Talk:Nine Rings

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Confusing?[edit]

Is it just me, or does anybody else find

Each ring rewards on average 85 tickets for every 90 tickets spent. This means that every 5 tickets purchased will, in the long run, give the player 85 tickets towards their Lucky title.

Confusing to read/in meaning? On the one hand it implies that 90 tickets gets 85 tickets back, on the other hand it seems to imply that in fact 5 tickets will get 85 back... --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not confusing... your logic is faulty. You spend 90, you get 85 back over time. 71.238.39.28 21:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Expect the corner rings to vary a lot from that average value. If you want to go for Lucky without risking efficiency I suggest the center. To give an example of how much it varies: Friday I went through 4 stacks in 2~ hours on the corner. Today I went with 6 stacks for most of the day, came back later and had 10+. --24.148.165.226 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is worded incorrectly because the two sentences do, in fact, contradict each other. However, underneath the chart in the "Landmark" section it states "1.On average, 1 ticket is consumed for every 17 tickets won. 2.On average, 9.444 tickets are won per round." How does this compare to the info above? And if we have to buy stacks of tickets just to stay in the game how could this possibly be accurate? I've never heard of anyone actually winning more tickets than they spent... but even if some ppl do it certainly isn't the average. Who wrote this? 70.189.106.136 15:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I've had a few tries at this game(about 5 days worth) and I feel that my experience proves the corner rings to be more costly than the center ring for just gaining lucky points. (lucky points are more important to me since they actually *help* you in the game) I do appreciate the work that went into the chart and all but seems to be inaccurate to say it doesn't matter where you stand. Perhaps I'm missing something. Either way, Would it be possible to show whats the best strategy for wanting to gain lucky points and mastering the treasure hunter title? I imagine there would be little left to do to complete the unlucky title by the time you master the aforementioned two. GW-MaNiAc 21:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes in Notes[edit]

I fixed the note stating that the corner ring is good for all around, which since the system is well balanced it only helps the Unlucky title track more. I also added how the Unlucky track only counts losses rather than tickets. Just felt I should state this for discussion, if anyone has any comments.

  • I'm also a very picky typist and "indented" the last two notes as the rest are. Chakra Djinn 04:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
None, other than possibly that I removed the note that it tracks losses rather than lost tickets. It clearly states that both in the tooltip of the title itself, on the Unlucky page, and it isn't really related to Nine Rings other than that you can level it there. — Galil Talk page 04:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

1::Ok, sounds good to me. Just wanted to make sure things were cleared up. Chakra Djinn 04:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Removed the line stating that the corner rings are best for progressing in the lucky/unlucky title track. I won't go into the math here, but just because you win a larger amount of tickets doesn't make them the better choice. Rings of fortune, while longer, is the better course for pursuing unlucky.

Bugged?[edit]

I went and purchased a few thousand tickets so I could go AFK overnight and farm points on this. When I got back in the next morning, I found that one of my stacks had "224" tickets in it. By standing in the corner (where I was) you can only gain 0, 15, or 55 in any round, yet I have a non-multiple of 5. Has this happened to anyone else? I'm thinking it was a simple rounding error, although theres no telling how many I actually lost, as I wasn't there to see it. 68.104.22.178 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You are allowed to go AFK to do this? --The Silenced Spets 00:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

yes you can be afk whilst standing on the rings. --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 00:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
How are you planning to do the lucky/unlucky title else? i'm not gonna sit and stare at my computer screen for 72 hours... 82.176.174.199 22:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Run 20k chests. --Arduinna talk 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This has happened to me this weekend. my stacks on 3 separate occasions finished with 9. I was paying attention to what i purchased: all 250 stacks before the game started. The first 2 times i repurchased a single ticket to "even" up the tickets again (just looked wrong). Now checking in again one of my stacks reads 239... So you are not alone in this problem, perhaps it is a bug! GW-MaNiAc 21:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlucky Points Per Hour[edit]

The Notes state that standing on a corner provides approximately 170 unlucky points per hour. However, if 19 games take 3m5s, and the odds for a corner ring to lose is 6/9, shouldn't this work out at approx (19*(3600/185)*(6/9)) = 246 unlucky pts/hr? After 62 hours, I've actually averaged 239 unlucky pts/hr which is consistent with this since I've been away from the rings occasionally.

