Post by mathcat on May 16, 2016 10:49:23 GMT
*wipes mouth after finishing tuna*
While I really do like having something added to the game, so that we have something else to do, I'd like to point out a couple of things.
If a T1 player buys 1M gold worth of tickets, and someone like Althus dumps 999M gold, and that the lucky winner gets ALL of the gold, then we can safely say that Althus has a 99.9% chance of winning, and gaining a tiny bit of gold, while the T1 player has a .1% chance of walking away with a fortune. No problems there, right?
But if we were to set aside 20% of the pot for the next time we have a lottery, of that 1B gold, 200M is removed from it. No problem there right? Look a bit further, if 20% of the pot were to be removed, then effectively 20% of your ticket gold is lost from you. So Althus loses 199.8M gold and the T1 player loses 200,000 gold. And the chances still remain the same. This means that richer players are at a disadvantage if we have a carry-over. This is not a problem in the winner takes all scenario.
While I really do like having something added to the game, so that we have something else to do, I'd like to point out a couple of things.
If a T1 player buys 1M gold worth of tickets, and someone like Althus dumps 999M gold, and that the lucky winner gets ALL of the gold, then we can safely say that Althus has a 99.9% chance of winning, and gaining a tiny bit of gold, while the T1 player has a .1% chance of walking away with a fortune. No problems there, right?
But if we were to set aside 20% of the pot for the next time we have a lottery, of that 1B gold, 200M is removed from it. No problem there right? Look a bit further, if 20% of the pot were to be removed, then effectively 20% of your ticket gold is lost from you. So Althus loses 199.8M gold and the T1 player loses 200,000 gold. And the chances still remain the same. This means that richer players are at a disadvantage if we have a carry-over. This is not a problem in the winner takes all scenario.
