So you foolish mortals, you don’t trust me enough to give your true names, your worried that I might talk you out of your soul if you allow me to talk to you, and you feel the need to put in place precautions to stop me sending you anything other than your marching orders. Despite this you do apparently trust me to take an important decision for you. If everything is as it appears this set of mortals is even more stupid than the usual lot.
Looking at the the list it start of with the necromancers attacking the geomancers. The the pyromancers intevene breifly, before the necromacners start attacking the vitamancers Then the vitamancers and the pyromancers start attacking one another Then things gets pretty random Then the necromancers attack ther cryomancers. Then there are 607 groups of 5 battles where all of the mancers ignoring the electomancer are involved in once.
The groups of 5 battles involve a lot of groups with attacks on both sides territory, which suggest either a very good spy network predicting one sides attacks, or someone is actively organising this. It also suggests the records are grouped in chronological order.
The so called good mancers have won more battles than the other side, in particular once the group battles occur their lead over the other mancers appears to increase at a roughly constant rate. Granted some battles can be more important than others, but it does rather suggest that this plane is in rather more danger of being taken over by this lot than the other lot. You may call yourselves good, but anyone can call themselves that.
Assuming the probabilities of each mancers winning a battle only depend on the mancers involved and the location, and not any other battles suggest that if I want to maximise their chances of winning 5 battles I should tell them to: Cryomancer COUNTER v Pyromancer A 100.0 % of WIN Min data points 18 Vitamancer A COUNTER v Pyromancer B 71.42857142857143 % of WIN Min data points 18 Geomancer A DEFEND v Necromancer A 100.0 % of WIN Min data points 18 Vitamancer B COUNTER v Necromancer B 65.21739130434783 % of WIN Min data points 18 Geomancer B DEFEND v Necromancer C 100.0 % of WIN Min data points 18 P(All Win) = 46.58385093167702 P(4 Win) = 71.42857142857143
And if I was to sabotage there efforts by maximising there chances of losing 5 battles: Vitamancer A DEFEND v Pyromancer A 11.888111888111888 % of WIN Min data points 19 Cryomancer DEFEND v Pyromancer B 12.5 % of WIN Min data points 19 Vitamancer B COUNTER v Necromancer A 0.0 % of WIN Min data points 19 Geomancer A COUNTER v Necromancer B 28.000000000000004 % of WIN Min data points 19 Geomancer B COUNTER v Necromancer C 4.166666666666666 % of WIN Min data points 19 P(All Lose) = 53.197552447552454 P(4 Lose) = 73.88548951048952
Is winning all 5 battles more important than a bigger chance of winning 4 battles . This bunch of incompetents don’t say. In any case it makes no difference if I was to help them, and only a small difference if I wasn’t.
Confining the analysis just to the groups of 5 yields slightly different results: Vitamancer B COUNTER v Pyromancer A 89.1891891891892 % of WIN Min data points 18 Cryomancer COUNTER v Pyromancer B 85.29411764705883 % of WIN Min data points 18 Geomancer A DEFEND v Necromancer A 100.0 % of WIN Min data points 18 Vitamancer A DEFEND v Necromancer B 76.92307692307693 % of WIN Min data points 18 Geomancer B DEFEND v Necromancer C 100.0 % of WIN Min data points 18 P(All Win) = 58.51779381191147 P(4 Win) = 76.0731319554849
Vitamancer A DEFEND v Pyromancer A 9.090909090909092 % of WIN Min data points 12 Cryomancer DEFEND v Pyromancer B 12.5 % of WIN Min data points 12 Vitamancer B COUNTER v Necromancer A 0.0 % of WIN Min data points 12 Geomancer A COUNTER v Necromancer B 31.57894736842105 % of WIN Min data points 12 Geomancer B COUNTER v Necromancer C 4.166666666666666 % of WIN Min data points 12 P(All Lose) = 52.15809409888358 P(4 Lose) = 76.23106060606062
As the situation qualitatively changed when the groups of battles started to occur these are the ones to use if I want to help or hinder them? But do I? On the available data there is no obvious way to know which outcome would best server my interests. If they are distrustfull enough to take all these precautions they may be expecting me to give them what seems to be the worst possible outcome, and they are trying to trick me by changing the labels so that it is actually the best.
These mind games are what demons should be playing on mortals not the other way around. They are really out of line by putting me in this position! So I won’t give them any advice at all. Whatever they were planning it is highly unlikely that they would go to the trouble of summoning a demon in the hope that it would ignore them. And if I ever comes across them again in more normal circumstances I will be sure to teach them a lesson. Now back to some good old fashioning demoning...