I suspect 170 unlucky pts came from working out the rate for standing in the centre: (19*(3600/185)*(4/9)) = 164.32

And if this is the case, then for completeness, the rate for standing on a side ring would be: (19*(3600/185)*(5/9)) = 205.40

Also, the Notes state that 9120 Rounds are played in a 24 hour period. Apologies for being pedantic, but this seems to be based on 19 rounds every 3 minutes, in contrast to the 3m5s used in the tables. I estimate that it should be more like 8873 rounds per 24hrs, or 26619 for the 3day event. Kirbett 12:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I added that note, and it was from direct testing and not mathematics. I do agree the mathematical result should be displayed instead. VegaObscura 12:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the notes accordingly Kirbett 14:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

L2Statistics[edit]

  • Corner rings:
    • 1/9 chance for 45 net tickets
    • 2/9 chance for 5 net tickets
    • 6/9 chance for 10 tickets lost
    • Average ticket loss per play: -5/9
  • Side rings:
    • 1/9 chance for 30 net tickets
    • 3/9 chance for 5 net tickets
    • 5/9 chance for 10 tickets lost
    • Average ticket loss per play: -5/9
  • Center ring:
    • 1/9 chance for 15 net tickets
    • 4/9 chance for 5 net tickets
    • 4/9 chance for 10 tickets lost
    • Average ticket loss per play: -5/9

~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 01:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your confusing the chance with reward. If every number was equally chosen this yes, would be correct, average ticket loss per play is -5/9. However, since we do this over and over and it is random each time, not in a pattern, this is not correct. Statistically, you gain more tickets by standing on the center ring than any other ring. The reason why is you you have less chance of failure. Even though the reward is higher on the corner squares you can't justify it like this. You need to look at rate of success, and the greater chance of winning allows you to play more rounds to have more failures.

For example, if you stood on a corner and the middle, you say every time you should end up with around the same amount of tickets. Tests (which are given by other people on the wiki (I will not include my own own tests)) prove that the chances are not the same:

"Standing on a corner provides approximately 246 unlucky points per hour, compared to 205 on an edge ring, or 164 on a center ring. "

Wouldn't this say that they are not equal? You can't say in one sentence that they are the same, and then the next say they are different. Sorry, but your tests prove they are not equal. If you learned anything in math class, is once you find the fault in logic in one statics problem, therefore the entire thing is incorrect. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.33.138.178 (talk).

If you looked at his math, you would see that he's saying that you regain the same amount of tickets on average, no matter which ring you are in. However, not all wins are equal. Hence, on average, out of 9 games you lose 6 of them (unlucky points) but make up for it with a jackpot when it hits your corner (lucky points). --JonTheMon 01:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If every number was equally chosen this yes, would be correct, average ticket loss per play is -5/9. However, since we do this over and over and it is random each time, not in a pattern, this is not correct.

I suggest you take calculus someday and learn what a limit is. If you wanted to max this title, you are not playing just once, you are not playing ten times. Getting the max title requires playing thousands and thousands of rounds, where the error of standing on the outer rings becomes so minimal it stops mattering. You can read more about this phenomenon here.

Standing on a corner provides approximately 246 unlucky points per hour, compared to 205 on an edge ring, or 164 on a center ring.

I suggest you take an English class and learn what words are. He is not talking about lucky points (which are equal on all rings), he is talking about unlucky points (which are more common on outer rings).
If you continue to fail at understanding this stuff, I will be more than happy to explain any questions you may have. ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The average ticket loss per round is the same for all rings, but variance for the center ring is the lowest. If you are doing Nine Rings in the long term, the ticket loss will be nearly equal for all the rings, and the primary concern becomes which ring provides the best growth rate for Lucky/Unlucky points, which is not the same for all the rings. If you are doing Nine Rings in the short term, the concern is likely that you don't want to come back in an hour to find you had a bad streak and lost all your tickets sooner than expected. This corresponds to variance, which is lowest in the center and highest at the corner. Problem solved. --click moar Mafaraxas 05:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The note clearly explains that. The issue was whether or not the rings gave you a different amount of tickets. Since nobody here is psychic, you cannot say whether outer rings or the center ring gives more, all you can say is that the center ring has less error, which is already on the page. ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 06:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I seriously dont' know why you all have to argue so much and still be saying the same thing. It's simple don't make it complicated. I've seen statements all over the place about averages and such.... funny how not many of them are the same. It's random so it doesn't really matter what your average statements discover because those exact numbers will never apply to you. YOU will get an entirely DIFFERENT set of numbers each time you play. The only true way to get a good average is for multiple people to test it over many hours. Not 3... not 4.... but maybe like 10-20 hours. No, I've no intention of doing such a thing. I simply came to this discussion page because I think the page is named wrong. It should be "The Nine Rings" not "Nine Rings". Ingame it is called "The Nine Rings" and when you do a search here on guild wiki for "The Nine Rings" the actual page link is like ten or so links down. But I see I wandered into something quite different. Lets not forget that our opinions cannot be used as factual evidence... and at what point in everyone's childhood did your parents tell you, "now remember today is rude behavior training and I expect you to make your teacher proud!" all of you have an attitude when it comes to discussions and you cannot seem to actually "discuss" anything without showing your a$$. Maybe, since hate is so sought after, we shoudl come up with a new wiki for those that hate... we'll call it... um... Flower Wiki. Haha you thought I was gonna say Hate Wiki didn't you. I'm not entirely serious so stop taking me as such. Stop taking EVERYTHING so seriously and try have fun like the dam game was intended for. And stop biting your brother's head off. How old are you people like 4? I'm ashamed to be a human being if this is how my brothers and sisters act... Do you smell what I'm stepping in? Or do you need to kneel down a little lower? 70.189.106.136 16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
He's not basing this on an opinion though, he's basing it on mathematics. There is a difference. Also, I find it lulzy how you attack other wiki users for BAWW-ing all the time, yet your post is the biggest rant on the page. Slayzie 19:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Way to gain tickets[edit]

