Y-Wing droprate

Replies

  • Ouch, that has to hurt. I looked at that list of characters & was like, no thank you, far to many useless things in there for my taste.

    1778 Energy Spent
    1.5748% Drop Rate
    28 Shards

    But there were 3 good ones...lol
  • ZAP wrote: »
    I’d like to see those that unlock for 1250 crystals post
    I’m at 53/80 having spent 750 so far.

    Unlocking for 1250 crystals over the 5 days is possible, and I hope to achieve that.

    Unlocking in the middle of day 3 for 1250 crystals isn’t very likely.
  • I would like to see some sort of audit and/or certification done by an external accredited security firm to ensure that CG are using approved rng algorithms and also that they’ve implemented them correctly to achieve the game rules that they claim.
  • I would like to see some sort of audit and/or certification done by an external accredited security firm to ensure that CG are using approved rng algorithms and also that they’ve implemented them correctly to achieve the game rules that they claim.

    Lots of data in this thread. You could add yours?
  • Kyno
    23504 posts Moderator
    I would like to see some sort of audit and/or certification done by an external accredited security firm to ensure that CG are using approved rng algorithms and also that they’ve implemented them correctly to achieve the game rules that they claim.

    I think many of us would like to see anyone collect data and show that they are not doing what they have said, because for all the threads and theories we see, not a single set of credible data has ever come up proving anything other than what they have stated, or consistancy with what other players have proven (when it has not been stated by CG)

    You would think with all the hate and distrust out there that there would be alot of players trying to prove they have done something wrong, yet we have yet to see it.

    Also, not sure what an "approved algorithm" is, or if there is such a thing in this industry.
  • I would like to see some sort of audit and/or certification done by an external accredited security firm to ensure that CG are using approved rng algorithms and also that they’ve implemented them correctly to achieve the game rules that they claim.

    Lots of data in this thread. You could add yours?

    Sure, 52/80 spent 1350 crystals.
    But it doesn’t really matter if a few hundred of players collect their data, it doesn’t really guarantee anything about the generation of randomness or how CG use those values.
    I’m not saying it’s rigged but there can be bugs or other errors that an security firm could validate by going through source code and libraries used.
    And after getting a certificate CG could have that badge published and no one would ever dispute that things are working as it should.
  • MasterSeedy
    1918 posts Member
    After 2 days, I had spent 1050 crystals (spent 3 x50 refreshes just before the event went live, which was technically the previous day from the game's point of view, then 3x50+3x100 for each live day of the event).

    At that point,I was at 43/80, which was just slightly above the listed drop rate of 20% for my 10 energy node (I'm farming gear exclusively)

    285 + 360 = 645 = 64.5 attempts/day with 3 days remaining. The final 1/2 attempt won't count for anything, thus...

    At a drop rate of 20%, that's 0.2 * 193 = 38.4 new blueprints expected from 450 more crystals.

    43 + 38 = 81 blueprints on a total of 1050 + 450 = 1500 crystals.

    So, if you pre-spent to load up on fleet energy, you could just barely get to unlock on 1500 crystals. I'm really not sure where anyone got any ideas that it would be cheaper than that.
  • MasterSeedy
    1918 posts Member
    Just got 15/60 on my next set of drops.

    day 1 was 28/127
    yesterday was 15/103
    43/230 for 1st 2 days,

    So, cumulative total is now 58/290... and what do you know? That works out to exactly a 0.02 shards per point of energy spent.
  • After 2 days, I had spent 1050 crystals (spent 3 x50 refreshes just before the event went live, which was technically the previous day from the game's point of view, then 3x50+3x100 for each live day of the event).

    At that point,I was at 43/80, which was just slightly above the listed drop rate of 20% for my 10 energy node (I'm farming gear exclusively)

    285 + 360 = 645 = 64.5 attempts/day with 3 days remaining. The final 1/2 attempt won't count for anything, thus...

    At a drop rate of 20%, that's 0.2 * 193 = 38.4 new blueprints expected from 450 more crystals.

    43 + 38 = 81 blueprints on a total of 1050 + 450 = 1500 crystals.

