They're 2% - but Kyno has suggested it's our fault for apparently NOT assuming CG had manipulated the drop rate this time.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
I had a really lucky run initially (730 energy and 40 shards) since then I’ve spent 600 more energy and gotten 10 more shards. I’m a little confused why folks are upset, these characters were released as rewards a couple weeks back so we got our usual “free ones” and now they are bonus drops on nodes we are already farming. Unless I’m totally crazy (possible) won’t the total number of “free” shards work out about the same as a galactic chase seeing as we got them free at 3* first?
So they took the 4% rate and cut it in half because you are getting two toons instead of one. Shrug.
If you need twice as many shards (2 characters instead of 1) it will take you 4 times as long as it would have with 1 character at 4%. So, in practical terms, they 1/4th it.
Post edited by Nikoms565 on
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
I'm amazed people thought CG would give them two new toons for free.
Are y'all here new?
The only true bummer is that, unlike other Journey events, all toons will be exclusively farmable in hard nodes (after this small event). Even the Revans had some variety (cantina/shops).
Broadening the spectrum, maybe the Millenium Falcon is the only other journey/legendary with exclusively hard node farm requirements?
So they took the 4% rate and cut it in half because you are getting two toons instead of one. Shrug.
Math is not your strong point is it? If you need twice as many shards (2 characters instead of 1) it will take you 4 times as long as it would have with 1 character at 4%. So, in practical terms, they 1/4th it.
Wow thanks for that, Professor.
"Need" is a relative term. These toons are collected on their own as well as what they are used for, and if the drop rate is 2% for two toons that's the same as 4% for one. Math.
Yes. Each character has a 1% drop rate. I combined a bunch of reports of people who were reporting by node and of people who were reporting by energy. It's on page 2 or 3 here, but I think 2. It incorporates all the usable data on page 1.
The combined drop rate for people reporting by energy was 2.1% and the combined rate for people reporting by attempts on a 16 energy node (so the drop rate per energy was calculable) was 1.9%
My own personal drop rate on day 1 was 38.7% per attempt on 16 energy nodes, or 2.4% combined drop rate. From what I can tell, I seem to be one of the lucky ones.
If the combined drop rate had been 4% (and presumably therefore 2% per toon, because why would they make one more prevalent than the other) I don't think anyone would be complaining.
While we don't have huge amounts of data, I did aggregate everything usable on page 1 which included a number of people who used 1500+ energy on this yesterday. I'm confident that 1.9% to 2.1% combined drop rate and therefore 0.95% to 1.05% individual drop rates are fair estimates at this point, even if my own limited sample (on 496 energy/ 31 attempts on a 16 energy node) fell slightly above this range.
Yes. Each character has a 1% drop rate. I combined a bunch of reports of people who were reporting by node and of people who were reporting by energy. It's on page 2 or 3 here, but I think 2. It incorporates all the usable data on page 1.
The combined drop rate for people reporting by energy was 2.1% and the combined rate for people reporting by attempts on a 16 energy node (so the drop rate per energy was calculable) was 1.9%
My own personal drop rate on day 1 was 38.7% per attempt on 16 energy nodes, or 2.4% combined drop rate. From what I can tell, I seem to be one of the lucky ones.
If the combined drop rate had been 4% (and presumably therefore 2% per toon, because why would they make one more prevalent than the other) I don't think anyone would be complaining.
While we don't have huge amounts of data, I did aggregate everything usable on page 1 which included a number of people who used 1500+ energy on this yesterday. I'm confident that 1.9% to 2.1% combined drop rate and therefore 0.95% to 1.05% individual drop rates are fair estimates at this point, even if my own limited sample (on 496 energy/ 31 attempts on a 16 energy node) fell slightly above this range.
If that's the case, then that's dumb, it should be 4% total or 2% per toon to line up with previous chases. With that said, nik's post would then be wrong in addition to being needlessly insulting.
Yes. Each character has a 1% drop rate. I combined a bunch of reports of people who were reporting by node and of people who were reporting by energy. It's on page 2 or 3 here, but I think 2. It incorporates all the usable data on page 1.
