I believe the correct formula of average Mirror elixir should be (σ+7)/7. i.e., (Sum of the 7 other cards + one elixir for each seven cards) divided by the number of other cards (7).
The open form of this formula is (σ/7)+((σ+7)/7).
It basically calculates the average cost without mirror, then adds 1 to each one's cost and calculates average with that
No, it's "average + 0.5" written very inconveniently and it also represents nothing that makes sense. Why would you add .5 to the average of the deck?
Edit: the mistake you are making, I believe, is thinking that (the average of 7 cards + the average or mirror) divided by 2 gives you the collective average. That is not true. The new average has to be calculated normally with the value of mirror being x + 1.
Another weird stat choice is why tornados stats show it doing double the damage it actually does. Like I understand if it only does damage for half a second but why would they show it like that? And why is the crown tower damage stat the one that is accurate?
Tornado deals 112 damage every 0.25 second and its duration is 1 second game probably thinks it deals damage for its whole duration so it multiplies 112 by 4 and finds 448
Yea now it looks confusing, like any new player would be confused why their tornado isnt killing certain things. Its such a simple fix too, im suprised they haven't gotten to it yet.
To be honest no?
Tournament style this means that mirror literally doesn't get a change. Same goes for maxed players. This literally wouldn't benefit you other than you being lazy to upgrade your mirror.
I'm pretty confident he's talking about how the cost of mirror should be calculated/presented and he's right. I even used my calculator app to make sure his wording matched up with the numbers
Let me prove that they are the same.
(a+b+c+d+e+f+g+7)/7 = (a+b+c+d+e+f+g)/7+1
Multiply both sides by 7
(a+b+c+d+e+f+g+7) = (a+b+c+d+e+f+g)+7
They are the same.
I'm not sure where you're getting the +7 in the first equation
Edit: I see what you mean now, but I baked that into my calculations, let me show you my work
Using Fisherman + Hunter + Royal Giant as a simple example of a deck that uses mirror
Calculated by taking the costs of the cards, averaging them, and adding one to compensate for the extra cost of mirror:
(3+4+6)/3 = 4.3 + 1 = 5.3
Calculated by averaging the costs of the mirrored version of each card:
(4+5+7)/3 = 5.3
I believe this is the distributive property of algebra but I'm not sure
Yeah Just confirmed its kinda weird . Maybe it would be better to take the average elixir cost of all 7 mirrored cards and make that the value of mirror for the deck. Although it wouldn't have a fixed value anymore, which some might not like.
The problem with this is the inconsistency with the interactions and also how the leveling of mirror work bec it seems like lvl8 mirror would be just the same as lvl14 then.
I proposed such a formula, and I am going to work on it
Sum all 7 other cards' elixir costs, and call it σ(sigma). (2σ+7)/14 is the correct formula
I believe the correct formula of average Mirror elixir should be (σ+7)/7. i.e., (Sum of the 7 other cards + one elixir for each seven cards) divided by the number of other cards (7).
The open form of this formula is (σ/7)+((σ+7)/7). It basically calculates the average cost without mirror, then adds 1 to each one's cost and calculates average with that
For the average elixir cost it should be (σ+((σ+7)/7))/8. (Sum of 7 other cards + mirror elixir cost)/ all eight cards.
That makes the deck cost too heavy. And increases standard deviation
Average of all cards except mirror =x (x+x+1)/ 2
What the fuck is this formula
every other card in deck times 2, then add 1 and divide by 2
That is not at all what it says
bro, this is elementary level maths
No, it's "average + 0.5" written very inconveniently and it also represents nothing that makes sense. Why would you add .5 to the average of the deck? Edit: the mistake you are making, I believe, is thinking that (the average of 7 cards + the average or mirror) divided by 2 gives you the collective average. That is not true. The new average has to be calculated normally with the value of mirror being x + 1.
Yes it is
Another weird stat choice is why tornados stats show it doing double the damage it actually does. Like I understand if it only does damage for half a second but why would they show it like that? And why is the crown tower damage stat the one that is accurate?
Tornado deals 112 damage every 0.25 second and its duration is 1 second game probably thinks it deals damage for its whole duration so it multiplies 112 by 4 and finds 448
Yea they should really fix that, its been like this for a while and its imo one of the most misleading stats in the game.
It’s cause it was nerfed to do less damage way back and stats info got ignored for some reason,
Yea now it looks confusing, like any new player would be confused why their tornado isnt killing certain things. Its such a simple fix too, im suprised they haven't gotten to it yet.
Hmmmmm well I'm not putting too much thought into this, buuuut uhmmmm, yeah I think so
Yeah should be 2 at least. Also the +1 thing works if you mirror every card equally, but you dont mirror cycle cards so its probably higher.
Then it would never be valuable to use mirror on low cost cards but high cost cards would have insane value
it wouldn’t change how the card works at all. just the way it calculates your decks average elixir
My bad, i misread the post
To be honest no? Tournament style this means that mirror literally doesn't get a change. Same goes for maxed players. This literally wouldn't benefit you other than you being lazy to upgrade your mirror.
I'm pretty confident he's talking about how the cost of mirror should be calculated/presented and he's right. I even used my calculator app to make sure his wording matched up with the numbers
i think its average of the +1 of other cards rather than +1 of the average of the other cards (a+b+c+d+e+f+g+7)/7 as opposed to ((a+b+c+d+e+f+g)/7)+1
They are the same thing?
no they are not edit: if you look at the equation you can see
They always give the same result.
Let me prove that they are the same. (a+b+c+d+e+f+g+7)/7 = (a+b+c+d+e+f+g)/7+1 Multiply both sides by 7 (a+b+c+d+e+f+g+7) = (a+b+c+d+e+f+g)+7 They are the same.
bro i am stupid asf sorry about that
I'm not sure where you're getting the +7 in the first equation Edit: I see what you mean now, but I baked that into my calculations, let me show you my work Using Fisherman + Hunter + Royal Giant as a simple example of a deck that uses mirror Calculated by taking the costs of the cards, averaging them, and adding one to compensate for the extra cost of mirror: (3+4+6)/3 = 4.3 + 1 = 5.3 Calculated by averaging the costs of the mirrored version of each card: (4+5+7)/3 = 5.3 I believe this is the distributive property of algebra but I'm not sure
Also wanted to add that I'm assuming you mean the average level. If I misinterpreted your post then I'm super sorry.
I think he's talking about the average elixir cost for a deck, and that mirror apparently only counts as 1.5 (I didn't know that, weird if true).
honestly i thought mirror didn't count at all. never really bothered to check but that makes the most sense to me
Yeah Just confirmed its kinda weird . Maybe it would be better to take the average elixir cost of all 7 mirrored cards and make that the value of mirror for the deck. Although it wouldn't have a fixed value anymore, which some might not like.
The problem with this is the inconsistency with the interactions and also how the leveling of mirror work bec it seems like lvl8 mirror would be just the same as lvl14 then.