    So, if you pre-spent to load up on fleet energy, you could just barely get to unlock on 1500 crystals. I'm really not sure where anyone got any ideas that it would be cheaper than that.
    I get my ideas from me being 53/80 having spent 250 per day for 3 days. If my drop rate maintains, I’ll unlock for 1250.

    Not sure why that’s such a stretch?
  • Kyno
    23504 posts Moderator
    edited May 23
    After 2 days, I had spent 1050 crystals (spent 3 x50 refreshes just before the event went live, which was technically the previous day from the game's point of view, then 3x50+3x100 for each live day of the event).

    At that point,I was at 43/80, which was just slightly above the listed drop rate of 20% for my 10 energy node (I'm farming gear exclusively)

    285 + 360 = 645 = 64.5 attempts/day with 3 days remaining. The final 1/2 attempt won't count for anything, thus...

    At a drop rate of 20%, that's 0.2 * 193 = 38.4 new blueprints expected from 450 more crystals.

    43 + 38 = 81 blueprints on a total of 1050 + 450 = 1500 crystals.

    So, if you pre-spent to load up on fleet energy, you could just barely get to unlock on 1500 crystals. I'm really not sure where anyone got any ideas that it would be cheaper than that.
    I get my ideas from me being 53/80 having spent 250 per day for 3 days. If my drop rate maintains, I’ll unlock for 1250.

    Not sure why that’s such a stretch?

    Well the math puts it higher assuming 2%. It doesnt mean that someone cannot get there, but it is less likely.

    144 + 5 days of 240 will equal 26 shards.

    The remaining 54 would require 2700 energy.

    Or roughly 23 refreshes.

    3 a day for 5 days (@50) leaves 8 @ 100

    That is a total of 1550.

    I am not going to go into the statistics of a bell curve (I'm not that bored), but that 1250 seems reasonable to fall close (ish) to the mean, so maybe not a stretch but definitely less likely. But we cannot tell without the knowing the deviation
  • Kyno wrote: »
    After 2 days, I had spent 1050 crystals (spent 3 x50 refreshes just before the event went live, which was technically the previous day from the game's point of view, then 3x50+3x100 for each live day of the event).

    At that point,I was at 43/80, which was just slightly above the listed drop rate of 20% for my 10 energy node (I'm farming gear exclusively)

    285 + 360 = 645 = 64.5 attempts/day with 3 days remaining. The final 1/2 attempt won't count for anything, thus...

    At a drop rate of 20%, that's 0.2 * 193 = 38.4 new blueprints expected from 450 more crystals.

    43 + 38 = 81 blueprints on a total of 1050 + 450 = 1500 crystals.

    So, if you pre-spent to load up on fleet energy, you could just barely get to unlock on 1500 crystals. I'm really not sure where anyone got any ideas that it would be cheaper than that.
    I get my ideas from me being 53/80 having spent 250 per day for 3 days. If my drop rate maintains, I’ll unlock for 1250.

    Not sure why that’s such a stretch?

    Well the math puts it higher assuming 2%. It doesnt mean that someone cannot get there, but it is less likely.

    144 + 5 days of 240 will equal 26 shards.

    The remaining 54 would require 2700 energy.

    Or roughly 23 refreshes.

    3 a day for 5 days (@50) leaves 8 @ 100

    That is a total of 1550.

    I am not going to go into the statistics of a bell curve (I'm not that bored), but that 1250 seems reasonable to fall close (ish) to the mean, so maybe not a stretch but definitely less likely. But we cannot tell without the knowing the deviation
    That’s fair. I have kept my data and I’m at 54/2440 energy, having indeed gone in with slightly more than 144 (just from collecting the previous day bonus energy, no pre-loading with crystals)

    That’s slightly above 2%, so I might find my drop rate normalises and I need to shell out more on day 5.


  • ZAP
    2627 posts Member
    Here’s where I’m at with 650 crystals spent

    I run good

    oe6l1sqqy5lv.png
  • NicWester
    7211 posts Member
    I'm at 22 with no crystals spent. I think my luck is a little bit better, though, so I'm expecting a regression to the mean.

