Y-Wing droprate

"HumbleMumble;c-2112256" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2112017" wrote:

"HumbleMumble;c-2112008" 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....