I was just toying around with nine rings, I went in with 40 tickets and came back with 200, could have gotten more if I had the patience. (This thus means I have not tested this trick too well and as so I did not write anything about it to the topic. If anyone would be so kind and go in with 40 come back with 200 000?) Anyways, what I was doing, I went next to the middle ring, waited till people in it got KD, went in, got few wins, stepped out, looked as people got KD, went back in, few wins, or one big one, and our. And repeated this... alot. Started with 40, soon I had 80, 120, 160, 200. My logic was something like this:

  • 1)start out
  • 2)if people in the middle ring get KD, go in, else, wait outside. (repeat this step until they get KD)
  • 3)now youre standing in the middle ring, if you win 25 tickets, go outside and return to step 2), else, stay inside
  • 4)if you do not get KD this time either, go outside and return to step 2) if you get KD, repeat step 3)
  • NOTE: just use your head ^^
  • And dont panic when you stand outside the ring and people get 2x25 wins in a row...

And yeah, it takes bit longer to gain your lucky title this way, thus it would be lot cheaper... So if youd like to stare at the screen 24/7... --Sanzennin

That would be a good system if nine rings wasn't random. ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 04:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHA! :D I'm happy to see I wasn't the only one to try such a thing. I have to say I went on quite a win-streak doing this but eventually I started guessing wrong and decided it wasn't worth the trouble. It was fun to try and 'outsmart' the sheerly random game tho... Its like gambling and trying to play the better odds. GW-MaNiAc 21:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

there is no such thing as outsmarting random. --click moar Mafaraxas 23:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Random on a computer always has a system. However, the "random" seed is probably indecipherable at any given instant because they probably generate random seeds with other random seeds... That way you can never guess which seed you're going on. 209.240.183.45 17:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Flipping a coin is random as well... but if you flip a coin once and get heads then your odds of getting tails on your next flip is significantly increased. I believe this is taught early on in high school (don't drop out >.< ). It's not an exact science. It's just about playing the odds. If you don't understand odds then I suggest you do not go into a casino. This method is but one way to play the odds in a random game. I came up with a similar system for online poker that a friend used and he made off with 1300 bucks after starting with 200 bucks. Could be luck... could be simply playing the odds. Either way it takes devotion and patience, both of which I do not have enough of to do this. I'd rather be afk and not quite so bored... regardless, just because you do not understand something does not mean its wrong or that it doesn't work. Clearly, this individual has gotten it to work for him. 70.189.106.136 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A result of heads or tails on your first flip has absolutely no bearing on the probability of flipping heads or tails on the second. Whoever taught you this seriously, seriously misled you about how probabilities work.--98.114.178.61 09:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
This is like trying to outsmart blackjack or roulette. I have a system guys!!! And I am sorry but flipping heads on a coin does not increase the odds of a tails on the next flip, the two flips are independent of each other and therefore the odds are still 50:50. --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 01:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
[1] 67.43.242.54 13:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to visit this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy 71.190.231.120 17:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Stealing tickets[edit]

If a player has a full inventory and wins more Festival Tickets, they will drop on the ground, assigned to whoever won them. If the player doesn't pick up the tickets before they are unassigned (which is highly likely due to afk in Nine Rings), then anyone can pick them up. Can this happen with other things appearing in the inventory or does it only happen with the tickets? Also, is this considered stealing, since the person can't really do anything about it if he or she is afk? Eliane Cruz 01:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just unlucky without the title - or being stupid. Always keep at least one or two slots free in your inventory. It should say so on the page --User Karasu sig.png Karasu (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the best strategy for maxing Lucky and Unlucky?[edit]