    I'm going to get what I can now, not going to spend any crystals on the ship. This drop rate is a little worse than when it comes out for real, but I've got 28.5 free attempts per day with my choice of decent gear. So I'll get what I can while the getting is good, but at the end of the day I'm going to have to farm it on a hard node eventually anyway, so no sense in spending crystals that are better used on gear I can use right now.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • MasterSeedy
    1918 posts Member
    edited May 23
    @NicWester
    I think my luck is a little bit better, though, so I'm expecting a regression to the mean.

    Yeah, I had a pretty good first day, then a really lousy 2nd day, then a wonderful 3rd day (so far, I'm still planning on doing my 3x100 crystal refreshes but haven't done them yet). And guess what? I was ahead after Day1, behind a bit after day 2, and at exactly 20% per 10 energy node - I mean EXACTLY - after day 3.

    With enough trials, regression to the mean is a thing. at 58/80 I'm pretty sure to unlock the beast, but it would have taken far more than I was willing to spend to get it to 5*. I'm expecting to finish having collected about 100 shards.
  • Kyno
    23504 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    After 2 days, I had spent 1050 crystals (spent 3 x50 refreshes just before the event went live, which was technically the previous day from the game's point of view, then 3x50+3x100 for each live day of the event).

    At that point,I was at 43/80, which was just slightly above the listed drop rate of 20% for my 10 energy node (I'm farming gear exclusively)

    285 + 360 = 645 = 64.5 attempts/day with 3 days remaining. The final 1/2 attempt won't count for anything, thus...

    At a drop rate of 20%, that's 0.2 * 193 = 38.4 new blueprints expected from 450 more crystals.

    43 + 38 = 81 blueprints on a total of 1050 + 450 = 1500 crystals.

    So, if you pre-spent to load up on fleet energy, you could just barely get to unlock on 1500 crystals. I'm really not sure where anyone got any ideas that it would be cheaper than that.
    I get my ideas from me being 53/80 having spent 250 per day for 3 days. If my drop rate maintains, I’ll unlock for 1250.

    Not sure why that’s such a stretch?

    Well the math puts it higher assuming 2%. It doesnt mean that someone cannot get there, but it is less likely.

    144 + 5 days of 240 will equal 26 shards.

    The remaining 54 would require 2700 energy.

    Or roughly 23 refreshes.

    3 a day for 5 days (@50) leaves 8 @ 100

    That is a total of 1550.

    I am not going to go into the statistics of a bell curve (I'm not that bored), but that 1250 seems reasonable to fall close (ish) to the mean, so maybe not a stretch but definitely less likely. But we cannot tell without the knowing the deviation
    That’s fair. I have kept my data and I’m at 54/2440 energy, having indeed gone in with slightly more than 144 (just from collecting the previous day bonus energy, no pre-loading with crystals)

    That’s slightly above 2%, so I might find my drop rate normalises and I need to shell out more on day 5.


    Yeah, honestly the short period of the event may give it more "variance", as anyone on one side or the other of the mean may not make enough pulls to "normalize".

    I usually plot to have less pulls on the last day, it's not always the cheapest way to do it, but less risky, those 200 refreshes can kill your average quick.
  • I am at 58 shards with 900 crystals used (12 * 50 and 3 * 100).

    I have 2* free 45 energy bonuses left, and 460 regular energy from the remaining 46 hours. 540 * .02 = ~ 11 shards.

    That would put me at 69. Can get 360 more energy for 150 crystals tomorrow, and will probably have to do two more refreshes at 100 to push past 80.

    That is 900 + 150 + 200 = 1250

    I am shockingly average.
  • 9unim9q4gwjp.png

    Drop rates are good
  • ZAP
    2627 posts Member
    For the record

    I hate you all
  • MasterSeedy
    1918 posts Member
    Past Performance:
    Just got 15/60 on my next set of drops.
    day 1 was 28/127
    yesterday was 15/103
    43/230 for 1st 2 days,
    So, cumulative total is now 58/290... and what do you know? That works out to exactly a 0.02 shards per point of energy spent.

    And just now got 8/48 (for 1-in-6 or 16.66667% per attempt at a 10 energy node).

    Running total is 66 / 338 = 0.01953 blueprints per energy spent, or 19.53% drop rate on my 10 energy node.

