Recent posts by retsamerol on Kongregate

Topic: Tyrant / Suggestion: No more WB from Daily Crates

Energy upgrades.

Topic: Tyrant / How to transition from Tokens to Gold AND improve FW and CQ particpation

For FW: wouldn’t it just be simpler to distribute 1-10 gold per point won for faction? Then it scales directly in proportion to contribution towards war efforts. This would be 1 line instead of 13.

I don’t see why only the winning faction would gain the pot. I feel very close wars should have both sides rewarded for their efforts.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a consolidation of conquest tokens/gold as conquest tokens no long serve their original purpose (i.e. to promote conquest).

Topic: Tyrant / chance to get specific card from "keep the cards" tournament enter

Originally posted by FredrIQ:

Originally posted by retsamerol:

Drop rate of foil can probably be determined empirically using the fansite database.

some players sell their (bad) foils as vendor trash I bet though.

Devs also tend to use whole numbers.

Topic: Tyrant / chance to get specific card from "keep the cards" tournament enter

Drop rate of foil can probably be determined empirically using the fansite database.

Topic: Tyrant / chance to get specific card from "keep the cards" tournament enter

Originally posted by FredrIQ:

You can get 2 of the same uncommon (or common) if one of the cards turns out to be a foil card per pack. This is silly and most likely an oversight by devs, but it’s true.
Is the chance for foil card even public info?

So normally, you can’t get duplicates from the same pack with the exception of foil?

Topic: Tyrant / chance to get specific card from "keep the cards" tournament enter

Are there any restrictions on common/uncommon cards? Like you won’t get double commons/uncommons in the same pack? You can only have a maximum of 4 duplicates per tournament?

Topic: Tyrant / chance to get specific card from "keep the cards" tournament enter

Originally posted by purei:

to me it feels likely that when pack #2 comes up, they just remove cards from the pack before picking. they already differentiate between rare/etc, so they probably already have 4 lists of cards, one for each card type.

seems likely they have an ‘exclude’ card id list. if the pack they’re picking from contains anything from the exclude list, remove it before choosing.

if you pull a legendary, you put all legendaries in the exclude list. i think this is equivalent to forced reroll per pack?

You're correct. This is equivalent to forced reroll per pack. It isn't that difficult to incorporate no double rare commanders.

General formula for pure pack tournaments:

P(specific legendary per tournaments) = (1 - (1 - L)^4)/x

P(specific commander rare per tournament) = (1 - (1 - L)^4) * (1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2)) + (1 - L)^4 * (1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * (z - y - 2)/(z-2) * 1/(z - 3))

P(specific non-commander rare per tournament) = (1 - (1 - L)^4) * (1 - (1 - L)^4) * (1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2)) + (1 - L)^4 * (1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * (z - y - 2)/(z-2) * 1/(z - 3)) * (1 - (z - y - 2)/(z - y)) + ((1 - (1 - L)^4) * (1 - (1 - (1 - L)^4) * (1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2)) + (1 - L)^4 * (1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * (z - y - 2)/(z-2) * 1/(z - 3))) + (1 - L)^4 * (1 - (1 - L)^4) * (1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2)) + (1 - L)^4 * (1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * (z - y - 2)/(z-2) * 1/(z - 3))) * (1 - (z - y - 3)/(z - y)) + (1 - L)^4 * (1 - (1 - (1 - L)^4) * (1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2)) + (1 - L)^4 * (1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * (z - y - 2)/(z-2) * 1/(z - 3))) * (1 - (z - y - 4)/(z - y))

Explanation:

P(specific commander rare per tournament) = P(legendary) * P(specific commander rare from opening 3 packs, no duplicate rares/commanders) + P(no legendary) * P(specific commander rare from opening 4 packs, no duplicate rares/commanders)

P(specific commander rare from opening 3 packs, no duplicate rares/commanders) = 1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2)

P(specific commander rare from opening 4 packs, no duplicate rares/commanders) = 1/z + ((z - y)/z) * 1/(z - 1) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2) + ((z - y)/z) * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * (z - y - 2)/(z-2) * 1/(z - 3)