Goal: Achieve max Lucky and Unlucky titles using only Nine Rings and Rings of Fortune. Find the "sweet spot" for doing so in the shortest time and spending the least amount of gold. I thought there used to be some more tables on wiki showing when to switch to Rings of Fortune trying to do this. I don't see any now, and the Rings of Fortune page and tables appear to be a mess. Buzz 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Center for lucky, corner for unlucky. Be aware that there's more variability in the corner than in the center; you're more likely to bottom out sooner than expected than in the center, but you'll still be spending the same average gold per round regardless. --click moar Mafaraxas 04:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I get all that - but even if you stay in the corner all the time on Nine Rings you'll max Lucky way before Unlucky, meaning the total cost for both titles is greater than need be. Also since Rings of Fortune is faster for Unlucky, there should be a target time to shift over to that game before maxing Lucky, so you're not earning Lucky points after Lucky is maxed. Buzz 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Taken from the "Guide to Luck Titles" page: "Acquiring Both Titles: Naturally, since no one will always win or always lose, it makes a degree of sense to work on both titles simultaneously. Otherwise, any 'extra' points toward the completed title are wasted while finishing the uncompleted title. Since the maximum level of "Lucky" is 2.5 million points, and the maximum level of "Unlucky" is 500,000 points, earning both is a matter of achieving a 5:1 ratio of tickets won to games lost. Over time, Nine Rings has a (roughly) 14:1 ratio in the corners, a 17:1 ratio on the sides, and a 21:1 ratio in the center. Over time, Rings of Fortune has a (roughly) 3.3:1 ratio regardless of where you stand."

If anyone has a good mathematical way of determining where the switchover point should be, it would be appreciated. For example, to achieve both titles at (nearly) the same time, one should stand on a corner spot in Nine Rings until XXX Lucky points are attained at a 14:1 ratio and then move to Rings of Fortune where the ratio decreases to 3.3 to 1. Buzz 11:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fastest, cheapest and only advisable method is to stand in the corners of nine rings. Simple mathematics show that regardless where you stand you will get the same amount of lucky points. Standing in the corners reward the most unlucky points. I see no reason to stand anywhere else except for people that don't want to max their unlucky title (o.O). --User Karasu sig.png Karasu (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You're missing the point about wanting to max BOTH titles without spending more gold or more time than necessary. As you can see from the tables below, if you try to max BOTH titles using Nine Rings alone, it would take 2033 hours and cost 6,194,551 (to max Unlucky). Certainly not the fastest, cheapest way as you state. Using Rings of Fortune only is the fastest, cheapest way to max Unlucky, but then the Lucky title progress suffers, hence the original question. Even using Nine Rings to achieve max Lucky, then Rings of Fortune to achieve max Unlucky is not the fastest, cheapest method due to wasting points.
GameCost to Play(gold/hr)
Nine Rings~3047
Rings Fortune~1149
GameHrs:MaxLuckyCost:MaxLuckyHrs:MaxUnLuckyCost:MaxUnlucky
Nine Rings724220588520336194551
Rings Fortune2175250000014501666050

Buzz 11:11, 6 July 2009


I asked myself this question for quite a while. Not finding a direct answer to this in this wiki and motivated by your question I tried to find it myself. Based on the data in the tables for 9 Rings and Rings of Fortune I made a little list in excel and (too lazy to do the exact calculation) fiddled around with the lucky number for 9 rings (assuming to stand on a corner ring). I came to this (sorry for the ugly table):

GameLuckyUnluckyHoursGold
9Rings110000078571319970530
Fortune140000042000012181400000
Sum250000049857115372370530

If you raise lucky for 9 Rings to 1200000 you would get not enough unlucky points (25000 missing).
If you lower lucky for 9 Rings to 1000000 you would waste 21000 unlucky points.
Based on this table you should play 9 Rings until you reach 1100000 lucky points. After that you switch to Rings of Fortune. Not much lucky/unlucky points would be wasted and you would need around 2400 platin, but it seems that the real problem is the 1537 hours standing on pads. How many events do we need for that? CC 11:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I take back my last statement. The fastest way to max unlucky is doing Rings of Fortune only and that would take around 1450 hours. So you can't get below that. So I believe the table above comes pretty close to the optimum regarding time and costs for maxing both titles. CC 12:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the accurate analysis CC. I tweaked your numbers slightly and if you get 1,112,300 Lucky points in Nine Rings, it should produce 79,450 Unlucky points (14:1 ratio). Then switching to Rings of Fortune for the remaining 420,550 Unlucky points should produce 1,387,815 Lucky points (3.3:1 ratio), for a total of 2,500,115 Lucky and 500,000 Unlucky points. Your hours and gold spent figures are correct. Thanks alot for your spot-on reply. Buzz 11:32, 6 July 2009