The combined drop rate for people reporting by energy was 2.1% and the combined rate for people reporting by attempts on a 16 energy node (so the drop rate per energy was calculable) was 1.9%
My own personal drop rate on day 1 was 38.7% per attempt on 16 energy nodes, or 2.4% combined drop rate. From what I can tell, I seem to be one of the lucky ones.
If the combined drop rate had been 4% (and presumably therefore 2% per toon, because why would they make one more prevalent than the other) I don't think anyone would be complaining.
While we don't have huge amounts of data, I did aggregate everything usable on page 1 which included a number of people who used 1500+ energy on this yesterday. I'm confident that 1.9% to 2.1% combined drop rate and therefore 0.95% to 1.05% individual drop rates are fair estimates at this point, even if my own limited sample (on 496 energy/ 31 attempts on a 16 energy node) fell slightly above this range.
If that's the case, then that's dumb, it should be 4% total or 2% per toon to line up with previous chases. With that said, nik's post would then be wrong in addition to being needlessly insulting.
Actually if they're going right to their permanent homes after the chase, instead of having a waiting period like previous chases, it still makes plenty of sense.
Yes. Each character has a 1% drop rate. I combined a bunch of reports of people who were reporting by node and of people who were reporting by energy. It's on page 2 or 3 here, but I think 2. It incorporates all the usable data on page 1.
The combined drop rate for people reporting by energy was 2.1% and the combined rate for people reporting by attempts on a 16 energy node (so the drop rate per energy was calculable) was 1.9%
My own personal drop rate on day 1 was 38.7% per attempt on 16 energy nodes, or 2.4% combined drop rate. From what I can tell, I seem to be one of the lucky ones.
If the combined drop rate had been 4% (and presumably therefore 2% per toon, because why would they make one more prevalent than the other) I don't think anyone would be complaining.
While we don't have huge amounts of data, I did aggregate everything usable on page 1 which included a number of people who used 1500+ energy on this yesterday. I'm confident that 1.9% to 2.1% combined drop rate and therefore 0.95% to 1.05% individual drop rates are fair estimates at this point, even if my own limited sample (on 496 energy/ 31 attempts on a 16 energy node) fell slightly above this range.
If that's the case, then that's dumb, it should be 4% total or 2% per toon to line up with previous chases. With that said, nik's post would then be wrong in addition to being needlessly insulting.
No, that is precisely what I said. To get BOTH characters to 7* (which you "need" to participate in the event) would take 4 times as long as if you were farming one character at 4% drop rate.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Yes. Each character has a 1% drop rate. I combined a bunch of reports of people who were reporting by node and of people who were reporting by energy. It's on page 2 or 3 here, but I think 2. It incorporates all the usable data on page 1.
The combined drop rate for people reporting by energy was 2.1% and the combined rate for people reporting by attempts on a 16 energy node (so the drop rate per energy was calculable) was 1.9%
My own personal drop rate on day 1 was 38.7% per attempt on 16 energy nodes, or 2.4% combined drop rate. From what I can tell, I seem to be one of the lucky ones.
If the combined drop rate had been 4% (and presumably therefore 2% per toon, because why would they make one more prevalent than the other) I don't think anyone would be complaining.
While we don't have huge amounts of data, I did aggregate everything usable on page 1 which included a number of people who used 1500+ energy on this yesterday. I'm confident that 1.9% to 2.1% combined drop rate and therefore 0.95% to 1.05% individual drop rates are fair estimates at this point, even if my own limited sample (on 496 energy/ 31 attempts on a 16 energy node) fell slightly above this range.
If that's the case, then that's dumb, it should be 4% total or 2% per toon to line up with previous chases. With that said, nik's post would then be wrong in addition to being needlessly insulting.
No, that is precisely what I said. To get BOTH characters to 7* (which you "need" to participate in the event) would take 4 times as long as if you were farming one character at 4% drop rate.
My assertion was.........ugh this is so pointless. Have a great day.
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
It's not baseless to think that the devs officially providing a link to the write-up means that they agree with what's written inside, which would lead us to think that the assumption of a 4% drop rate is correct. Also it's not simply "assumptions made by the reader" though is it? It's an assumption made by the author of the post, who was in direct contact with CG and had their post linked by the devs.
