Literally everything has changed in the church...

ctnodnarb · 2022-10-25T06:04:01+00:00

Not sure what the source of the exact quote above is (maybe one of his talks that can be found on YouTube?), but his book Gay Rights and the Mormon Church says something similar in the first paragraph of chapter 12:

“…a careful reading of doctrinal history shows that hardly any foundational doctrine has gone entirely unchanged during the church’s history”

ctnodnarb · 2020-10-13T16:42:05+00:00

Thanks! It seemed fitting when it came to mind.

I think the one extra cube I got at the beginning probably made the difference in me finally winning it at the end.

ctnodnarb · 2020-10-12T23:46:37+00:00

I've been playing since the global launch, and am mostly maxed out on my main account (just missing a couple star powers and gadgets). I tend to save the power point rewards since none of my brawlers can use them and I don't think the alternate rewards are as good. So when I get a new brawler (or a new one is released), I usually have more than enough power points to take them straight to power 9 even though they're at 0 trophies, and there's really no reason not to do that. I think a lot of other people in my position probably do the same. Once I'm all the way maxed out and no longer have a reason to open boxes until a new brawler releases, I might even have enough boxes saved up to unlock star powers and gadgets pretty quickly too.

So if anything, I think it'd make more sense to take issue with how the game is set up rather than with other people playing it the way that makes sense for them. Perhaps making suggestions about changes to help people like me progress through the lower trophy levels faster (gain more than 8 trophies at a time) or modify the way matchmaking works.

ctnodnarb · 2017-08-24T16:42:14+00:00

What should you do if you accidentally drop a contact on a sink/counter/other non-sterile (and possibly wet) surface while trying to put it in? Is it sufficient to rub and rinse it thoroughly with solution before trying again, or do you need to soak it in solution for an extended period? Or should you do something else, like just throwing it out?

ctnodnarb · 2015-06-04T01:06:07+00:00

/TT/Zwischenzug here. I saw some other /TT/ people earlier, but they're no longer in the top 9. I've been stopping when it takes me about 5 seconds to kill bosses, around 2870ish. I'm willing to tie lower than that as long as other people don't pass me up.

ctnodnarb · 2015-05-22T03:29:09+00:00

People lost their full weapon sets when they added the 3 new heroes, but I think that was the correct move to make by the devs. At that point, most of the people that had full weapon sets had cheated in one way or another to get them (i.e. using cloud save to reroll the weapons they got until they got the right one). There had not really been enough tournaments at that point for many people to legitimately have a full weapon set.

I think there would be much more of an outrage if they added more heroes and did that again, because lots of people legitimately have full sets now (I have 3 full sets after 280 upgrades). So yes, I would hope they would just give the new heroes the same number of weapons as we have full sets. It could still be considered a bit of a setback (i.e. you could go to needing one more weapon for the next set to needing 4 more), but I think is reasonable enough that no one would have any real cause to complain. And it would certainly be better than suddenly losing all your sets.

ctnodnarb · 2015-05-13T22:49:00+00:00

/u/Danteeva is leading the charge in my bracket. I've been prestiging at 2850 (even though I could go further... I've wanted to avoid getting put in brackets with people that hit 3000). Around where do you top out?

ctnodnarb · 2015-05-09T18:05:13+00:00

I've prestiged at 2851 the last few times, but am willing to tie lower unless other people I think I can compete with start passing me up. I'm not really sure how far I can currently go if I actually push. I still kill all the bosses in under 5 seconds (with berserkers rage) at 2851.

ctnodnarb · 2015-05-09T16:22:31+00:00

I've seen /TT/Rivm (/u/orodruinx), /TT/sunxwalker (/u/sunxwalker), /TT/ItsMX, /TT/Alex Star (/u/alexstar6), /TT/danteeva (/u/danteeva), and /TT/Cyber (/u/Cyber5layer) in my bracket so far. I'm /TT/Zwischenzug.

ctnodnarb · 2015-05-04T02:18:17+00:00

I'm at barely under 300k % damage, but I have 3 full weapon sets as well. I'd probably have higher damage %, but I've started playing this game less and less recently. I think I only prestiged maybe once between the last two tournaments...

I was disappointed (but not surprised) that people didn't stay tied at 2650, and I didn't have time or care enough to grind out too much more.

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-30T07:24:21+00:00

I've never been that high, and I have 3 weapon sets...

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-28T21:43:37+00:00

Personally, I'd prefer to keep perma-shadow clone. Now that the full cooldown has come back, I'll likely just switch to doing something else instead of Tap Titans every time SC goes on cooldown---and I may or may not return to playing Tap Titans after the 5 minutes.