    Getting about 19-20/day, considering my pre-loaded energy before the event started. Estimate of 100 blueprints collected at the end of the event is looking pretty solid. Right now expectation is 100-105 total, but bad RNG is always a possibility.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    This drop rate is a little worse than when it comes out for real,
    I don't think that is right.

    5 Sims on a 20 Energy Node = 100 Energy

    2% = 2 Shards
    Average Shads per 5 Sims at normal 1/3 rate is 1.67.

    So assuming a 20 energy node, I think this is still better.

  • ZAP wrote: »
    For the record

    I hate you all


    I'm right there with you. (ok, maybe not "That" bad, but I'm going at 1.6% over 3 days)

    3 Days in, 450 crystals spent, 33 shards
  • Malevolan
    284 posts Member
    I was doing up to all 3 100 crystal refreshes on ship energy. But I got the 4* unlock doubt I can really push for 5* with the time left
    But I think this was a better drop rate than I had on Anakin's eta-2
  • Kyno wrote: »
    I would like to see some sort of audit and/or certification done by an external accredited security firm to ensure that CG are using approved rng algorithms and also that they’ve implemented them correctly to achieve the game rules that they claim.

    I think many of us would like to see anyone collect data and show that they are not doing what they have said, because for all the threads and theories we see, not a single set of credible data has ever come up proving anything other than what they have stated, or consistancy with what other players have proven (when it has not been stated by CG)

    You would think with all the hate and distrust out there that there would be alot of players trying to prove they have done something wrong, yet we have yet to see it.

    Also, not sure what an "approved algorithm" is, or if there is such a thing in this industry.

    Why noone bothers to check the EA patents about it?You can freely google it,yet only 1 person was brave enough to answer a bit my post about it.
  • DarjeloSalas
    3086 posts Member
    edited May 24
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would like to see some sort of audit and/or certification done by an external accredited security firm to ensure that CG are using approved rng algorithms and also that they’ve implemented them correctly to achieve the game rules that they claim.

    I think many of us would like to see anyone collect data and show that they are not doing what they have said, because for all the threads and theories we see, not a single set of credible data has ever come up proving anything other than what they have stated, or consistancy with what other players have proven (when it has not been stated by CG)

    You would think with all the hate and distrust out there that there would be alot of players trying to prove they have done something wrong, yet we have yet to see it.

    Also, not sure what an "approved algorithm" is, or if there is such a thing in this industry.

    Why noone bothers to check the EA patents about it?You can freely google it,yet only 1 person was brave enough to answer a bit my post about it.
    “Noone” bothers because they have stated openly and publicly that those patents are not in use in this game.

    edit: fixed an autocorrect atrocity
  • Kyno wrote: »
    I would like to see some sort of audit and/or certification done by an external accredited security firm to ensure that CG are using approved rng algorithms and also that they’ve implemented them correctly to achieve the game rules that they claim.

    I think many of us would like to see anyone collect data and show that they are not doing what they have said, because for all the threads and theories we see, not a single set of credible data has ever come up proving anything other than what they have stated, or consistancy with what other players have proven (when it has not been stated by CG)

    You would think with all the hate and distrust out there that there would be alot of players trying to prove they have done something wrong, yet we have yet to see it.

    Also, not sure what an "approved algorithm" is, or if there is such a thing in this industry.

    ‘Approved’ might be the wrong word, sorry English is not my native language but maybe I should have used ‘verified’ or ‘best practice’, hopefully my meaning is a bit clearer.
    Data has been collected by different players and depending on what a person wants to indicate with their data it can show different scenarios. That’s why I think it’s meaningless to post individual data sets. It’s always easy to blow off data that doesn’t fit your thesis and call it non credible but the data sets “proving” the point one tries to drive is of course indisputable.
    For that exact reason I want to see an evaluation by an accredited third party, where they have access to source code and a test lab where they can run sufficiently large sets of data in a controlled setting.
    There are plenty of those kind of companies and given the extremely high revenue streams that this game is generating I don’t think it would be an issue to do this. On the contrary I’m surprised CG haven’t done this a long time ago. Most gambling companies are required to do this.