Honestly though it's free shards so I don't think it's that big of a deal that the drop rate is bad, it's still better than the usual release cadence.
That great that you want to take an assumption as a fact, but that doesn't make it anything more than an assumption.
Yes it is, because they clearly state, they are assuming a drop rate, they are not stating an a drop rate.
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
There's no author in the article stated. You just click from the announcement and get introduced to it as a direct statement which starts with telling you what will happen.
Correct, and what they are telling you is that they are not and this is not a direct statement from the dev team, just what they learned from a conversation with them. Which again makes them saying they assumed a drop rate, an assumption by the author
The Mandalorian (Beskar Armor) is indeed coming to Galaxy of Heroes next week, we talked to Capital Games and have learned about his event and requirements.
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
It's not baseless to think that the devs officially providing a link to the write-up means that they agree with what's written inside, which would lead us to think that the assumption of a 4% drop rate is correct. Also it's not simply "assumptions made by the reader" though is it? It's an assumption made by the author of the post, who was in direct contact with CG and had their post linked by the devs.
Honestly though it's free shards so I don't think it's that big of a deal that the drop rate is bad, it's still better than the usual release cadence.
That great that you want to take an assumption as a fact, but that doesn't make it anything more than an assumption.
Yes it is, because they clearly state, they are assuming a drop rate, they are not stating an a drop rate.
Just to be clear then - moving forward we should assume that CG (now - for the first time in 5+ years) DOES, indeed change drop rates?
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
You're right. It's the players' fault for presuming that an event, which is set up just like all other Galactic Chase events to this point in the game's history (which had the same drop rate each time) would be the same. Defend them if you must, but to suggest CG didn't intentionally allow the misinformation to be promulgated without ever correcting it, is on them - not Doja, Crumb, SWGOH EVENTS or even "the reader". This lack of clear, and honest communication has literally been an issue for 5+ years....and it's still. Not. Fixed.
So it's the players' fault for NOT assuming CG manipulated the drop rate? Even though they have said countless times (and you have as well) that drop rates don't change?
As I said, defend them if you must. But this is the same old, tired poor communication garbage. I know I joke about Hanlon's Razor - but this happens a little too often to be an oversight. I (and many people who have played this game long enough) absolutely think the lack of clarification by CG was intentional.
And from now on, I'll just let you handle all the conspiracy drop rate threads instead of trying to help. Because now CG does, apparently, change drop rates without letting us know - and we should assume they do.
Villainize them all you want, but there are some pretty clearly stated information which I pulled directly from there and that's "not good enough". It is very clear what was stated there, believing it to be anything other then what is clearly stated there is on the person reading it.
That's a great example of trying to make them bad guys, stop rates do not change for gear and toons on nodes, event are events and they will be what they are (this one is not stated to be a Galactic chase). As you say, you are better than that.
As I said they could have been more clear, and they could have confirmed the approximate drop rate. You can leave it to me, sure, I dont mind. But let's not blame them for assumptions made by others.
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
In no way misleading? Cmon that's not fair, no more fair than to say cg lied to us. Cg should of done a better job communicating on this, and this was (likely unintentionally) misleading for a couple of reasons.
First, as was mentioned, we were directed to the write up by an official dev post, which lends it authority by association.
Second this was the only place where we recieved information regarding drop rates. And further, cg never clarified, again despite linking the article in question.
So did cg lie? Nah, I find it very unlikely this is more than a simple mistake. However, I think this absolutely was misleading. Frankly, the fact so many people feel mislead kinda says it all
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
It's not baseless to think that the devs officially providing a link to the write-up means that they agree with what's written inside, which would lead us to think that the assumption of a 4% drop rate is correct. Also it's not simply "assumptions made by the reader" though is it? It's an assumption made by the author of the post, who was in direct contact with CG and had their post linked by the devs.
Honestly though it's free shards so I don't think it's that big of a deal that the drop rate is bad, it's still better than the usual release cadence.
That great that you want to take an assumption as a fact, but that doesn't make it anything more than an assumption.