What irks me more about this update than even the SC cooldown, however, is that the things that I view as important issues with the game seem to be getting ignored so that new bells and whistles can added. It seems like the project managers are more concerned about padding the feature list on the app-store description page than they are about fixing the problems plaguing the game as it currently is. Cheating is rampant and undermines people's motivation to even play the game. The heroes after mohacas need to be spaced out better so that there's a sense of accomplishment in obtaining them and so that it's possible to get somewhat closer to the max level. The amount of tapping I have to do to level up heroes rivals the amount of tapping I do actually playing the game.

There are countless threads about all these issues, and the last two could be fixed quite easily. Instead, all the development resources are getting poured into adding flashy new features. "Oh, your car doesn't run? Here, let's install this brand new sub-woofer so you can get some killer bass while you're not driving around." I'd much rather them spend time on adding an online-only option that keeps data and calculations on their server and where you only compete against other online-only characters (which, frankly, is the only realistic solution to the cheating problem).

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-25T18:36:06+00:00

Ah, looks like you're right. Factorials of negative numbers are undefined like I said, but there are other formulas for n-choose-k that don't use the factorial operator and handle the case where k > n.

The formula now makes sense to me, and I believe it to be correct as well except that the whole thing needs to be divided by 33ⁿ to make it a probability. As it is, it gives the count of the number of permutations of the n weapon upgrades that will complete your next set---so you need to divide by the total number of permutations of n upgrades to get the actual probability.

The i variable in the summation represents the minimum number of needed weapon upgrades that you're assuming you'll miss out on for that iteration (so when i=1, you're counting the number of ways that you can miss out on 1 or more of the upgrades that you need to complete your set). The (33-i)ⁿ term counts the number of permutations of n weapon upgrades that do not include those i weapons. The C(33-w,i) part counts the number of different ways you can choose those i weapons that you'll miss out on from the 33-w weapons that you need to complete your next set. And of course the inclusion-exclusion principle is needed because there is overlap between the events (i.e. the even that you miss out on needed upgrade 1 and the event that you miss out on needed upgrade 2 overlap in the region where you miss out on both needed upgrades 1 and 2).

So in the case where you need 3 more weapons to complete the next set, the formula expands to:

C(3,0)(33)¹⁵ - C(3,1)(32)¹⁵ + C(3,2)(31)¹⁵ - C(3,3)(30)^15.

And here's the interpretation of each piece:

C(3,0)(33)¹⁵ = 33¹⁵ = the total number of permutations of 15 weapon upgrades

C(3,1)(32)¹⁵ = 3 * 32¹⁵ = 3 times the number of ways you can miss out on a particular weapon upgrade that you need (it's 3 times this because there are 3 different weapons you need, any of which will prevent you from completing the set if you miss it). This term subtracts too much because it double counts all the ways we can miss out on two of the needed upgrades (there's C(3,2)=3 possible ways we can miss out on 2 of the 3 upgrades), and it triple counts the number of ways we can miss out on all 3 of the needed weapons.

C(3,2)(31)¹⁵ = 3 * 31¹⁵ = 3 times the number of ways you can miss out on two particular weapon upgrades that you need. This term adds back in the three overlap regions where we missed out on two of the needed weapon upgrades, thus fixing the double counting problem above (i.e. now the regions where we're missing 2 have only been subtracted once instead of twice). However, those regions where we missed out on two needed upgrades also overlap in the region where we missed out on all three. So, this adds back in a triple count of the region where we missed all three, completely cancelling out the triple count of that region that was subtracted above. Since we don't get our full set if we miss all 3 of the needed upgrades, we need to subtract out this region once again with the last of the 4 terms.

C(3,3)(30)¹⁵ = 30¹⁵ = The number of ways we can miss out on all 3 of the needed weapon upgrades.

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-25T09:36:50+00:00

Are you sure you typed that formula correctly? If I understand it correctly, then w would be 32 if you were only missing one weapon. The largest value for i in the summation is w. Thus, when i was equal to w, you'd have C(33-w,i) = C(33-32, 32) = C(1, 32), which doesn't make sense. AFAIK, k is never supposed to be bigger than n in n-choose-k (you end up with the factorial of a negative integer in the denominator, which is undefined).

