Y-Wing droprate

"NicWester;c-2112115" 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;c-2112179" 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

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;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.

"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....

"Schwartzring;c-2112201" wrote:

"NicWester;c-2112115" 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!

"Shiftyund701;c-2112268" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2110791" 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.

I am 70/80 and I have done up to and including the 100 crystal refreshes each day.

It’s like when you work at your job to the point that it becomes second nature and everyone in the office is content enough and productivity is good.. and then the manager comes in and makes one little change to ruffle everyone’s feathers when no change was necessary at all

"Snowbird13;c-2112304" wrote:
I unlocked it this morning. I will probably end up with 10-15 shards towards the fifth star. Not going to do any more 100 crystal refreshes. Probably could have saved some by just doing the 3 50s this morning, and 3 50s tomorrow. Oh well. Just have to wait until they release it on a node to max it out. Now I just need a few million ship materials to get her to 85.(constant struggle for a newer player like me.).

No worries, you'll get there. Just keep plugging away at it and level up all your ships. Eventually you hit the point where everything is 85 and then those space bucks just start piling up with nothing to spend them on except mods!

"Kyno;c-2112264" wrote:

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....

What is considered gambling by law might be different in different countries, I have no knowledge of US law but doing security audits just because you’re required by law is a strange way of looking at it.
We had security audits at our company long before the law required us to do so, both for our sake but also to maintain a good relation with our customer base.
Even though we thought we were infallible because we only ”hired the best” there were issues found and concerns raised which we could fix without too much hassle.
Overall the quality was raised significantly and less bugs made it to production thanks to the processes that had to be enforced and followed to ensure smooth audits.
Anyway, I guess that’s all I had to say. Just wanted to add some sort of constructive criticism to make this game better overall. I wouldn’t take the time if I didn’t like the game.