Yes it is, because they clearly state, they are assuming a drop rate, they are not stating an a drop rate.
I really don't want to argue with you, but it's not a gigantic leap as you make it out to be to think that people who have been in direct contact with CG regarding the event have information that we don't know of that would lead them to assume that those drop rates would be the same...but go ahead and keep arguing semantics...
Correct, and what they are telling you is that they are not and this is not a direct statement from the dev team, just what they learned from a conversation with them. Which again makes them saying they assumed a drop rate, an assumption by the author
The issue is that a dev linked to the page - reasonable people can assume that the devs approved of what was put in the page. Had they not linked to the text breakdown and assumptions, people would still be upset, but the assumption that the devs were actively trying to pull a fast one on the player base wouldn't be as pronounced.
It's inexcusable for the devs to link to information they knew to be false. I don't care they reduced the drop rate, I care they didn't do their due diligence in linking to grossly incorrect information.
Edit to add: I don't blame you, Kyno - you're in the middle of a **** sandwich until a dev decides to come out of a hole to explain their rationale, but I don't anticipate that to happen as they rarely explain controversial decisions.
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
There's no author in the article stated. You just click from the announcement and get introduced to it as a direct statement which starts with telling you what will happen.
Correct, and what they are telling you is that they are not and this is not a direct statement from the dev team, just what they learned from a conversation with them. Which again makes them saying they assumed a drop rate, an assumption by the author
The Mandalorian (Beskar Armor) is indeed coming to Galaxy of Heroes next week, we talked to Capital Games and have learned about his event and requirements.
Spin it any way you want. Who -they- are is not clear in the least in the announcement or in the link. Ofc anyone would read the same article differently depending on if it's coming from cg or a 3rd party. NOW it's clear, because WE as the playerbase found it out bitterly.
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
There's no author in the article stated. You just click from the announcement and get introduced to it as a direct statement which starts with telling you what will happen.
Correct, and what they are telling you is that they are not and this is not a direct statement from the dev team, just what they learned from a conversation with them.
Maybe a direct statement from the dev team about the change in drop rates BEFORE people have hoarded/spent thousands of crystals would have helped? Communication. Just a thought.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
It's not baseless to think that the devs officially providing a link to the write-up means that they agree with what's written inside, which would lead us to think that the assumption of a 4% drop rate is correct. Also it's not simply "assumptions made by the reader" though is it? It's an assumption made by the author of the post, who was in direct contact with CG and had their post linked by the devs.
Honestly though it's free shards so I don't think it's that big of a deal that the drop rate is bad, it's still better than the usual release cadence.
That great that you want to take an assumption as a fact, but that doesn't make it anything more than an assumption.
Yes it is, because they clearly state, they are assuming a drop rate, they are not stating an a drop rate.
I really don't want to argue with you, but it's not a gigantic leap as you make it out to be to think that people who have been in direct contact with CG regarding the event have information that we don't know of that would lead them to assume that those drop rates would be the same...but go ahead and keep arguing semantics...
But they say "assuming this drop rate"..... how you get to the site doesnt change that.
Yes I would think the information they state to be the way it is, is correct. I would also think that the information they assume is an assumption.
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
There's no author in the article stated. You just click from the announcement and get introduced to it as a direct statement which starts with telling you what will happen.
Correct, and what they are telling you is that they are not and this is not a direct statement from the dev team, just what they learned from a conversation with them.
Maybe a direct statement from the dev team about the change in drop rates BEFORE people have hoarded/spent thousands of crystals would have helped? Communication. Just a thought.
I did not, nor do I disagree with this.
As the person who asked for this on Monday, I fully support this idea.
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
There's no author in the article stated. You just click from the announcement and get introduced to it as a direct statement which starts with telling you what will happen.
Correct, and what they are telling you is that they are not and this is not a direct statement from the dev team, just what they learned from a conversation with them.
Maybe a direct statement from the dev team about the change in drop rates BEFORE people have hoarded/spent thousands of crystals would have helped? Communication. Just a thought.
I did not, nor do I disagree with this.
As the person who asked for this on Monday, I fully support this idea.
