahsay

ahsay

Active Member
Satsuero. You got you got 6 SoK I got 5...but I got other buildings I wanted. You did or did not. But the argument that the other buildings don't count is an idiots argument because you're trying to tell me what's important to me. Those other buildings were...so don't tell me it's not a part of the question.

For you perhaps not...for me yes.
 
Salsuero

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
ahsay said:
Satsuero. You got you got 6 SoK I got 5...but I got other buildings I wanted. You did or did not. But the argument that the other buildings don't count is an idiots argument because you're trying to tell me what's important to me. Those other buildings were...so don't tell me it's not a part of the question.

For you perhaps not...for me yes.
Click to expand...

No one care's what is or isn't important to you when it doesn't pertain to the actual question asked. I care about my girlfriend's health. Doesn't make it important HERE. I could say... "she was sick the first time and so I didn't have a chance to play for it, so that means the second time is the best chance for an SoK." Would that be relevant? Your additional information had NOTHING to do with the original poster's question so it is absolutely IRRELEVANT to this conversation. Get it? If you wanted to go for other stuff and won it... bravo for you! But it's not what was asked and so it has nothing to do with the responses. But go ahead... call me an idiot. That'll get me to see your point of view. I could say some critical things about your typing skills, but I won't.
 
Salsuero

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
Algona said:
Completely and totally disagreed. Won't even bother trying to explain, suffice to say we won't agree on that, either.
Click to expand...

Then why did you reply? Just to say you disagree? I think not clicking the like button is the same result. This is the most irrelevant comment yet. If you have a reason to disagree, then state it... if not for me... then for the other people reading. I really don't care if you do or don't. I'm so done with this thread.
 

DeletedUser31498

Salsuero said:
Then why did you reply? Just to say you disagree? I think not clicking the like button is the same result. This is the most irrelevant comment yet. If you have a reason to disagree, then state it... if not for me... then for the other people reading. I really don't care if you do or don't. I'm so done with this thread.
Click to expand...

@Salsuero dude what is your problem. Why did he reply? At least he wrote more than one word:

comment 11 on this thread is exhibit 1:
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...of-troops-for-city-defense.21224/#post-178940

Sal you really need to stop berating ppl, it makes the forums miserable.
 
Salsuero

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
gutmeister said:
@Salsuero dude what is your problem.
Click to expand...

Stop replying to me. I have asked you in the past. You said you promised never to post in this thread a long time ago... and yet you keep replying to me. If you've notice, I only reply to you as a rebuttal to you. Stop replying to me and I will stop replying to you. Everything you respond to me with is negative. My responses to you tend to be negative because you incite them. I'm not here to battle your personality.

gutmeister said:
Why did he reply? At least he wrote more than one word:

comment 11 on this thread is exhibit 1:
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...of-troops-for-city-defense.21224/#post-178940
Click to expand...

My reply that you chose to reference was an AFFIRMATIVE, not a negative. I agreed with the poster that I quoted. This is a negative reply just to say "I'm against you but I'm not gonna tell you why". I try not to do that unless it's brought out of me. I try to reply constructively... but sometimes it's not. And I've actually apologized publicly when I've been called out for being a jerk. However, replying in agreement is NOT the same as replying in disagreement. If you wanna disagree, and it's not simple the "I vote no." -- then at least provide a reason. Otherwise it comes off as trolling. I have done this, I'm no saint. But this is clearly not acceptable by me, so why should it be acceptable by others?

gutmeister said:
Sal you really need to stop berating ppl, it makes the forums miserable.
Click to expand...

Are you joking? Do you know how many times you have directly insulted me? How many times have I directly insulted you... or anyone else... with remarks such as stupid, ignorant, don't know anything, or worse... with direct insults about my upbringing or my age, living situation, etc.? You are the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Algona

Algona

Well-Known Member
Sal, a personal recommendation, take a break from the boards. You've gotten short tempered, and it;s showing in your posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top