P(commander from first pack) = 1/z

P(commander from second pack) = P(no commander in first pack) * P(commander in second pack) = (z - y)/z * 1/(z - 1)

P(commander from third pack)= P(no commander in first or second pack) * P(commander in third pack) = (z - y)/z * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * 1/(z - 2)

P(commander from fourth pack)= P(no commander in first, second or third pack) * P(commander in fourth pack) = (z - y)/z * (z - y - 1)/(z - 1) * (z - y - 2)/(z-2) * 1/(z - 3)

P(specific non-commander rare per tournament) = P(legendary) * P(commander) * P(specific non-commander rare from opening 2 packs, no duplicate rares/commanders) + (P(legendary) * P(no commander) + P(no legendary) * P(commander)) * P(specific non-commander rare from opening 3 packs, no duplicate rares/commanders) + P(no legendary) * P(no commander) * P(specific non-commander rare from opening 4 packs, no duplicate rares/commanders)

P(specific non-commander rare from opening 2 packs, no duplicate rares/commanders) = 1 - (z - y - 1)/(z -y) * (z - y - 2)/(z - y - 1) = 1 - (z - y - 2)/(z - y)

P(specific non-commander rare from opening 3 packs, no duplicate rares/commanders) = 1 - (z - y - 1)/(z -y) * (z - y - 2)/(z - y - 1) * (z - y - 3)/(z - y - 2) = 1 - (z - y - 3)/(z - y)

P(specific non-commander rare from opening 4 packs, no duplicate rares/commanders) = 1 - (z - y - 1)/(z -y) * (z - y - 2)/(z - y - 1) * (z - y - 3)/(z - y - 2) * (z - y - 4)/(z - y - 3) = 1 - (z - y - 4)/(z - y)

L = P(legendary)
x = count(legendaries per pack)
y = count(commanders per pack)
z = count(rares per pack)

For split tournaments, if the pack opening order is random, then divide by 2 for probability. Otherwise, it will necessarily be adjusted for in the order that packs are opened (i.e. AABB, ABAB, ABBA, BABA, BBAA). I don't think random ordering is that much more computationally intensive, but until we hear from the devs, who knows.

Topic: Tyrant / chance to get specific card from "keep the cards" tournament enter

I was talking to a programmer friend of mine who is also an excellent statistician.

Firstly, he pointed out that there are two possible methods to go about creating it: sequential with forced reroll per pack or forced reroll of all packs. Clearly, for the sake of efficiency, the forced reroll of individual packs is preferable to forced reroll of all packs. Unfortunately, my initial method assumed forced reroll of all packs.

Consequently P(legendary) is actually 1-0.87^4 because the >1 legendary probabilities all collaps into 1 legendary.

I believe I’ve got how to do the rare commanders, but I gotta run for now.

Topic: Tyrant / chance to get specific card from "keep the cards" tournament enter

Oh for F’s sake, I forgot about that. I’ll deal with it tomorrow. It requires additional case considerations.

Topic: Tyrant / chance to get specific card from "keep the cards" tournament enter

Originally posted by FredrIQ:

This is true if packs are distributed randomly, but what if Phobos packs are always drawn first (or vice versa)?
Also, Phobos have 5 legendaries while Aftermath has 2. Phobos have 20 rares while Aftermath has 9 They are not equal.

Oops, this is what I get for not paying attention to contents of WB packs/tournaments. Applying the general formula you’ll still end up with a straight divide by 2. You’re still working with a 37.4% of drawing a legendary, which if done randomly, will split it into a 18.6% between the two packs. You then split the 18.6% between the legendaries of the same packs, so divide by 5 for phobos and 2 for aftermath, giving you 0.0374 (which is 0.075/2) and 9.3% respectively.

You are correct that if Phobos is always drawn first then my calculations would be problematic. I, personally, would make it randomly opened from a design perspective to ensure that neither phobos nor aftermath packs have an advantage over the other in terms of legendary draws, but perhaps the devs did not contemplate that.