I hate to throw a spanner in the works, but unfortunately, I think the tables for the Rings Of Fortune that you've based your calculations on are seriously wrong. They imply an Unlucky point rate of 344/hr. The underlying statistics cited on that page however are 20 rounds every 3mins15sec, and a loss probability of 9/16 which works out at 208 Unlucky pts/hr. This is consistent with footnote 6 of that table. There is also a Talk comment for that page pointing out that there are problems with the table. I don't know which is right - maybe the game rate is faster than 20 rounds every 3m15s - but if not, the Unlucky point rate is slower than the theoretical Nine Rings rate which is 246 pts/hr, making Nine Rings by itself faster, though not cheaper, for both titles. Kirbett 17:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I alluded to these problems in my original question and I agree there are discrepancies. In fact, I changed the numbers around in Footnote 6 in the Rings of Fortune page because until yesterday it said the rate of LOSING was 161 (not 208) an hour, despite the probability of losing being 9/16. I at least made the introductory paragraph and Footnote 6 agree, however I did also notice the disparity between these narrative claims and the table assertions of 344 Unlucky points per hour. The Rings of Fortune table needs to be verified and either it or the narrative needs to be corrected, for sure. Buzz 17:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I hopped across from Nine Rings to check the Rings of Fortune and that game does indeed seem to run at 20 rounds every 3m15s. I also checked Nine Rings at the same time and that seems to be closer to 3m7s for 19 rounds rather than 3m5s. I'll see if I can manage to correct the corresponding tables. Kirbett 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I verified the times as well, and have already corrected the times on the Rings of Fortune table. Please verify my figures. This pretty much lays to rest any notion I had of getting the Unlucky title through these Boardwalk games, but it was worth the effort to find that out now. BTW I stayed on Rings of Fortune for one hour and got 213 Unlucky points, so there's some more confirmation for our position. The statement on the Rings of Fortune page that claims it's faster than Nine Rings for Unlucky points needs to be changed. Buzz 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good, Buzz - in fact, I spent 5 minutes looking at the Fortune table trying to figure out what had happened to the error before I realised you'd beaten me to it! Ive just updated the Nine Rings table, also, to reflect the slightly more accurate 3m7s cycle time. I'll change the comment you pointed out if you don't beat me to it. Kirbett 19:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Buzz and Kirbett. So the conclusion to all this is, that maxing Unlucky only by these games is nearly impossible. Based on the numbers in my table above (corrected using the latest hour values for Rings of Fortune) it would take 2347 hours = 98 days. Maybe you can achieve it before they shut down the last GW-Server. I imagine the last GW-player standing alone on a pad missing only 1 point before achieving max Unlucky and then...zap...Game Over...;-)
I made another table for doing 9 Rings (standing in the corner) and using Lockpicks:

LuckyUnluckyHoursGold
9Rings1750000125000507,51544025
6000Lockpicks750000375000???9000000
Sum2500000500000507,5 + ???10544025

It is based on a lockpick retention rate (RR) of 50% (20% for a level 20 character with lucky rank 5) opening 600g chests in normal mode with 1500g lockpicks.

The main problem is the RR. If it goes up it favors the lucky points which is bad, because these are the 'easy' ones. So you have to keep the RR down (around 50%). As you go up in the treasure hunter title switch chests from 600g to 750g to 1250g/HM.

The table would look like this with a RR of 42% (Lucky 5, Tresure Hunter 4, most expensive chest):

LuckyUnluckyHoursGold
9Rings1870000133571542,31649901
6017Lockpicks631785366435???9025500
Sum2501785500007542,3 + ???10675401

Maybe all that numbers are useless for you. At least they gave me some insight for (probably not) doing Unlucky (and go for the center pad of 9 rings to cheapen Lucky). CC 09:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say useless, CC, but perhaps academic. In practice, I don't think gold is a constraint since, for me at least, the supply tends to keep ahead of demand. As far as time is concerned, the best strategy must be to play Nine Rings when it's available, and open chests when it's not. I think we've resolved the choice between Nine Rings and Rings Of Fortune. The remaining issue is what types of chests and where, and that's much harder to be definitive about - depending not only on retention rate, but other factors such as accessability and so on.
I have it in mind to put a summary table for the games and for chests on the Guide_to_luck_titles page, which I think is the right place for it. Kirbett 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Length of an Event[edit]

