It’s only early days but appears middle is exactly same as bottom so far. I’m going to hazard a guess and say all paths are the same.
1 Like
Interesting. If, after 21 battles, you have 5x Mosasaurus, then at 21 battles everyone on an “optimal” strategy should have the same number of points. And then after that, if all battles are the same, the number of battles should correspond exactly to the total points awarded (again assuming optimal strategy), since there is no random scoring component this week.
All this is to say I don’t know how that first leaderboard can happen, with such a wide spread in scores, unless (1) there is a random element in scoring somewhere, or (2) a lot of people were not following the optimal strategy. (I guess there is an option (3) of “people cheating for points”, but I have no idea how that would even work here so it probably isn’t worth discussing further.)
Edit: I have been busy IRL today and yesterday, so no data-taking for me yet. Haven’t forgotten about it.
Well, it turns out Dust_Angel’s scores would have been
29 battles - 620
31 battles - 665
33 battles - 757
So looks like @Fleg is right and there is but ONE stream to rule them all?!?
Those lower scores may just be people who have started skipping battles that are too high in level? 
I mean it’s groundbreaking and definitive if this were the case - putting the shop tier requirement at exactly Tier 1; making Tier 2 100% unnecessary.
1 Like
Your guild is clearly more active than mine, if you can count on all members contributing equally to the guild task at the minimum necessary level. 
1 Like
We only have a 3M gold requirement. 18 on PC 
leaderboard.
I don’t know, maybe we play quite a bit? 
But the (shop tier) guide is there for expected avg. contribution. Each guild can do what they need to with the info.
1 Like
That would be my guess. Unless there is an alternative? Like, maybe there’s so many more Mosasaurus battles available, that they’re actually worth taking because they’ll end up paying more than a higher rarity battle in the long run? I’ve never had enough battles done to attempt to plot an alternative result.
Edited my comment above to include my latest data. To keep everything in one place, end of week I’ll add everyone’s data to my spreadsheet unless someone already is. Here’s the link: Imperial Summons - Top Right - Google Sheets
Found some interesting things so far when comparing @Dust_Angel 's data with mine.
Our starting maps were identical. Each fight we did resulted in the same next fight.
The location or which fight we picked didn’t matter. Sometimes we choose differently but the next fight to appear on the map was always the same.
3 Likes
Day 3 updated. Still the same as DustAngel.
1 Like
My battles are identical to @Fleg and @Dust_Angel.
I don’t think we need to bother with tracking more. It’s safe to say that the fights are predetermined, it’s the same for everyone, and location does not matter.
5 Likes
So the question is. Is this unnecessary statement purposefully misleading or unintentionally misleading?
I don’t read it as dishonest. The battles are randomly determined but under a set linear path. But I can totally understand how a newer player like Cyberkiwi would believe that the devs actually mean “pure RNG” whenever they use the word random. They are very loose with their terminology.
(Wait, I mispoke, I’m willing to bet most of you saw what I did, and that is your first Kraken battle at least 10 battles into the world event. So the equal chances is bull shit. It’s just copied and pasted from other events that it may actually be true for.)
1 Like
Is there a point then to having 5 locations, aside from giving us the ability to ‘skip’ 4 battles in the predetermined sequence?
1 Like
Agreed. I don’t see a problem with Salty’s statement. It was randomly chosen… before the event started. It’s not randomly chosen as someone progresses through the event. Nothing contradictory here.
The more locations, the easier for newer players. That’s all I can think of. If there was only 1 location, a new player could get stuck in a hard fight and not be able to progress more. If there’s many locations, anytime a hard fight shows up, the player could “skip” and pick a different location until the map only has too difficult to do fights.
For an event like this week, there’s effectively 4 skips. Once the map has 5 locations all with too difficult to do battles, the player is stuck. In other events where fights reset or there’s rounds, as long as a player can reach the reset before using all their skips, they can keep going.
6 Likes
Just want to thank @Grundulum, @Dust_Angel, @Snooj and @Fleg for contributing.
It’s a wonderful feeling getting to the bottom of the issue, and in only the 3rd day (although we virtually knew on day 1) 
When we have resetting/refreshing models for the World Event, I’d be willing to track that again with a view to confirm what we all possibly already guess to be true. The data greatly narrows down the range of points possible with most events, even those with 1.18x randomness and informs resetting+scaling events as to what is most profitable prior to the resets.
5 Likes
Does this mean I don’t need to post the data I was taking, but never got around to presenting on the forums?
3 Likes
I think it means WE ‘mapping’ (ToD-style) can now be done for all players in a single forum tread for that particular WE, which can be particularly handy during events with Board Resets and Incremental Rewards (assuming their ‘random level selection’ is as predetermined as what we have observed here).
#gowRNG
1 Like
Tbh, I thought we already knew most of this (esp. because we so often end up with similar numbers on the LBs), and that the case of WEs with refreshing maps or phases would be the one where a small advantage could be gained by knowing the randomly pre-generated sequence of battles to appear.
Back in the Kurandara event…
This event featured map resetting. Since I’d already been through the event a couple of times with the first two accounts, although didn’t write down the exact sequence, I had an intuitive sense of which battles had appeared the most frequently and was able to target those to take advantage of the increasing points.
Maybe I should have picked up on it, but I think I just couldn’t be bothered getting too involved in what seemed like a somewhat heated argument :
I kept a record of the fight order in a few later events with refreshing because I was thinking about this (planning the optimal route), so I’m happy to compare notes if anyone else did the same. Edit to say I think I didn’t bring it up or jump in when you’ve mentioned it previously because I didn’t feel the size of the advantage gained over the relatively low required Tier buy-ins for many of the WEs would have been that huge or made a difference in people either meeting or not meeting reqs for my guild.
For this event, perhaps a greater than usual number of people chose to take a sub-optimal point route due to the Medal situation (I’m doing okay with a Scylla team so far) ¯_(ツ)_/¯
2 Likes
I think the game missed an opportunity to have the fights be pre selected for a guild only to encourage scouting. Having it the same for everyone may encourage botting so someone shooting for the power orb can find the best of two equal fights ASAP. Edit: Just thought this through and nevermind. It would be cheaper to buy an extra tier 7 than to buy the tiers needed for the bot.
Scylla team high five!
There is no sub obtimal route this event. All routes are the same.
1 Like
Could still be, if for some reason people skipped higher rarity fights on the initial starting board, right? 
If higher rarity is permanently skipped, fair, then yeah there’s a sub optimal route. I am assuming people are chasing highest point fights 
Just for the sake of it, my post way up in #13 (I think) has been updated for the rest of the week (for Tier V purchase, no games lost, no raven escaped), if anybody’s interested.
4 Likes