Well, to be fair, the request for better communication has been a recent one - only 5 years or so.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
There's no author in the article stated. You just click from the announcement and get introduced to it as a direct statement which starts with telling you what will happen.
Correct, and what they are telling you is that they are not and this is not a direct statement from the dev team, just what they learned from a conversation with them.
Maybe a direct statement from the dev team about the change in drop rates BEFORE people have hoarded/spent thousands of crystals would have helped? Communication. Just a thought.
Too late for that now. Maybe an acknowledgement that they should have done that and will try to in the future.
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
There's no author in the article stated. You just click from the announcement and get introduced to it as a direct statement which starts with telling you what will happen.
Correct, and what they are telling you is that they are not and this is not a direct statement from the dev team, just what they learned from a conversation with them.
Maybe a direct statement from the dev team about the change in drop rates BEFORE people have hoarded/spent thousands of crystals would have helped? Communication. Just a thought.
I'm relatively new to posting (read longer) but have they EVER made an official statement on drop rates, other than to say they were not manipulated etc?
I think it just seems like a shaft because people expected galactic chase drop rates for them individually, which I don't think was ever implied. I don't know where the "two refreshes" quote came from, but it sounds like either wishful thinking or poor intra-office communication.
This came from the Galactic War Report, which was linked by CG in their official announcement. Maybe no one at CG read/watched it, but it still seems misleading to have a an official CG post link to misinformation.
The author of the post there, said:
The additive drops are said to work like Galactic Chase events where the drop rate will scale based off the energy spent on a cantina node.
To explain the energy scaling.
And
This is assuming a 4% drop rate like Galactic Chases.
Which seems to clearly be an assumption made by the writer.
It is in no way misleading, just using common references to explain certain aspects of the "event".
Assuming this meant anything more than an assumption (as stated) is on the reader.
That is not to say CG couldn't have stated the drop rate, but you can't (I mean you can, but its baseless) blame then for assumptions made by the reader.
There's no author in the article stated. You just click from the announcement and get introduced to it as a direct statement which starts with telling you what will happen.
Correct, and what they are telling you is that they are not and this is not a direct statement from the dev team, just what they learned from a conversation with them.
Maybe a direct statement from the dev team about the change in drop rates BEFORE people have hoarded/spent thousands of crystals would have helped? Communication. Just a thought.
Too late for that now. Maybe an acknowledgement that they should have done that and will try to in the future.
We wouldn't believe them if they said that anyway...
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Replies
But given how Mando is performing, I don't think there is any urgency to get him
Its still free shards for your regular farms, which is pretty good
If you don't like it, you can enjoy hard node farming once this is over
It's 1%?
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
If you need twice as many shards (2 characters instead of 1) it will take you 4 times as long as it would have with 1 character at 4%. So, in practical terms, they 1/4th it.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Are y'all here new?
The only true bummer is that, unlike other Journey events, all toons will be exclusively farmable in hard nodes (after this small event). Even the Revans had some variety (cantina/shops).
Broadening the spectrum, maybe the Millenium Falcon is the only other journey/legendary with exclusively hard node farm requirements?
Wow thanks for that, Professor.
"Need" is a relative term. These toons are collected on their own as well as what they are used for, and if the drop rate is 2% for two toons that's the same as 4% for one. Math.
Yes. Each character has a 1% drop rate. I combined a bunch of reports of people who were reporting by node and of people who were reporting by energy. It's on page 2 or 3 here, but I think 2. It incorporates all the usable data on page 1.
The combined drop rate for people reporting by energy was 2.1% and the combined rate for people reporting by attempts on a 16 energy node (so the drop rate per energy was calculable) was 1.9%
My own personal drop rate on day 1 was 38.7% per attempt on 16 energy nodes, or 2.4% combined drop rate. From what I can tell, I seem to be one of the lucky ones.
If the combined drop rate had been 4% (and presumably therefore 2% per toon, because why would they make one more prevalent than the other) I don't think anyone would be complaining.
