Every occasion has a potential route of risk. I’ve acknowledged this throughout my life, and I’m sure others have similarly. As a child, I gambled my academic career. It was wholeheartedly worth it and functioned well until I reached a certain checkpoint in my life. Thankfully, I didn’t risk my academic position intensely; here and there, on a daily basis, I’d finalize some homework at lunch or detention and utilize my peers when I wasn’t allowed to. Success.
If I went any further than that, my grades would have deteriorated. Most of my homework assignments were unanimously correct. Deviating from my personal life, risk is an inevitable aspect of our lives. The question is: what invoked or voided the route of risk.
It’s a fundamental matter of conceptuality vs severity. This isn’t the boldest approach ever; it’s pretty standard actually. I’ve been touching on this for a while but couldn’t actually think of accurate terminology for it.
In definition: conceptuality is the critical difference a risk can make or break. In double or nothing - if you lose, you can’t recollect your income in a timely manner. That conceptually is worse than reward, because if you didn’t do the bargain initially you could still progress. If you win you can still progress; if you don’t participate at all you can still progress; if you lose, you can’t progress. Conceptually, this shouldn’t be fulfilled. In definition: severity (also known as intensity) is how problematic or advantageous a concept can be. Losing in a double or nothing can be extremely problematic. Winning in a double or nothing can be extremely advantageous. However, losing would be more disadvantageous than winning would be advantageous. So, in terms of severity, double or nothing is not ideal.
The beauty of severity is that the larger the risk is, the more the severity escalates. In a double or nothing, losing is more problematic than winning is advantageous. So if I bargained 500 Robux on for double or nothing and lost, I would lose 500 Robux. Whereas if I did so with 10,000 Robux and lost, my destination is the same as the 500 Robux bargainer: zero.
Every risk has a concept and its severity. Better demonstrated through example: conventional double or nothing. A player with 10,000 Robux gambling it all in search of doubling their total. Foremost, conceptuality should be considered. If the player loses, they will be left with nothing - they cannot open any route requiring finance until they eventually recollect their Robux. If the player wins, they can still open a new route in their career requiring finance just as they initially could. So, is it worth the risk?
No. If the player doesn’t fulfill the bet initially, they can still stabilize their total Robux and increase it. Then comes the severity, which was already briefly discussed about. Multiplying your income is severe, but not as severe as ending up without any Robux. Circumstantially, the risk does not outweigh the reward.
The previous example was indeed bold, so perhaps a more passive demonstration should do: a team of two chefs. There are two teams and two competitions—each team consists of two. First competition; your up, you draw. Second competition and your teammate is up, they draw.
The ultimate question, and this is more or less hypothetical documentation: would you accept the two draws of prefer one win and one loss. Foremost, the conceptuality. At the current situation, your teammate and you are equally credited. Taking the risk with the hope of releasing tensions off yourself: you’d be able to validly lecture your teammate, but nothing much more - ultimately, the total competitions were a draw. If you lost, you could potentially lose credibility and, consequently, your teammate could validly be disinclined in relying on you. The severity - if you win you establish credibility - if you lose, the effect inverts.
Not worth it. Equality will ensure your teammate cannot verbally overpower you. It will motivate both of you to push your buttons and unlock your potential. It will motivate you to show persistence. Although this risk is so minor and hypothetical, it is worth considering and extracting for the purpose of education.
Here’s a final demonstration with a minor overall impact: risking 10,000 Robux when the player has 10 million Robux. Both recipients of the bargain are equally equipped with Robux. Foremost, conceptuality. The loser of the bargain can quickly recover from the loss as it typically shouldn’t structurally deteriorate his Robux. Either way, the loser and winner will practically achieve identical feats as they have very similar income.
And the intensity: there is no crucial penalty. The loser can shrug it off and move forward. The winner has practically nothing over the loser financially. This risk can be concluded, although the effects are generally neutral.
Risk correlates with everything. Typing a list about its application in game design is irrational. If you ever find a route of risk, refer to this article. That’s as realistic as the application gets.
This article was a spaghetti of text, and I apologize in advance for crumbling your eyes.