The key to cracking this problem is by breaking down the probabilities into 4 cases of legendary draws:

pack_phobos1, pack_phobos2, pack_aftermath1, pack_aftermath2

We’re still working with the general formula P(specific legendary_phobos from phobos/aftermath tournament) = (P(specific legendary_phobos from tournament) * (1 – (P(legendary_phobos from pack)/(P(legendary_phobos from pack) + P(legendary_aftermath from pack))))/(P(0 legendaries in tournament) + P(1 legendary in tournament))

Where,
P(pack_phobos1) = 0.13
P(pack_phobos2) = P(phobos legendary) * P (no legendary_phobos1) = 0.13 * (1 – 0.13) = 0.1131
P(pack_aftermath1) = P(aftermath lengendary) * (no legendary_phobos1 or 2) = 0.13 * (1 – 0.13) * (1 – 0.1131) = 0.10030839
P(pack_aftermath2) = P(aftermath legendary) * (no legendary_phobos1 or 2 or aftermath1) = 0.13 * (1 – 0.13) * (1 – 0.1131) * (1 – 0.10030839) = 0.090246617

==> plug into P(specific legendary_phobos from phobos/aftermath tournament) equation above:
(P(specific legendary_phobos from tournament) * (P(legendary_phobos from pack)/(P(legendary_phobos from pack) + P(legendary_aftermath from pack)))/(P(0 legendaries in tournament) + P(1 legendary in tournament)) = ((0.07482014 * ((0.13 + 0.1131))/(0.13 + 0.1131 + 0.10030839 + 0.090246617))/(0.62589928 + 0.34242156) = 0.04331515

So it’d be a 4.3% chance for a specific phobos legendary if packs are opened sequentially, always starting with phobos.

Sanity check: 0.07482014/2 ~= 0.0374 < 0.0433
Greater chance for phobos draw if phobos always drawn first.

Topic: Tyrant / chance to get specific card from "keep the cards" tournament enter

Originally posted by sss1:

Originally posted by retsamerol:

P(any legendary) = P(1 legendary)/(P(0 legendaries) + P(1 legendary)) = 4 * (0.13)^1 * (0.87)^3 / ((0.87)^4 + (4 * (0.13)^1 * (0.87)^3)) = 0.37410072 <— this applies to all pack tournaments with 0.13 legendary drops

can’t understand this part. why not simple “1 – 0.87^4” here. everything else looks legit.

In terms of statistics, this is a conditional problem. The tournament rules limits the outcome space to 0 or 1 legendaries, whereas the unlimited would have 0-4 legedaries.

1 – (0.87)^4 is effectively P(1 legendary)/(P(0 legendaries) + P(1 legendary) + P(2 legendaries) + P(3 legendaries) + P(4 legendaries)). The denominator, by necessity, adds up to one. However, because the condition effectively strikes out 2-4 legendary outcomes, we reduce the outcome space to (P(0 legendaries) + P(1 legendary)).

Also, taking a step back, we intuitively know that the P of getting legendary must be reduced because of the rules of no more than 1 legendary. The old 1 – (0.87)^4, does not reflect this intuition, keeping the P of drawing the legendary the same.

On conditional probabilities: Take, for example, the probability of mail being delivered on Tuesday. Assuming mail is delivered Monday through Friday, then the probability is P(Tuesday) / (P(Monday) + P(Tuesday) + P(Wednesday) + P(Thursday) + P(Friday)). It would be 1/5 instead of 1/7. The outcome space must be reduced to reflect the condition (when mail is delivered).

Originally posted by sss1:

btw: how about the specific legendary card in a “2 Phobos/2 Phobos Aftermath” tournament.

Divide by 2.

The general formula for P(legendary) actually holds for multipack tournaments, but you need to adjust for weight if the packs have unequal number of legendaries or rares.

