SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
I feel likethis is directed at my shorts!
Also, "50 of us"? I think that's optimistic
@Ashrem is the uncrowned king of semantics, only to be challenged if you're feeling particularly masochistic or bored.
-
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
Click here to register for a forum account!
If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.
Your Elvenar Team
- Status
Also, "50 of us"? I think that's optimistic
@Ashrem is the uncrowned king of semantics, only to be challenged if you're feeling particularly masochistic or bored.
DeletedUser20709
Guest
Prolly more like 20, but I didnt wanna take a head count. We have your dailies, your weeklies and then the people who come, ask 1 question, don't wait for a response and don;t come back. Those are the epic ones...lolI feel likethis is directed at my shorts!
Also, "50 of us"? I think that's optimistic
@Ashrem is the uncrowned king of semantics, only to be challenged if you're feeling particularly masochistic or bored.
shimmerfly
Well-Known Member
You forgot the ones who come and read, chuckle, Shake their heads and giggle a lot.( Watch those shorts)
Oh, and use "search more" a lot. Your all a hoot and I love unwrapping you personalities.
Oh, and use "search more" a lot. Your all a hoot and I love unwrapping you personalities.
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
Nope. I did not miss it. Outside of esoteric mathematics clubs, there is no reasonable English interpretation of "if you are average" that is about mathematical probabilities, (especially where those probabilities are unstated*). I am perfectly happy to accept your assertion that you chose your words badly, if you decide to assert so. I'm never going to sit back for an attempt to make me appear wrong by redefining what they said earlier into terms that were unstated (and not even implied) when I read it.
* If I said "Your sister is an average sex partner" (which I wouldn't because she might not take it well) that can't be taken as meaning anything about her being average for people who enjoy fellatio (Which is part of sex, no?) on a daily basis . The only thing it can mean is that she falls close to the typical sexual partner (unmodified by my definition of what typical ought to be). By the same token, referring to "if you are average" in the context of people who are playing a game, you can't pretend that means anything other than if you are close to being a typical player of the game. There is simply no reasonable way of asserting that those words mean "average for people who play the game the way I think it should be played."
Edit: and to get back to the only thing I actually mentioned which makes you atypical in this. Even players who participate in fighting every single tourney, do not, on average, have a blueprint to devote to crafting into RR spells once a week.
Last edited:
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
I think it's perfectly reasonable. Look again:
"There will be around 100 recipes total then.
7 daysx3 flips=21 x 5 slots = 105
So on average* you should see every recipe roughly once per week" <------clearly "average" here is mathematical
followed by
*List of recipes*
followed by
"if you are average" there should be 7 desirable recipes per week <------Still talking mathematically
Yes, I could have written "If your results are average", but it's not needed. The reader has read the word "average twice in under 3 seconds there is no reason to suspect that the writer would use 2 completely different definitions.
Average as in "typical" doesn't make as much sense as "average" as in probability in this context. The post I'm responding to said that they wished for such frequently useful recipes and I replied that the list of useful is getting longer, so my original assertion that they were replying to (Deb should craft daily) will become true once pet food it added.
To recap the order of events
- I said cook CC
- Deb asked why
- I said pet food and that they should craft daily [when pet food is introduced]
- Max said they don't see useful recipes often enough to craft daily
- I first clarified that I meant [when pet food is introduced] and provided math
Finally, Max's response that was all about his and other probabilities points towards him interpreting my post as it was intended.
P.S. If someone asked what are the chances of having a sister? And I replied that "on average 50% of siblings are sisters" and followed it with "so If I am average, then my sibling would be a sister" What would you surmise I meant by "average?" Average height? Average Sogginess? No. Clearly, I'm still talking about probabilities. BTW I'm not average when it comes to that stat, what you've thought of as my sister these past years must be my older (and less handsome) bro
DeletedUser20709
Guest
I think it's perfectly reasonable. Look again:
"There will be around 100 recipes total then.
7 daysx3 flips=21 x 5 slots = 105
So on average* you should see every recipe roughly once per week" <------clearly "average" here is mathematical
followed by
*List of recipes*
followed by
"if you are average" there should be 7 desirable recipes per week <------Still talking mathematically
Yes, I could have written "If your results are average", but it's not needed. The reader has read the word "average twice in under 3 seconds there is no reason to suspect that the writer would use 2 completely different definitions.
Average as in "typical" doesn't make as much sense as "average" as in probability in this context. The post I'm responding to said that they wished for such frequently useful recipes and I replied that the list of useful is getting longer, so my original assertion that they were replying to (Deb should craft daily) will become true once pet food it added.