Someone changed the article to refer to a 2 1/2 day weekend event. This is incorrect and I have reverted the change. Relevant events are at least 3 days long and frequently longer. Kirbett 11:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My Results Were Different![edit]

I was very irritated to find out that after wasting 56 platinum and 8 hours standing on the corner ring in Nine Rings that it eas a complete waste of money. I chose the corner ring going by what the information on the page was saying that if you stood there long enough that the cost would average out to the same for lucky point but you would also get more unlucky points to. This is definitally not true! I spent 3 times as much money for my lucky points than when I stood in the center ring afterwards. Yes I did get more unlucky points but not significantly more. Plus the unlucky title is a useless title. The is no benefit from it like the lockpick rentention benefit from the lucky title. So after wasting 56 platinum in 8 hours on the corner ring I bought less tickets, 35 platinums worth, for the center ring. I was very irritated to find out that these tickets lasted over 11 hours standing on the center ring and gave me more lucky points and nearly as many unlucky points as standing on the corner ring. In my painful experience of wasting too much money on misleading advise from this page there is no reason to stand in the corner rings for any reason!! I never tried the side but I suspect it will be nearly as disappointing as the corner rings are. I strongly recommend standing in the center ring!! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Cinnamongod (talk).

Heh, its called gambling, according to AVERAGES, <--- keyword, the corner ring should win as many as the center for every 90 spent. You just got the lower end of the spectrum on the corner, and the higher on the middle. Sonic Sunday User Da Sonic Sig2.png 18:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
ive always used the side rings, they seem to only lose me 30-50 tickets an hour. --Neil2250 , Render Lord User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 18:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Not to sound offensive, but try burning 1000+ platinum on this game. You'll quickly realize just how much the results vary. Blood Red Giant User Blood Red Giant sig.jpg Mani Mortus 22:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that Zerpha modified the notes on the webpage to suggest that the variance on the corner rings is very insignificant due to the considerably large amount of rounds played even just for a fraction of time needed for the first tier. I don't know how extensive his experience was, but I think you've just proved him wrong, and I'm minded to revert that change in the light of your experience.
That said, 8 hours is not long enough to get a good statistical picture when standing on the corner ring (or even on the centre ring). I could equally well cite my own experience earlier today when my holding of tickets increased by 600 over a period of 5 hours, and on one occasion last year when it went up by 700 over a period of just 2 hours!
The predicted gold-spent-per-point on corner rings is 0.88 (lucky) and 12.5 (unlucky). For the last 5 events (including this one), I have experienced average costs over each event for lucky points of 0.99, 0.67, 0.63, 1.15, and 0.89, and for unlucky points of 13.90, 9.75, 9.14, 16.07, and 12.62. So even the time-span of a whole event is insufficient to be sure of achieving the calculated average. But the total averages over all 5 events (a total of 389 hours so far) is 0.83 (lucky) and 11.87 (unlucky) which is not that far off. The time spent isn't that far off either, but is more difficult to calculate given the disconnections I have experienced over the course of the events.
As far as the Unlucky title being a useless title - well so are the Sweet, Party, Drunkard, Gwamm, Skill Hunter and Gamer titles. None of these bestow any in-game benefits. If that is your rationale for chasing titles, then I assume you'll not be pursuing any of these titles either. Kirbett 22:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I would push off the "useless" titles until the very end because the only benefit is the "Maxed titles" title. The skill hunter titles aren't useless because you get the elite skill for you and all of your heros on the entire account and unlocked for the other characters. Now it would be great if those tomes unlocked the skill you were looking for but at least you can use them for your other characters. The other titles like Sweet, Party, Drunkard can be fun to do and at least they are attainable in a reasonable amount of time unlike some of the other titles which are absurdly long, tedious and painful. It does suck that more of the titles aren't account wide also.
I have done the center a couple of times over different days and the results don't vary to much, so the fact that the variance and the corner rings is so bad makes them an inferior choice. The way I calculated that makes the most sence is to level my lucky title to 4 on nine rings then level my treasure hunter to 4 with 600 gold keys and finally finish the rest with lockpicks on 600 gold chests. Money in this game doesn't come easy so asking a person to waste 1 million gold on nine rings comes across as insane. My plan is painful enough. I have thrown away well over 100 platinum on it and I'm not very happy about it. They need badly to fix Guild Wars broken money system!! This is the thing I hate most about this game!
As has been said before, if you don't like working for a title, then don't. These titles weren't meant to be easy, and they certainly weren't meant to be quick. Hell, they used to be character specific and that was a damn nightmare. If you plan on maxing this title, I'd suggest getting used to that fact that it is going to take a couple years. If you don't want to spend that much time on a game, then find a new game. As for spending 1 million gold on a title, just a head's up; lucky title takes over 2 million gold, and treasure hunter takes almost 5 million. If you've only spent 100 platinum on your titles so far, you've barely scratched the surface. I generally have to save up 400-600 platinum before each of these festivals just in case I hit a patch of bad luck. Oh, and I know your story about having bad luck kind of sucks, but the majority of people who are playing 9 rings plan on maxing their titles, which, in the long run means that their luck will generally all balance out. I've lost entire inventories in a single day, and I've gained 5 stacks of tickets in just a couple hours, but in the end, I've come out pretty much average. And since I'm willing to handle that variance and save up that extra bit of gold in case I have a bad weekend, I've gotten a decent amount more of unlucky points over my years than those who stand in the center. Which means I have less farming to do in the future.
When it comes right down to it, you're thinking short term losses and gains, whereas most people going for these titles realize that these are very long term goals. If you worry about burning 100 platinum on some bad luck, you're never going to make it to the end. Blood Red Giant User Blood Red Giant sig.jpg Mani Mortus 01:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, when I mentioned the Skill Hunter title, I was referring to the process of acquiring all the elite skills, not just the ones of use. But I wouldn't decry chasing that title, since I did it myself.
As far as chests and lockpicks are concerned, I appreciate that chests are another way to go for the titles and I put together the tables at Guide_to_luck_titles for that very purpose. Curiously, you'll find that while progress on the Unlucky title is almost three times slower than for the Lucky Title on Nine Rings, it is substantially quicker on chests. And even given the value of acquired items it is still going to cost you many millions of gold ... and many hundreds of hours of online-time just running to chests. The way I look at it is, event time is afk-time - I can happily sit back and get on with other matters while the game advances my titles. Once an event is over, I get back to the in-game grind in whatever shape or form that takes, invariably earning enough gold in the process to fund my next session on the Nine Rings.
BTW, if you're still intending to max the Lucky title, then I suspect that buying 600g keys to raise your Treasure Hunter rank is just going to cost you more in gold and time. I haven't done the calculations myself, but the tables at Treasure_Hunter are very informative. Kirbett 09:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
As further evidence of the variation, yesterday, over an uninterrupted period of 7 hours standing on a corner ring, I used 3270 tickets at a cost of 49 platinum - that's a rate of 467 tickets per hour compared to the statistical prediction of 203 per hour - more than twice the predicted rate! But then, over the following uninterrupted 11 hours, I actually gained 750 tickets - bringing the net ticket rate over the two sessions down to just 130 per hour. That's not much more than half the predicted rate! My net rate over the whole event so far is 177 tickets per hour, but as I said before, the occurrence of disconnects makes this number less meaningful. But my basic message is - stick with it! Kirbett 09:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Im asking this on this page because I have to know this to be AFK while doing 9 Rings: Are we auto-disconnected if we stay afk for too long?

