The Logray problem

It took me over (iirc, if not it was at least a week) a week to get the last ten I needed for him. I feel your pain, op/etc. And I would check all the shop changes (maybe missed one or two, in a week). gl all

"NicWester;c-1750607" wrote:

"TVF;c-1749310" wrote:
Well ok but this a thread complaining about Logray, and by extension it's a complaint about the way rotating shops work. It had nothing to do with a hard node farm like Wicket.

Hard node? Feh, get him through the event! I've got him at 76/100 and I've never farmed him seriously (I was about to say I'd never farmed him period, but somehow I got at least 1 shard outside of the event, so I must have done it at some point).

Says the guy with a 6* C3PO. :p

Fair enough, but I'll get him to 7* next time for sure!

It's been 5 or 6 days for me and before the last drop it was nearly as long. I check every refresh. I have strong suspicions that his "chance to drop" is lower than the others in that spot. Why wouldn't CG lower it if they can make money off it? Anybody that "believes" it's random is naive.

I've noticed that now it drops more often (at least for me). After this post, it appeared at least 2 or 3 times in my shop. Another interesting thing: I made a post about the Gauntlet not appearing anymore in the ships shop. At least more than one month and not even a single shard. Guess what. It appeared two times in a row and even a third time today after I made the post, after not appearing for more than one month.

Chance for there to be no drops in a week = (5/6)^28 = 0.0061
Average time to farm = 330/(28*(1/6)*5) = 14.14 weeks
Chance to see no drops in a week during farm = 14.14 * 0.0061 = 0.086
Lets take a wild guess there are 1 mil players of which 1% are farming Logrey...
No. Players seeing no drops in a week = 1000000 * 0.01 * 0.086 = 858
Chance of being a complain on a forum type of person = 1%
Number of complainers = 0.01 * 858 = 8.58

If you count some of the complaints on this thread as sort of half complaints that's almost exactly the number we have!!!!!!

Maths Jokes!!! Yay! :smiley:

"EduardoCadav;c-1750997" wrote:
Chance for there to be no drops in a week = (5/6)^28 = 0.0061
Average time to farm = 330/(28*(1/6)*5) = 14.14 weeks
Chance to see no drops in a week during farm = 14.14 * 0.0061 = 0.086
Lets take a wild guess there are 1 mil players of which 1% are farming Logrey...
No. Players seeing no drops in a week = 1000000 * 0.01 * 0.086 = 858
Chance of being a complain on a forum type of person = 1%
Number of complainers = 0.01 * 858 = 8.58

If you count some of the complaints on this thread as sort of half complaints that's almost exactly the number we have!!!!!!

Maths Jokes!!! Yay! :smiley:

Math jokes don't work on the complainers. They don't understand math, drop rates, or statistics.

"NicWester;c-1750607" wrote:

"Piewalker;c-1749106" wrote:
Proof works both ways.

No, actually, it doesn't. There's a burden of proof that only rests on one person, and it's the side that's making the extraordinary claim. Like, we can see drop rates if we track them long enough with enough of a sample size and we can see that they're consistently the same whether there's an event going on or not. If you're going to say that it's anything other than what's been established the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on us to disprove yours or prove ours.

So if we track them long enough with enough of a sample size...

Great...Okay, so let’s get what 1,000(?) maybe 10,000(?) people to count occurrences in that slot for what, a week? a month? Without missing a refresh...and then still get someone (maybe you?) saying it’s not statistally significant enough for proof or pointing out that some people might be making some of their numbers up to help prove the point. Yes, that’s going to work really well isn’t it?! I’ll get right on that!

CG were transparent about pack probabilities and so a simple statement from them saying there is no occurrence weighting mechanism might just be quicker and easier.

Thanks anyway.

"Piewalker;c-1751274" wrote:

"NicWester;c-1750607" wrote:

"Piewalker;c-1749106" wrote:
Proof works both ways.

No, actually, it doesn't. There's a burden of proof that only rests on one person, and it's the side that's making the extraordinary claim. Like, we can see drop rates if we track them long enough with enough of a sample size and we can see that they're consistently the same whether there's an event going on or not. If you're going to say that it's anything other than what's been established the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on us to disprove yours or prove ours.

So if we track them long enough with enough of a sample size...

Great...Okay, so let’s get what 1,000(?) maybe 10,000(?) people to count occurrences in that slot for what, a week? a month? Without missing a refresh...and then still get someone (maybe you?) saying it’s not statistally significant enough for proof or pointing out that some people might be making some of their numbers up to help prove the point. Yes, that’s going to work really well isn’t it?! I’ll get right on that!

CG were transparent about pack probabilities and so a simple statement from them saying there is no occurrence weighting mechanism might just be quicker and easier.

Thanks anyway.

There's a legal reason they did the pack odds.

Just because you don't like what it would take to get a relevant sample size does not mean you can just ignore the need for it.

You had MONTHS to farm them ewoks as it was clear they would be needed for something..