Talk:Rings of Fortune

Pointless Math arguing
I think that the net gain is 14/16, not 15/16...

1/16*10 + 6/16*1 + 9/16*-2 = -2/16 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.178.137 (talk &bull; contribs) 03:44, 30 June 2006 (CDT).
 * grand prize is 12, not 10 tickets. --68.6.86.154 07:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Pointless Math Arguing - -2/16 or 15/16? They are both correct  The confusion is that people leave out the units for the calculations, which is just as critical as the numbers themselves.
 * Lets look at what the units of these fractions are:
 * A. -2 / 16 - The units are net tickets won Divided by Games played - This lead the other user down an incorrect path to conclude 14/16. This conclusion makes sense until you take into account the units involved.
 * B. 30 / 32 - The units are tickets won Divided by Tickets Lost - This leads to the conclusion of 15 / 16
 * What we need to realize is that both involve a loss of 2 tickets over 16 games. They are simply different representations of the same data using different units.
 * As such, to prevent further confusion, we should explicitly state the units being used in the particular fraction that we are displaying on the front page. In the end, we should state:
 * In 16 games, on average, you will see the number of tickets in your inventory be reduced by 2, and the number of tickets won for the lucky title increased by 30.
 * I am not going to go through everything else, but I would highly recommend that the tables in in these pages are properly verified, and listed using explicitly stated units. Using 14/16 or 15/16 with incorrectly assumed units can cause major miscalculations among the tables listed on this page and other pages. DougTheSlug

Why is this recommended over Nine Rings for losses? Standing in the corner in Nine Rings gives you 2/3 losses per round, Rings of Fortune (any location) only gives 9/16 which makes Nine Rings ~18.5% faster. Admittedly Rings of Fortune is cheaper per loss, but it is also slower. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.109.82.138 (talk &bull; contribs) 06:23, 30 June 2006 (CDT).

Because It's about 5 times cheaper. You want to maybe fill 1 third to 2 thirds of your bar on unlucky with 16 rings (rings of fortune), then go to the 9 rings game to start working on the wins probably. It is slower, but it's like 5 times cheaper. It's way too slow for the lucky track though, and not even as great odds of winning tickets. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.112.132.53 (talk &bull; contribs) 06:54, 30 June 2006 (CDT).


 * If you want both titles, it's best to stand in a corner of nine rings until you hit Lucky. This should take approximately 5300 rounds, and by that time, you should be 70% of the way to Unlucky as well. Rings of Fortune can then be used to finish off the title to save money. --68.6.86.154 07:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)


 * ok, so assuming i set my character on a circle in 9 rings before going to bed, how big a pool of tickets would i need to weather 5300+70% rounds and get both lucky/unluck titles? --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Each round in Nine Rings you lose an average of 0.6 tickets (says the Nine Rings page; I'm trusting that math). 50,000 tickets won / 9.4 tickets gained per round => 5319 rounds * 0.6 tickets each round = 3191.4 tickets.  Each ticket is 15 gold, so that's 47,872 gold!  That doesn't *sound* totally right, but maybe it is?  Can someone tell me why my math is wrong?  So if that's correct, and you just wanted to go to bed, you should probably buy 3200 tickets.  You'll almost certainly lose whatever you put there, though, if you just walk away for a LONG time.  So maybe you'd want to buy less (plus, you will win some in Rings of Fortune even when trying to lose) and just blow that.  I guess I'd personally buy 3000 tickets and go to bed, but I'm poor.  If money is no object at all, buy even more (4000, maybe) to guarantee it. --JoDiamonds 11:45, 30 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I put my calculations for Nine Rings in the associated talk page. Using as exact fractions as I could, and it came out to 44,117 gold for Charmed or a whopping 62,500 for both titles using the Nine Rings corner only. --Thervold 14:25, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

Cost Over Time
Since I did the calculations for Nine Rings, I'll do the ones for this game too:

3600 sec/hour / 195 sec/cycle * 20 games/cycle * 9/16 losses/game = 208 losses/hour ==> 24.1 hours for Hapless.

As for tickets/hour 3600 sec/hour / 195 sec/cycle * 20 games/cycle * 30/16 tickets/game = 692 tickets/hour ==> 72.2 hours to gain Charmed.

And finally, cost/hour 3600 sec/hour / 195 sec/cycle * 20 games/cycle * 2/16 tickets/game * 15 g/ticket = 692 gold/hour

Now for some simultaneous equation fun:

3473 * gN + 692 * gF = 50,000

245 * gN + 208 * gF = 5,000

The cheapest way to get both titles would be to play Nine Rings for a little over 12.5 hours then switch to Rings of Fortune for another 9.25 hours, costing about 44,900 gold. Again, this is all by pure probility and is likely to differ from actual time and money requirements. --Thervold 16:55, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

Dont Forget its still random so sometimes you will actually earn tickets and in another case you will lose more. I have been on the rings of fortune for a hour now and i actually earned a few tickets. --Ofer1992 13:56, 1 July 2006 (GMT+2)

Merge
I disagree with the merge request. The content warrants it's own article, and since it came out originally as part of the Dragon Festival, I think it should remain as is. -- Imbril Shadowfire  14:22, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

I also have to dissagree with the merge - this article says enough on its onw to be included, it does need to be linked to the boardwalk though. 86.131.77.86 18:00, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

/disagreed Just the fact that this game has showed up in two different places (Dragon Festival and Boardwalk, which technically aren't the same thing) leads me to think that it may be used in more events or even made a permanent feature in Nightfall or some other future chapter. Jinkas 19:33, 23 October 2006 (CDT)