Spoiler protection
So you foolish mortals, you don’t trust me enough to give your true names,
your worried that I might talk you out of your soul if you allow me to talk to you,
and you feel the need to put in place precautions to stop me sending you anything other than your marching
orders. Despite this you do apparently trust me to take an important decision for you. If everything is
as it appears this set of mortals is even more stupid than the usual lot.
Looking at the the list it start of with the necromancers attacking the geomancers.
The the pyromancers intevene breifly, before the necromacners start attacking the vitamancers
Then the vitamancers and the pyromancers start attacking one another
Then things gets pretty random
Then the necromancers attack ther cryomancers.
Then there are 607 groups of 5 battles where all of the mancers ignoring the electomancer are involved in once.
The groups of 5 battles involve a lot of groups with attacks on both sides territory, which suggest either a
very good spy network predicting one sides attacks, or someone is actively organising this. It also suggests the records are grouped in chronological order.
The so called good mancers have won more battles than the other side, in particular once the group battles
occur their lead over the other mancers appears to increase at a roughly constant rate. Granted some battles
can be more important than others, but it does rather suggest that this plane is in rather more danger of
being taken over by this lot than the other lot. You may call yourselves good, but anyone can call
themselves that.
Assuming the probabilities of each mancers winning a battle only depend on the mancers involved and the
location, and not any other battles suggest that if I want to maximise their chances of winning 5 battles
I should tell them to:
Cryomancer COUNTER v Pyromancer A 100.0 % of WIN Min data points 18
Vitamancer A COUNTER v Pyromancer B 71.42857142857143 % of WIN Min data points 18
Geomancer A DEFEND v Necromancer A 100.0 % of WIN Min data points 18
Vitamancer B COUNTER v Necromancer B 65.21739130434783 % of WIN Min data points 18
Geomancer B DEFEND v Necromancer C 100.0 % of WIN Min data points 18
P(All Win) = 46.58385093167702
P(4 Win) = 71.42857142857143
And if I was to sabotage there efforts by maximising there chances of losing 5 battles:
Vitamancer A DEFEND v Pyromancer A 11.888111888111888 % of WIN Min data points 19
Cryomancer DEFEND v Pyromancer B 12.5 % of WIN Min data points 19
Vitamancer B COUNTER v Necromancer A 0.0 % of WIN Min data points 19
Geomancer A COUNTER v Necromancer B 28.000000000000004 % of WIN Min data points 19
Geomancer B COUNTER v Necromancer C 4.166666666666666 % of WIN Min data points 19
P(All Lose) = 53.197552447552454
P(4 Lose) = 73.88548951048952
Is winning all 5 battles more important than a bigger chance of winning 4 battles . This bunch of incompetents don’t say. In any case it makes no difference if I was to help them, and only a small difference if I wasn’t.
Confining the analysis just to the groups of 5 yields slightly different results:
Vitamancer B COUNTER v Pyromancer A 89.1891891891892 % of WIN Min data points 18
Cryomancer COUNTER v Pyromancer B 85.29411764705883 % of WIN Min data points 18
Geomancer A DEFEND v Necromancer A 100.0 % of WIN Min data points 18
Vitamancer A DEFEND v Necromancer B 76.92307692307693 % of WIN Min data points 18
Geomancer B DEFEND v Necromancer C 100.0 % of WIN Min data points 18
P(All Win) = 58.51779381191147
P(4 Win) = 76.0731319554849
Vitamancer A DEFEND v Pyromancer A 9.090909090909092 % of WIN Min data points 12
Cryomancer DEFEND v Pyromancer B 12.5 % of WIN Min data points 12
Vitamancer B COUNTER v Necromancer A 0.0 % of WIN Min data points 12
Geomancer A COUNTER v Necromancer B 31.57894736842105 % of WIN Min data points 12
Geomancer B COUNTER v Necromancer C 4.166666666666666 % of WIN Min data points 12
P(All Lose) = 52.15809409888358
P(4 Lose) = 76.23106060606062
As the situation qualitatively changed when the groups of battles started to occur these are the ones to use
if I want to help or hinder them? But do I? On the available data there is no obvious way to know which outcome would best server my interests. If they are distrustfull enough to take all these precautions they may be expecting me to give them what seems to be the worst possible outcome, and they are trying to trick me by changing the labels so that it is actually the best.
These mind games are what demons should be playing on mortals not the other way around. They are really out of line by putting me in this position! So I won’t give them any advice at all. Whatever they were planning
it is highly unlikely that they would go to the trouble of summoning a demon in the hope that it would
ignore them. And if I ever comes across them again in more normal circumstances I will be sure to teach them a lesson. Now back to some good old fashioning demoning...
Thank you for posting this. The larger-than-expected discrepancy between it and my own results prompted me to find a bug in my code.