To recap the order of events
I believe it is perfectly reasonable to expect that Max understood I meant average as in math when talking about math.
- I said cook CC
- Deb asked why
- I said pet food and that they should craft daily [when pet food is introduced]
- Max said they don't see useful recipes often enough to craft daily
- I first clarified that I meant [when pet food is introduced] and provided math
Finally, Max's response that was all about his and other probabilities points towards him interpreting my post as it was intended.
P.S. If someone asked what are the chances of having a sister? And I replied that "on average 50% of siblings are sisters" and followed it with "so If I am average, then my sibling would be a sister" What would you surmise I meant by "average?" Average height? Average Sogginess? No. Clearly, I'm still talking about probabilities. BTW I'm not average when it comes to that stat, what you've thought of as my sister these past years must be my older (and less handsome) bro
TLDR: I NEED MORE POPCORN. (Translation: Hell no I didnt read all of that. This has segued into a personal ballet between you and @SoggyShorts, @Ashrem. I am unwilling or maybe unable to follow along, but I will maintain my constant vigil on anything either of you say in the forums, because you both have your moments of brilliance, when you are not trying to one-up each other. NEXT!
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
It's actually been clear for quite some time that what you actually meant is "if you get average recipe distribution, you will get 7 recipes per week that I consider desirable."
Which goes back to:
1) you are not typical (because I'm confident a typical player does not consider the blueprint->RR spell "desirable" or even very useful coming up once a week which is why I quoted that spell (and only that spell) in my initial response)
2) I am perfectly happy to accept your assertion that you chose your words badly, if you decide to assert so.
TLDR (the last two pages) My only challenge to your statement is the assertion that you have identified the desirable spells. I'm sure your math is, as always, impeccable.
DeletedUser20709
Guest
You can not define that which is indefinable. The mere nature of the word "typical" precludes that. Typical is a compilation of factors, for a given situation, that can not be defined. Typical is like a hunch, a gut feeling, something that by its nature, is different for every person viewing the data.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Oooh I'm afraid that one is on you. Please review the post I was responding to where max listed his desirable recipes as "Temp buildings and RR spells"
Then compare it to the ones I listed. Notice anything?
My personal list is much longer.
Again that was a targetted response to a single player who said in the post I was responding to that they cooked military and RR recipes.
My (a)typicalness is totally irrelevant.
No need, I'm confident that the target of my post and any other native English reader would get the precise meaning from context clues.
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
All right, you get that one. I did not pay adequate attention to the previous message. I only looked at the quote. I apologize.
Apparently not, or we wouldn't be here.....
DeletedUser1016
Guest
Hmmmm - no challenge today on US server? Maybe tomorrow...?
DeletedUser20709
Guest
WOW, Thank god I made my point. Glad to see you two guys have decided to work together..ROFLMFAO....As a great general once said..."Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand....Colin Powell.
Work together...you both have soooo much to offer. Carry on.
Work together...you both have soooo much to offer. Carry on.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
The devs said they'd make it more challenging by not making it predictable, so I guess this is it.
The Real challenge for me is now going to be "How many days can Soggy go without accidentally collecting those toolboxes?"
Damnit that ones on me I wanted
Other, as in other than you! was supposed to be a stick in your eye not a stick in my own bike spokes!
Deleted User - 3932582
Guest
I don't know about that. Unless pet foot is really scarce, saving 1 pet food a week at the cost of space an KPs to level to L7?..
DeletedUser9601
Guest
Looks like 11$ for the daily building this event. Ugh. Kinda pricey especially not knowing how often future upgrade opportunities will arise.
DeletedUser9601
Guest
But it’s already a great aw in its own right. Sentient production aside. So it really just tips the scales even more to building and leveling it.
Deleted User - 3932582
Guest
Still not sold
Timewarp doesn't speed up your troop production, so less cooldown means less troops to fight with. Unless you already way overproduce, in which case you just might want to go deeper into a tournament But if you already want to build it for sentient goods, AND you have enough troops for shortened recovery, AND you're short on pet food... Then yes, it's an interesting option to get you through a tight spot. I probably wouldn't set it up as my primary mode of operations though.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Do you know about "double dipping" 5-day buildings?
Like placing 4 MMM buildings on Friday of the Gems tournament, doing a round on Friday and Saturday, then getting in a round on Tuesday and Wednesday in the Marble tournament before the MMMs run out.
I'm still working on my morning coffee, but I think you can you timewarp to do 3 and 3
.
Also nice is that I can do 6 rounds without losing any sleep. I've been doing just 5 for years, and those first few provinces are really cheap for the points you get so I'll just cater them for a very easy extra 3-500 points
Last edited:
- Status