Auto Disconnect For being AFK too long?[edit]

Hi, im asking this because i have to know to do 9rings: Are we auto disconnected if we stay AFK too long? XLandreXL 14:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC) XLandreXL

No --Manassas User Manassas Mannysig.png 15:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
If there's a new build, ANet will kick everyone after a certain period of time (my guess is that if you're not AFK, you get more time, but I don't have any evidence to back that up).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Loss of tickets per hour?[edit]

Hi, math is not my strongest subject, so I was wondering if someone could show how many tickets on average are lost per hour while standing on a corner circle? I like to AFK overnight or even longer if I have stuff to do, so it would be nice to know how many tickets I need to buy beforehand so I don't end up losing them while away (ex. for 10 hours, I should have at least...x tickets in the inventory)

I tried to do some math on it and have come up with 203 tickets lost per hour. Does that sound correct?

I don't know about your math, but I will tell you from experience that 20 stacks of tickets usually lasts 24 hours for me. Sardaukar User Sardaukar sig.png 17:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Tickets sell for the same price you buy them, so the only risk is in having too many tickets if you win (they get dropped on the ground and your exclusivity expires just like normal drops). Just buy as many as you can afford, leaving a couple of slots, then sell the ones you have left when you get back. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 17:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting the math (one more time)[edit]

I believe we need to restate the strategy to:
"It's better to stand on the corner rings for both Lucky and Unlucky."