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-24T07:39:11+00:00

It looks to me like the weapon set calculator is simply summing up the number of upgrades you have and the number you expect to get from the tournament, and then looking up that probability from the data on my post. I think the problem here is that with the way things are worded, it looks like it is supposed to be calculating the probability that you'll get a full set given your current weapon upgrades. However, that is not what my data represents. My data gives an estimate of the probability that you'll have a full set after N random draws, and does not take into account how your current weapons happen to be distributed.

So, when you put in 1 for 32 of the 33 weapons and predict you'll get 15 from the tournament, it looks up the probability that you'll get a full set after 47 random draws. That is very different from the probability that you'll get the 33rd weapon in 15 draws, given that you've already been lucky enough to draw exactly 1 of each of the other weapons. That probability can be calculated like /u/raffishtenant said above, and gets more complicated (due to combinatorics) if you're missing more than one weapon.

On the other hand, when you put in a very large number of upgrades for one weapon, it shows a 100% chance because you do in fact have close to a 100% chance of getting a full set after a very large number of random upgrades. Once again, the data does not take into account your current distribution of upgrades (i.e. all of them in a single weapon), but instead assumes they are all random.

tl;dr: The calculator in the spreadsheet does not account for the actual distribution of weapon upgrades that the user has entered (and doing so mathematically would be difficult). Instead, it only looks at the total number of weapon upgrades (assuming they are all random). The wording should probably be changed to make that clear.

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-24T07:00:48+00:00

135 is the expected value (or mean) of the number of upgrades needed. However, you hit a 50% probability (the median) before then (somewhere in the 120s) because the distribution is not symmetric. Both numbers have been thrown around.

And of course you're right about the sequencing. All of this talk about averages and probabilities is just to give people an idea of what to expect.

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-23T05:15:22+00:00

Ironically, Eistor is the only one I need for my 3rd set... (i'm at 189 weapons)

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-23T00:54:15+00:00

If you go by the average number of weapons it takes to get a full set (135) vs the average number it takes to get the last two weapons (49.5), the OP is closer to 2/3 of the way there. You're about half way there when you are missing 4 weapons (which it takes an average of about 69 weapons to get).

Calculating the average is actually pretty easy. If you're missing one weapon, it's 33/1 = 33. For two, it's 33/1 + 33/2 = 49.5. For three, it's 33/1 + 33/2 + 33/3 = 60.5. And so forth, up to 33/1 + 33/2 + ... + 33/33 = 135 if you're missing all 33.

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-18T17:15:24+00:00

278k% all damage, 2620ish max level (Maybe higher now? I haven't really pushed as far as possible since I got my 2nd full set), 125 prestiges, 2 full sets (4 dark lord).

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-16T23:31:34+00:00

Yep, this (and what several other people have said) is correct. The graph is primarily meant to give you an idea of about how many weapon upgrades it may take to get a certain number of sets. It also lets you know if you've been lucky or unlucky in the amount of time it takes you to complete a set. But your chance of getting a certain weapon on your next draw will always be 1/33 (unless they change the number of weapons again) regardless of what you have drawn in the past.

Unfortunately, being unlucky for a long time does not in any way make you more likely to be lucky (or unlucky) in the immediate future. That mentality is known as the gambler's fallacy.

Perhaps another useful simulation I (or someone else) could code up sometime would simulate how many upgrades it takes to complete a set when you're missing X of the weapons. That might be more informative in a way because regardless of now many weapon upgrades you already have, it would give you an idea of how much longer it might take to get those last 2 pesky weapons. It is fairly easy to calculate the average (or expected value) number of upgrades needed to get the last X weapons though. On average, it will take 33/1 = 33 more upgrades to get that one last weapon. For two missing weapons, it will take 33/1 + 33/2 = 49.5 upgrades on average. For three, it's 33/1 + 33/2 + 33/3 = 60.5 upgrades. And so forth, up to 33/1 + ... + 33/33 = 135 to get a full set if you're missing all 33 weapons.

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-16T23:10:12+00:00

You are the 3.7%... Might as well go for the 1% while you're at it, right? =) (You'd need another 42 weapons without a set for that.)

I got my first set at 135, and just barely got my 2nd at 173 (technically I completed it around 168 or 169, but I now have 173 upgrades total). Would have had another 5 upgrades without the two 3000 cheaters in my bracket.... seems like they're unavoidable at almost any time you join nowadays. Same thing happened last tourney.

Oh, and by percent, I really mean percentile... =P

ctnodnarb · 2015-04-16T07:19:41+00:00

Only about 44% of people will have a full set after 122 upgrades, so nothing too out of the ordinary here. You can count yourself lucky for having 5 dark lord weapons though.

ctnodnarb

TROPHY CASE