RNG? I think not

Let's take https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kOuDzNdOXpGzSLXq18ux60TX14C5hZuajjzTRQb5PTo/edit#gid=975687386
this test for example.
Click on D tab and sort from Z>to A
You will see Weapon Mod (Mk 8) from 2 different nodes (2 different people testing) and they have the most number of battles that's why I took those into account.
1 person got 0.245 drop rate (233 battles), the other 0.453 (223 battles), the difference is huge.

While "even" this is not the proper testing of this Theory, it is as close as we got from "any" tests and datas provided so far.

(You can also see the same huge fluctuations on other parts, best way to check is to find 2 different battles/people testing the same Gear drop, but on most of other drops the "number of battles" are much more lower, therefore will give a much less realistic result)

PS: Why I linked this Data? It is the combination of results from different people, so the probability of a gear piece being at "5 out of 50" and "45 out of 50" on different battles are far more greater. (Since Data provided from the links Nikoms linked only gives the average chances generally, disregarding the fact that the theory is: "You might be getting less drops when closer to finishing a piece")

This is a joke, right? The "data" you linked Tharivol has no control whatsoever. It was an open document that anyone could have posted anything in. It is, by far, the least type of reliable data there is. And let's be honest - the only reason you even linked to that "data" is because you thought it supported your claim.

Because it varies wildly compared to several other sources - all of which are much more controlled in their data collection method, all it "proves" is that it's lijely a poor data set.

I'm done wasting time in this thread trying to reason with people who prefer conspiracy theories and grasping at whatever weak twigs they can find to prop them up. If you want to hold to the paranoid and unproven hypothesis that drop rates are programmed to tighten up, despite the fact that there is no single shred of evidence, have at it.

Feel free to post in this thread or pm me when you actually have proof. I'll wait patiently until then...probably in August.

"Nikoms565;951787" wrote:
This is a joke, right? The "data" you linked Tharivol has no control whatsoever. It was an open document that anyone could have posted anything in. It is, by far, the least type of reliable data there is. And let's be honest - the only reason you even linked to that "data" is because you thought it supported your claim.

Because it varies wildly compared to several other sources - all of which are much more controlled in their data collection method, all it "proves" is that it's lijely a poor data set.

I'm done wasting time in this thread trying to reason with people who prefer conspiracy theories and grasping at whatever weak twigs they can find to prop them up. If you want to hold to the paranoid and unproven hypothesis that drop rates are programmed to tighten up, despite the fact that there is no single shred of evidence, have at it.

Feel free to post in this thread or pm me when you actually have proof. I'll wait patiently until then...probably in August.

Oh god.. mate are you real?
First of all your "Data" had absolutely no connection to the theory at hand as stated on my 1st post today.
This data is from Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SWGalaxyOfHeroes/comments/47chrp/update_2_on_the_great_drop_rate_project/
From people that "actually" work on getting something done, instead of people like you that only rants about it. Even than we don't even need that data, that was just an example to start with. Not "ANY" kind of proof.

"Tharivol;951747" wrote:
Let's take https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kOuDzNdOXpGzSLXq18ux60TX14C5hZuajjzTRQb5PTo/edit#gid=975687386
this test for example.

You have absolutely no data, no proof, you don't even read properly before commenting to start with, just replying based on 1-2 lines of a giant paragraph. Still believing that we "actually" believe this theory after 4 pages and after it has been pointed out 256 times that "This is just a theory, we are NOT saying we believe it or not, we are just discussing the validity of it, with the datas at hand and trying to make most of it from what we got"
As told before; if you don't like it, just move yourself to somewhere else! Stop harassing people if you have absolutely nothing to provide.