We've said for ages that corners are better for Unlucky, but your choice makes no difference for Lucky. I've run some Monte Carlo simulations and I think we've confused average net results with net average results:

  • Over time, it's true that you spend the same amount of tickets per round (-5/round), as the page correctly states. However:
  • When you win on the corner, you win big; your losses (however) are always the same (-10).
→ On average, you will earn 50% more tickets on a corner than in the center.

In particular (assuming random behavior):

Ring Big win chance
(Big win amt)
Small win chance
(Small win amt)
Lose chance
(lose amt)
Average tickets won Average rounds lost Average spend
Center 1
(25)
4
(15)
4
(-10)
3.89 = (25 + 4*15)/9 4 -0.56 = (3.89 - (4*10)/9)
Edge 1
(40)
3
(15)
5
(-10)
5.00 = (40 + 3*15)/9 5 -0.56 = (5.00 - (5*10)/9)
Corner 1
(50)
3
(15)
6
(-10)
6.11 = (15 + 4*5)/9
(best for Lucky)
6
(best for Unlucky)
-0.56 = (6.11 - (6*10)/9)
My Monte Carlo simulations bear this out: the average results of 100,000 games are (nearly) always within 10% of those predictions.

Results on the corner rings also have the greatest variance, i.e. your mileage there is more likely to be >= 10% better/worse than standing elsewhere. That means we should probably also offer advice along the lines of:

"Your losing streaks on the corner will be more expensive (and more frequent). If you plan on being AFK for hours at a time, make sure you have at least 5 free slots and as many stacks of tickets as you can afford, preferably 10 or more. (You can sell any excess to any merchant at any time.)"
Accordingly, I will update the notes here and at Lucky and Unlucky after the end of Dragon Festival 2011 (unless, of course, someone can point to empirical or simulation evidence showing otherwise).
Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Minor problem with your premise: last I checked, Lucky increases by your gross winnings, not net. So increase all big and small winning amounts by 10. - Tanetris 02:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. That would be a major problem with the results. Thank you. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Win Statistics[edit]

If anyone really cares anymore here are some statistics about the Nine Rings:

Corner Ring (C)

P(C) 4/9 [Probability of Corner Ring]

P(W|C) 3/9 [Probability of a win given that you chose a Corner Ring]

Side Ring (S)

P(S) 4/9 [Probability of Side Ring]

P(W|S) 4/9 [Probability of a win given that you chose a Side Ring]

Center Ring (N)

P(N) 1/9 [Probability of Center Ring]

P(W|N) 5/9 [Probability of a win given that you chose the Center Ring]

Everyone so far that I have seen has went about the probability of winning wrong. You need to use Bayes' Theorem to find the correct win rates. For this case here is the formula:

P(X|W) = P(X)*P(W|X) / [P(C)*P(W|C) + P(S)*P(W|S) + P(N)*P(W|N)]

After you have this you choose which ring you want to find the win % for.

P(C|W) = 36.364% [Probability of Corner Ring given that there is a win]

P(S|W) = 48.485% [Probability of Side Ring given that there is a win]

P(N|W) = 15.152% [Probability of Center Ring given that there is a win]

You're welcome - No More Mr Nice Sin Sorry about the messiness but I don't remember how to format this.

These aren't conditional results (someone always wins), so the formulas used are fine. (Bayes' applies if there are two, mutually exclusive events, but 9 rings has only one event: the selection of the winning circle.) Just to be sure, I ran a series of Monte Carlo simulations of 100,000 rounds, using the odds above. Each simulation, the tallies were the same:
  • Edge: 44% chance of winning something (56% nothing).
  • Center: 56% chance of winning something (44% nothing).
  • Corner: 33% chance of winning something (67% nothing).
(The chance of winning something adds up to over 100% because at least three rings always receive some tickets; at least four receive nothing.)
That's consistent with the wiki article's representation of the results (and inconsistent with Bayes). Other consistency checks:
  • Edge: wins 9.44 tickets/round; 11.1% chance to be the winning circle.
  • Center: wins 9.44 tickets/round; 11.1% chance to be the winning circle.
  • Corner: wins 9.44 tickets/round; 11.1% chance to be the winning circle.
That's also consistent with the article's advice. If you want to check my results, it's easy enough to create your own simulation in Excel, Google docs, or similar tools. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I assumed that these conditions apply to one person choosing one circle and the conditions were success or failure.

Same order of the rings[edit]

After playing some times without going AFK I noticed 1 thing. The order of the winning rings is the same. So if you moved to the next winning ring you would win every time. Can somebody confirm that?213.114.125.246 15:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How long is the sequence that you think you've discovered? I can't believe it's true, but I'm willing to test it. I just need to know how often you're saying the sequence repeats itself.--98.114.178.61 09:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)