  • MaruMaru
    456 posts Member
    1600 crystals in now. Doesn't look necessary to spend all 100 for today and probably tomorrow (last day for me).

    03ddyye1l7xq.png
  • Kyno
    23504 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would like to see some sort of audit and/or certification done by an external accredited security firm to ensure that CG are using approved rng algorithms and also that they’ve implemented them correctly to achieve the game rules that they claim.

    I think many of us would like to see anyone collect data and show that they are not doing what they have said, because for all the threads and theories we see, not a single set of credible data has ever come up proving anything other than what they have stated, or consistancy with what other players have proven (when it has not been stated by CG)

    You would think with all the hate and distrust out there that there would be alot of players trying to prove they have done something wrong, yet we have yet to see it.

    Also, not sure what an "approved algorithm" is, or if there is such a thing in this industry.

    ‘Approved’ might be the wrong word, sorry English is not my native language but maybe I should have used ‘verified’ or ‘best practice’, hopefully my meaning is a bit clearer.
    Data has been collected by different players and depending on what a person wants to indicate with their data it can show different scenarios. That’s why I think it’s meaningless to post individual data sets. It’s always easy to blow off data that doesn’t fit your thesis and call it non credible but the data sets “proving” the point one tries to drive is of course indisputable.
    For that exact reason I want to see an evaluation by an accredited third party, where they have access to source code and a test lab where they can run sufficiently large sets of data in a controlled setting.
    There are plenty of those kind of companies and given the extremely high revenue streams that this game is generating I don’t think it would be an issue to do this. On the contrary I’m surprised CG haven’t done this a long time ago. Most gambling companies are required to do this.

    Individual data sets have always come to the same conclusion when they are of an appropriate size. Individual data sets have worked great in proving any theory posed that they are not what we think they are.

    Gambling companies are required by law to do this, they are not doing it to "do the right thing". This is not a gambling game.

    I understand you would want this, but as of right now there has been no proof they are not, so the necessity is not there, it's just a desire based on whatever feelings players have towards them....
  • Kyno wrote: »
    They are looking into this.

    it seems from a few of the numbers posted above that the overall rate is approaching 2% which seems right, since the old was 4% and they changed the rates for energy.......how much cost that will equal to doesnt' seem to line up with previous models, which is also shown in a few posters data.....

    The drop rates and energy rates weren't broke before. Why are they trying to "fix" something?
  • MaruMaru
    456 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    They are looking into this.

    it seems from a few of the numbers posted above that the overall rate is approaching 2% which seems right, since the old was 4% and they changed the rates for energy.......how much cost that will equal to doesnt' seem to line up with previous models, which is also shown in a few posters data.....

    The drop rates and energy rates weren't broke before. Why are they trying to "fix" something?

    What do u mean fix? They didn't fix it, they changed it with the reasons given in the announcement (on a false calculation on their part)
  • NicWester
    7211 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    This drop rate is a little worse than when it comes out for real,
    I don't think that is right.

    5 Sims on a 20 Energy Node = 100 Energy

    2% = 2 Shards
    Average Shads per 5 Sims at normal 1/3 rate is 1.67.

    So assuming a 20 energy node, I think this is still better.
    Yeah, you're right. I finished Sith Fighter a couple weeks ago and have no more hard node characters or ships to farm, so I didn't think about hard nodes as an option. I should probably farm so e hards with good gear drops until this thing is over, I might wind up with more blueprints in the long run. Thanks for the heads up!
    Kyno wrote: »
    They are looking into this.

    it seems from a few of the numbers posted above that the overall rate is approaching 2% which seems right, since the old was 4% and they changed the rates for energy.......how much cost that will equal to doesnt' seem to line up with previous models, which is also shown in a few posters data.....

    The drop rates and energy rates weren't broke before. Why are they trying to "fix" something?
    They explained why. Earlier Galactic Chases were back when you had half as much fleet energy. You have more now, so they tuned the drop rate down to keep the expected value the same.

    As Kyno said, though, since the event is only a couple days long it's going to have a wider spread of results in the final analysis, but it's long enough that most folks are going to hit that expected return.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
Sign In or Register to comment.