**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Comments
In this case however, I'm comparing the difference between two paths in the same rift, or rather comparing each rare path to the default path. The default path grants 20k candies. *If* the intent is for all the rare paths to be not just rare, but more valuable than the default, then we can ask whether there is a reasonable way to compare 10k 6* shards to 20k candy. Is that better? While it is an imperfect comparison, we can directly compare the value of 10k 6* shards to how many 6* shards we could buy with 20k candy. If there was a way to convert 20k candy into 6* shards, we could make a very close apples to apples comparison. We can't because of store limits, so we then do the next best reasonable thing that is generally done whenever making economic comparisons in general: we extrapolate the closest incremental simplified valuation. We know 650 6* shards is worth something, so we can extrapolate how much candy 10k 6* shards would be worth.
As I acknowledge in the post, there are imperfections in this kind of analysis. For example, if all you want are sig stones, or if you personally value those higher than everything else, then the best possible result would be to get the sig stone path all 35 times, even though that is "economically worth" only 245k candy (rather than getting candy on every run which generates 700k candy). We can't buy 35 sig stones with 245k candy because the store has limits. However, as I mention in the OP, we can say this for every reward on every path, so in a sense this complication "averages out."
Taking a step back a bit, there are those that question these kinds of analyses altogether. I'm not saying you're one of them, but there are people who will dismiss this sort of thing as objectively impossible to do. There's just no way to account for all the variables, so all of these analyses are worthless. The problem with this position is that it is fundamentally wrong in a very specific way. Game designers can only do the possible, not the impossible. They are therefore required to make not a game that is perfectly magically balanced to an impossible degree, but one that is designed within the limits of their ability to account for things in general.
To put it another way, the designer of the Rifts did something to design the rewards. A thing that is possible for human beings to do. I don't know precisely what that was, because I was not in the room, but I can safely assume that whatever they did, it isn't magically immune to normal, mundane, everyday, economic comparisons. He didn't design the Rifts by Ouija board. And thus this kind of careful, conservative analysis, is I think a fair perspective to critique it from.
Dr. Zola
I've also decided not to spend any candy until the last day just in case some shenanigans get pulled where a "path selector for X candy" mysteriously appears.
So not a waste at all, even if the gold isn’t something I especially needed.
Dr. Zola
I ended up getting all candy, so if I ended up losing a bet I had a 99.94% chance to win I guess that’s the way the cookie crumbles haha!
i mean in the end .. no matter had i gotten 5 AGs .. i would still have the same opinion about this one .. it just wasn't fun ... for me and a lot of other people. a very underwhelming side event to me and i'm glad it's over. hoping it never returns in this same format.