Taking a step back, you can see that the P of drawing a legendary remains the same, therefore, the probability must be distributed to the available legendaries. Since there are the same number of legendaries, this distribution is equal. But if there are different numbers of legendaries, then the P won’t remain the same. This can be further generalized into multiple pack tournaments (3 packs, 4 packs) further. You don’t actually need to individually calculate the probabilities, just recognize the conditional outcome space and distribute from there. (Outcome space is the new 1.)

let _n denote pack n

P(specific legendary_phobos from phobos/aftermath tournament) = (P(specific legendary_phobos from tournament) * (P(legendary_phobos from pack)/(P(legendary_phobos from pack) + P(legendary_aftermath from pack)))/(P(0 legendaries in tournament) + P(1 legendary in tournament))

In this case, P(legendary_phobos from pack) = P(legendary_aftermath from pack), making it a simple P(legendary_phobos from phobos tournament)/2.
The same formula can be applied to rares, just multiply by P(rare_phobos)/(P(rare_phobos)+P(rare_aftermath)) to weight it properly..

Once again, we can simplify greatly because all the joint tournaments are equal number of rares/legendaries; you can simply divide by 2. However, the general formula may become useful if the devs ever set up tournaments with unequal number of legendary/rares.

Topic: Tyrant / chance to get specific card from "keep the cards" tournament enter

This is really just an exercise in conditional probabilities…

P(any legendary) = P(1 legendary)/(P(0 legendaries) + P(1 legendary)) = 4 * (0.13)^1 * (0.87)^3 / ((0.87)^4 + (4 * (0.13)^1 * (0.87)^3)) = 0.37410072 <— this applies to all pack tournaments with 0.13 legendary drops
Conversely P(no legendaries) = 0.62589928

Note: because 2, 3 ,4 legendaries are ineligible possibilities, only probabilities of 0 and 1 legendaries are considered.

P(specific legendary) = P(any legendary)/5 = 0.07482014

You have a 7.5% of drawing a specific legendary from any given gold pack tournament.

That means probability of a specific rare is:

1 – P(not drawing rare if legendary) – P(not drawing rare if no legendary) =
1 – (0.37410072 * 27/28 * 26/27 * 25/26) – (0.62589928 * 27/28 * 26/27 * 25/26 * 24/25) = 0.13062780

So you have a 13.1% of drawing the specific rare you want from any given gold pack tournament.

Sanity check: 0.13062780 * 28 + 0.37410072 = 4

Ballpark check (aka original tournament probs):
P(specific legendary no limits) = 1 – (0.974)^4 = 0.10001385 > 0.07482014
P(any legendaries no limits) = 1 – (0.87)^4 = 1 – 0.57289761 = 0.42710239
P(specific rare no limits) = 1 – (0.42710239 * (27/28)^3) – (0.57289761 * (27/28)^4) = 0.12170766 < 0.13062780

Generalizable formula (because this is presumably for fansite purposes):
P(legendary) = (4 * (x)^1 * (1 – x)^3 / ((1 – x)^4 + (4 * (x)^1 * (1 – x)^3))) / y
P(rare) = 1 – ((P(legendary) * y) * (z – 3) / z) – ((1 – P(legendary) * y) * (z – 4) / z)
Where x = <legend_percent>, y = # of legendaries per pack and z = # of rares per pack

This simplifies rather nicely if all legendary drops will consistently be at 13%:
P(legendary) = 0.37410072 / y
P(rare) = 1 – (0.37410072 * (z – 3) / z) – (0.62589928 * (z – 4) / z)

Concluding thoughts: As expected, the probability of a specific rare is decreased and the probability of drawing a specific rare is increased.

Topic: Tyrant / [DEV] Regarding Faction Levels

This is simply the devs laying bare what most veterans already knew: The incentive to gaining faction rating isn’t to unlock cards, but simply warring with faction mates is rewarding in and of itself.

This is something that members of Phoenix Factions like Lords of Avalon/Warlike Brothers have realized early on: It is much more fun to set your own objectives. Faction Rating doesn’t matter.