While we don't have huge amounts of data, I did aggregate everything usable on page 1 which included a number of people who used 1500+ energy on this yesterday. I'm confident that 1.9% to 2.1% combined drop rate and therefore 0.95% to 1.05% individual drop rates are fair estimates at this point, even if my own limited sample (on 496 energy/ 31 attempts on a 16 energy node) fell slightly above this range.
If that's the case, then that's dumb, it should be 4% total or 2% per toon to line up with previous chases. With that said, nik's post would then be wrong in addition to being needlessly insulting.
Actually if they're going right to their permanent homes after the chase, instead of having a waiting period like previous chases, it still makes plenty of sense.
No, that is precisely what I said. To get BOTH characters to 7* (which you "need" to participate in the event) would take 4 times as long as if you were farming one character at 4% drop rate.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
My assertion was.........ugh this is so pointless. Have a great day.
That great that you want to take an assumption as a fact, but that doesn't make it anything more than an assumption.
Yes it is, because they clearly state, they are assuming a drop rate, they are not stating an a drop rate.
Correct, and what they are telling you is that they are not and this is not a direct statement from the dev team, just what they learned from a conversation with them. Which again makes them saying they assumed a drop rate, an assumption by the author
Just to be clear then - moving forward we should assume that CG (now - for the first time in 5+ years) DOES, indeed change drop rates?
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Villainize them all you want, but there are some pretty clearly stated information which I pulled directly from there and that's "not good enough". It is very clear what was stated there, believing it to be anything other then what is clearly stated there is on the person reading it.
That's a great example of trying to make them bad guys, stop rates do not change for gear and toons on nodes, event are events and they will be what they are (this one is not stated to be a Galactic chase). As you say, you are better than that.
As I said they could have been more clear, and they could have confirmed the approximate drop rate. You can leave it to me, sure, I dont mind. But let's not blame them for assumptions made by others.
In no way misleading? Cmon that's not fair, no more fair than to say cg lied to us. Cg should of done a better job communicating on this, and this was (likely unintentionally) misleading for a couple of reasons.
First, as was mentioned, we were directed to the write up by an official dev post, which lends it authority by association.
Second this was the only place where we recieved information regarding drop rates. And further, cg never clarified, again despite linking the article in question.
So did cg lie? Nah, I find it very unlikely this is more than a simple mistake. However, I think this absolutely was misleading. Frankly, the fact so many people feel mislead kinda says it all
I really don't want to argue with you, but it's not a gigantic leap as you make it out to be to think that people who have been in direct contact with CG regarding the event have information that we don't know of that would lead them to assume that those drop rates would be the same...but go ahead and keep arguing semantics...
The issue is that a dev linked to the page - reasonable people can assume that the devs approved of what was put in the page. Had they not linked to the text breakdown and assumptions, people would still be upset, but the assumption that the devs were actively trying to pull a fast one on the player base wouldn't be as pronounced.
It's inexcusable for the devs to link to information they knew to be false. I don't care they reduced the drop rate, I care they didn't do their due diligence in linking to grossly incorrect information.
Edit to add: I don't blame you, Kyno - you're in the middle of a **** sandwich until a dev decides to come out of a hole to explain their rationale, but I don't anticipate that to happen as they rarely explain controversial decisions.
Spin it any way you want. Who -they- are is not clear in the least in the announcement or in the link. Ofc anyone would read the same article differently depending on if it's coming from cg or a 3rd party. NOW it's clear, because WE as the playerbase found it out bitterly.
Maybe a direct statement from the dev team about the change in drop rates BEFORE people have hoarded/spent thousands of crystals would have helped? Communication. Just a thought.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
But they say "assuming this drop rate"..... how you get to the site doesnt change that.
Yes I would think the information they state to be the way it is, is correct. I would also think that the information they assume is an assumption.
I did not, nor do I disagree with this.
As the person who asked for this on Monday, I fully support this idea.
Well, to be fair, the request for better communication has been a recent one - only 5 years or so.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Too late for that now. Maybe an acknowledgement that they should have done that and will try to in the future.
I'm relatively new to posting (read longer) but have they EVER made an official statement on drop rates, other than to say they were not manipulated etc?
We wouldn't believe them if they said that anyway...
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*