Talk:Rings of Fortune

The math in the chart is still pretty inaccurate. Valdrone 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The note 6 has the losses as 161 and the wins as 208.This is the wrong way around.

The times listed in the table are wrong
I am on the Rings of Fortune as I write this, and the narrative bullets on this page that describe the number of rounds per hour are correct. It does indeed take exactly 3 min 15 secs for one game period to be complete. There are 20 rounds of play in each period. So, (3600/195)20=369.23 rounds of play per hour. 7/16 winners = 161, and 9/16 losers=208. What this means is that the table hours are WAY wrong, and I'm going to correct them. For example, the table says it takes 43.5 hrs to complete 26,667 rounds. The reality is that it takes 26,667/369.23=72.22 hrs. The number of Unlucky points obtained in the table is still correct, since (72.22)208=15,022. I invite others to verify these findings and also check the figures in the rest of this table for accuracy, as I have not verified the rest of the columns. Buzz 18:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucky vs Unlucky
If I've got it right, pulling together updated information from the two games gives me this comparison table -

In other words, Nine Rings is quicker for both titles (and very much quicker for Lucky). However, while it is slightly cheaper for Lucky, it is very much more expensive for Unlucky, implying that there is an optimum strategy for mixing the games if you want to minimise the cost of maxing both titles. I'm updating the comments accordingly.

Rings of Fortune is certainly the cheapest way of maxing the Unlucky title, even compared to opening chests (which theoretically would cost 2,777,778g for 90%-retention chests). Nevertheless, I would imagine the quickest way to max the Unlucky title, would be chest opening, possibly as described on this discussion page. 8000 50%-chests would do it with 4000 broken lockpicks. Kirbett 22:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work Kirbett. I think we're on target now. How could the other figures have been so wrong? It strikes me as interesting that 72.2 hours vs 43.5 hours is an error of exactly 66%. I wonder if players used be credited with ticket losses, losing two tickets each round, instead of just one point for losing a round, or if something else changed in the mini-game mechanics since the previous table was made. Buzz 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't get the Nine Rings numbers quite right after all. Hopefully, they're right now. Kirbett 09:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)