Here is the truth of the matter: You would still war with your faction mates even if there was no card incentive, because it is a habit and because you feel obliged. It brings a sense of accomplishment and camaraderie, which is the inherent value of an MMORPG like Tyrant anyways.

Tyrant is best enjoyed as a sandbox game; why confine yourself to someone’s goals?

I approve of no more faction rewards: Transcend the childish notion of win conditions and structured goals.

Topic: Tyrant / (To DEVS) - faction rank member changes

Originally posted by NicolBolas:

some noob did this i dont do ganking no more

Originally posted by deltatwelve:

Yeah. Basically NB is a scumbag.

My favourite NB story is the one where one of his allies was having problems with activity so he farmed them over and over and over despite them begging him to stop.

Greatest thing we ever did was veto him joining our faction a few months ago, lol.

Originally posted by Edfutkina:

Lords of Tyrants
It was somewhere around top 100 when I joined (my level was 16 and leader’s name was AlVelikij if I recall right).
The most it went up was around top 20-25.
It was going smooth until it got catfaced by some fxxxhead and constantly got attacked by ally faction called StaminaFarmers (NicolBolas as their leader at the time) that took the advantage of our situation
Anyway, it must been at least a year from now

Topic: Tyrant / [DEV] Small conquest suggestion for next week.

Originally posted by retsamerol:

Giving players options is a good thing. Conversely, taking away options is a bad thing. Incentivizing activities that require substantial time investment will discourage casual players from participating. The reason conquest is fun is because it provides a greater sense of accomplishment due to the greater challenge compared to faction wars. Players have demonstrated they are willing to engage in it despite not gaining substantially more rewards.

It isn’t so much an issue of incentives, but how to make conquest interesting once patterns are established.

Just introduce 5 overpowered AI factions that semi-randomly walk along the board and don’t abide by human faction rules. Give them a special ability to generate new map squares, but also scorch/inactivate (for a week say) tiles when two AI factions are adjacent. Then you’ll have a dynamic, evolving map with common enemies for humans and potential for co-operative play in order to maximize available tiles for conquest.

In retrospect, I probably should have posted this here. :P

Give the players what they want: Drama.

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] A quick fix that will end stagnation

HH, this is a terrible idea. Giving players options is a good thing. Conversely, taking away options is a bad thing. Incentivizing activities that require substantial time investment will discourage casual players from participating. The reason conquest is fun is because it provides a greater sense of accomplishment due to the greater challenge compared to faction wars. Players have demonstrated they are willing to engage in it despite not gaining substantially more rewards.

It isn’t so much an issue of incentives, but how to make conquest interesting once patterns are established.

Just introduce 5 overpowered AI factions that semi-randomly walk along the board and don’t abide by human faction rules. Give them a special ability to generate new map squares, but also scorch/inactivate (for a week say) tiles when two AI factions are adjacent. Then you’ll have a dynamic, evolving map with common enemies for humans and potential for co-operative play in order to maximize available tiles for conquest.

Topic: Tyrant / War Bonds and Elite

My spidey senses tell me trololo_777 = NicolBolas.

Topic: Tyrant / [D.P] I Have A Complaint Which I Would Like To Be Fixed (Relatively) Quick

Originally posted by OOHnirav:

Originally posted by retsamerol:

Originally posted by Redlaw:

Originally posted by retsamerol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk

You wasted time in my life. Uncool.

I win again!

That was a fantastic video, and I don’t think I wasted my time at all! You lose!!!

I was only playing the time wasting game with Redlaw. I was playing the entertain and amuse game with you OOHnirav. :D

(Note to self: always set up win conditions after the fact.)

Topic: Tyrant / [D.P] I Have A Complaint Which I Would Like To Be Fixed (Relatively) Quick

Originally posted by Redlaw:

Originally posted by retsamerol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk

You wasted time in my life. Uncool.

I win again!

Topic: Tyrant / [D.P] I Have A Complaint Which I Would Like To Be Fixed (Relatively) Quick

Note to self: Make a rejoin P-rex youtube video.

