Please more housing wards soon. And no more FC/Private Hybrid.

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-17-2023, 12:48 AM
Sindele

You get a chance, it's just a small one. I'm very confused by this notion that a non-zero chance somehow equals zero. Rare things happen all around you every day. If you went 1v99 on smalls every single bidding period for a year, the odds of succeeding at least one of those attempts is approximately 1 in 3.
03-17-2023, 12:51 AM
PredatoryCatgirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sindele

You get a chance, it's just a small one. I'm very confused by this notion that a non-zero chance somehow equals zero. Rare things happen all around you every day. If you went 1v99 on smalls every single bidding period for a year, the odds of succeeding at least one of those attempts is approximately 1 in 3.

This is why they need to teach statistics in high school. Trig can wait until college. Anything past algebra and geometry is useless unless you work in STEM or business, but stat is useful in everyday life.
03-17-2023, 12:51 AM
Antoine_Lenheim

Quote:

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

It is. 300 *people* in one FC. That is the core of what I'm saying. An FC is not one person. And that FC with 300 people deserves a larger chance at a house than an FC with 4 people, because 300 people using the house is better than 4. At the same time, the 4 person FC doesn't deserve to be locked out of bidding completely, it just deserves a lesser chance unless it strategically goes for houses that the 300 person FC wouldn't bid on.

Again, if you think that 300 man FC that is using a house is somehow better than 4 man FC using the house, and that one of the parties in an objectively RANDOM LOTTERY deserves a LESSER chance, then we do need to just lock the small FCs out of the bidding completely and only allow titanic 100+ man FCs to battle themselves on who can muster up the strength and gil to outbid their opponents. Only then we will have peace, tranquility... and equality.
03-17-2023, 12:55 AM
Antoine_Lenheim

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiraZ

I never understood why they never did the no refund if win method for FCs, it makes perfect sense and is the most fair method.
An FC with a large amount of active members determined to get a house will easily come up with the funds to dominate the bids but it will cost them to secure it, but at the same time it also allows a committed and active small FC to get a decent chance at winning vs a mostly inactive large FC.
it also moderately keeps house flippers and sub farmers away from larger houses due to lower return of investment.

That's the point debaters here seemed to successfully ignore. Yeah, okay, I get it. You want bigger FCs to win so more people get access to housing, yada yada. Fine. Make them pay for it as much as they need to muster up dozens of entrants. It is loophole'ing the system, after all. Why it's not penalized in any way? I'm bringing this point up again but even in RL lotteries you do pay the symbolic price for the ticket and if you're buying ten tickets, you pay ten times the symbolic price. Why it's not present here?
03-17-2023, 12:59 AM
PredatoryCatgirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

Again, if you think that 300 man FC that is using a house is somehow better than 4 man FC using the house, and that one of the parties in an objectively RANDOM LOTTERY deserves a LESSER chance, then we do need to just lock the small FCs out of the bidding completely and only allow titanic 100+ man FCs to battle themselves on who can muster up the strength and gil to outbid their opponents. Only then we will have peace, tranquility... and equality.

Okay, I'm going to explain why this is wrong.

FC1 has 4 active members and can only afford 1 bid. FC2 has 100 active members and can afford 50 bids.

Current system, both FCs bid on the house (lets say its a premium plot): FC1 has a slightly less than 2% chance of winning.

Current system, FC1 bids on the house, FC2 does not (lets say its a less desirable plot; FC2 is aiming higher because they have more resources): FC1 has a 100% chance of winning.

System you're proposing, FC2 does not bid on the house, FC1 cannot bid on the house: no one uses the house.

You are wrong. The two things are not the same. That is not an opinion, it is an objective fact that can be mathematically proven. I will no longer entertain this talking point. Call me when you have something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

You want bigger FCs to win so more people get access to housing, yada yada. Fine. Make them pay for it as much as they need to muster up dozens of entrants.

On this point, I actually agree with you. I'd love to see a system that takes a portion of the bid upon loss. If you can pile 20 bids on a large, you can afford to lose 5M for every bid that loses.
03-17-2023, 01:09 AM
Antoine_Lenheim

Quote:

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

You are wrong. The two things are not the same. That is not an opinion, it is an objective fact that can be mathematically proven. I will no longer entertain this talking point. Call me when you have something else.

The "system" that I "proposed" was an exaggerated attempt to reflect on the apparently alright system you're agreeing with, that big FCs should have bigger chances to win. My real system and proposition was to limit amount of entrants from 1 FC to one. This way it gives everyone a fair, equal, even, square, use whatever term you'd like here, chance to win.
03-17-2023, 01:14 AM
PredatoryCatgirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

The "system" that I "proposed" was an exaggerated attempt to reflect on the apparently alright system you're agreeing with, that big FCs should have bigger chances to win.

So you admit your point was a strawman argument then? Cool. Bye.
03-17-2023, 02:33 AM
Daeriion_Aeradiir

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sindele

You get a chance, it's just a small one. I'm very confused by this notion that a non-zero chance somehow equals zero. Rare things happen all around you every day. If you went 1v99 on smalls every single bidding period for a year, the odds of succeeding at least one of those attempts is approximately 1 in 3.

Seriously, it's so hilariously funny reading posts where people say 15% is no chance to win. Like, ?????????????????????????

I won my personal large when there was 632 bids on it and the last open large at the time on the server. A 0.16%~ ish chance. Compared to that, 15% is absolute godly odds.
If a bigger FC has the ability to co-ordinate that many trusted members (because lets face it, even in such massive member FCs, there'd be a very small % of people the FC could actually trust to purchase a plot entry and not just run off with the money, when most people in such massive FCs are just generic faces in the crowd and have no real ties or emotional investment in the FC itself and plenty would just run off it you handed them 50mil gil), then they 100% deserve the increased odds. It's not like the odds of any other bidder are ever 0 - any other entrant will always have the ability to win.
03-17-2023, 04:49 AM
Reinha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

That's the point debaters here seemed to successfully ignore. Yeah, okay, I get it. You want bigger FCs to win so more people get access to housing, yada yada. Fine. Make them pay for it as much as they need to muster up dozens of entrants. It is loophole'ing the system, after all. Why it's not penalized in any way? I'm bringing this point up again but even in RL lotteries you do pay the symbolic price for the ticket and if you're buying ten tickets, you pay ten times the symbolic price. Why it's not present here?

They are paying for every ticket up front. A relocating 4-man fc can make alts and bid 31 times (8+8+8+7) if they have the Gil. That's not a zero chance.
03-17-2023, 05:29 AM
Antoine_Lenheim

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reinha

They are paying for every ticket up front.

...Which is refunded right after lottery ends, if you didn't get the plot.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page