Current Events > Which of these is "harder"?

(+) Yeah! (+)

So these two things are both ~20% chance of success (though I rounded). Despite this, people seem to have differing philosophies on whether these two are truly equal when you're talking about e.g. difficulty of a game/speedrun. What are your thoughts on it?

---

The repetition of the 160 times is bound to induce boredom. That will cause a fuck up eventually.
Source- FFX lightning dodging

---

your mum's bean

---

is it a 99% success rate only if you know exactly how it works, or does anyone that tries it succeed 99% of the time?

---

Imit8m3 posted...

The repetition of the 160 times is bound to induce boredom. That will cause a fuck up eventually.
Source- FFX lightning dodging

Yeah, if the 160 times are in a row it's going to be harder due to fatigue, but if they're separate then it's the same.

---

Surely it would be quicker to do something successfully that has a 20% chance once, than it is to do it 160 times, regardless of the chance of those 160 attempts.

Or is that the entire point of the maths here.

---

mobilebloechel posted...

I've played xcom enough to never trust 99%

true, I guess I should specify that these %s are your "true" rate (i.e. there's no in game randomness determining whether you succeed)

Imit8m3 posted...

The repetition of the 160 times is bound to induce boredom. That will cause a f*** up eventually.

So I guess the question is whether that tediousness is exciting to see someone conquer or not or from the player's perspective whether you think that succeeding at it was difficult.

---

Basically get the cannonless star without setting up vs getting every star in the game

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

is it a 99% success rate only if you know exactly how it works, or does anyone that tries it succeed 99% of the time?

Those are *your* % success rates, so hypothetically you could get better at either thing.

FurryPhilosifer posted...

Surely it would be quicker to do something successfully that has a 20% chance once, than it is to do it 160 times, regardless of the chance of those 160 attempts.

Or is that the entire point of the maths here.

Yeah but if it comes at the end of a 2 hour speedrun or something, that time difference is less important. Potentially of course, I'm trying to keep the actions vague so 160 iterations might be quicker than one iteration of the 20% thing.


---

I think the two would be more comparable if there was a limit on tries for the first choice, or at least some other requirement beyond execution. It's not really a fair comparison to have one have two factors, chance and attempt #, versus just chance

---