Topic: Tyrant / What are the odds? Part 2

Calculations done. Holy shitballs that was more complicated than I expected.

I should note that this does not apply if your name is kkk1234kkk (just do the tournaments) or if you chose Whisper at the very beginning of the game (the more times you engage the RNG, the better your results will be).

Also, the expected values are slightly off because I’m using 3.3% of opening a legendary instead of 3.25%. But I think it only impacts the expected values, not whether it’s better to do tournaments or not for legendary hunting. I am not redoing those calculations due to a rounding error, ‘cuz it isn’t interesting to punch in numbers.

Topic: Tyrant / [D.P] I Have A Complaint Which I Would Like To Be Fixed (Relatively) Quick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk

Topic: Tyrant / What are the odds? Part 2

Originally posted by ohnonooh:

Why do ppl keep quoting 0.033? I dun understand that value. Now from what I know, legend appear at 1/8 the rate of a rare.

http://dev.tyrantonline.com/assets/packs.xml

Search for <legend_percent>. That tells you the odds of drawing a legendary card from any given pack.

Divide by how many legendaries there are in a pack to get individual legendary’s percentage chance of dropping.

13/4=3.25, which rounds to 3.3 (damn you Fansite for rounding!)

Topic: Tyrant / What are the odds? Part 2

We need an arbitrary point for comparison. How about 50%? How much do you need to spend before you get a 50% of opening the nexus legendary you want?

P(specific legendary from nexus pack)=0.0325
Cost per nexus pack = 50,000 gold
Tournament entry fee = 10,000 gold

—

For straightforward opening packs:
(1 – 0.0325)^x=0.5
x = ln(0.5) / ln(0.9675)
x = 20.979
20.656 packs * 50,000 gold/pack= 1,048,956 gold

It would cost you 1,048,956 gold to get a 50% chance at getting the legendary you want from simply opening packs.

—

We’re going to simplify (a lot) for the purposes of calculating the expected price of a pack when it comes to tournaments.

The majority of players buy into a tournament without purchasing the cards outright. Without stats, I’ll be conservative and make the assumption that payout is based on everyone just paying the 10K entry fee and not the 200K fee. Assuming there’s an infinite number of players in the tournament (to iron out the remainder effect when you don’t have a whole round number of players), the payout would be:
0.01*70,000+0.04*35000+0.05*28000+0.15*10667+0.25*7000=6840 gold

Which means that you expect a 1688 gold discount per pack (i.e. each pack costs 48,312 gold). Each tournament entry costs 193,160 gold.

—

P(any legendary) = P(1 legendary)/(P(0 legendaries) + P(1 legendary)) = 4 * (0.13)^1 * (0.87)^3 / ((0.87)^4 + (4 * (0.13)^1 * (0.87)^3)) = 0.37410072
P(specific legendary) = P(any legendary)/4 = 0.09352518
You have a 9.4% of drawing a specific legendary from any given nexus pack tournament.

—

Great – now we have both probability of drawing a legendary per tournament and how much each tournament costs. Now all we have to do is figure out how many tournaments we’d have to enter to get 50% chance of drawing the chosen legendary:

(1 – 0.09352518)^x=0.5
x = ln(0.5) / ln(0.90647482)
x = 7.05909844629
7.05909844629 tournaments * 193,160 gold/tournament = 1,363,535 gold

—

It is expected to cost 1,048,956 gold to get a 50% chance to grab your legendary by opening packs directly and 1,363,535 gold to get a 50% chance to grab your legendary through tournaments.

There you go. It’s better to open packs directly if you’re legendary hunting.

Topic: Tyrant / Elo Score/Power rating

Originally posted by p4n1q:

Why not just have an arena button with a leaderboard that measures who has pressed the button the most number of times.

You’re false dichotomizing p4n1q. An argument against one extreme does not imply it is an argument for the diametrically opposite extreme. There is middle ground. Proportionality is highly relevant to the determination of the appropriate tool.