Another disappointing mod

That's why I do 3 levels at a time. If speed doesn't get rolled by 6, trash and move on.

Yeah no one needs a +17.

You should never expect to get a good mod; the good mods come when you least expect it.

You're leveling up your mods wrongly hence you're wasting credits.

You're suppose to level it by stages of 3 levels each to see if a speed rolls out onto the list.

White = Lv12
Green = Lv9
Blue = Lv6
Purple = Lvl 3

If you don't see any speed stat, stop and try another mod. If you do, proceed to slice and level up by 3 each time to see if you can at least get 2-3 stacks, depending on the mod tier and your preference.

I've personally modded 7 white mods up with each having 20-26 speed. Its all about knowing when to proceed or stop for resource management.

Who is that addressed to? The image OP posted was a gold mod.

"TVF;c-1887775" wrote:
Lol save the credits? You need those credits more than a potential +17?

This is why I disagree with anyone who claims mods are 100% luck.

Pro tip: if you long press the Battle button in either arena you get the option to spend 2.5M credits to boost your entire team by +50 speed.

This is why I stopped farming mods and started saving credits. I need those credits more than a potential +17.

Fresh mod and rolls from Mod Challenge!

"jhbuchholz;c-1887830" wrote:

"TVF;c-1887775" wrote:
Lol save the credits? You need those credits more than a potential +17?

This is why I disagree with anyone who claims mods are 100% luck.

Pro tip: if you long press the Battle button in either arena you get the option to spend 2.5M credits to boost your entire team by +50 speed.

This is why I stopped farming mods and started saving credits. I need those credits more than a potential +17.

We need to keep this stuff a secret, man. :s

"JediRobb;c-1888146" wrote:
Mods are the worst part of the game. 99% luck (yes, knowing when to roll/slice plays into it, but what rolls is pure luck), which means 1% strategy.

Knowing when to roll/slice is way more than 1% of the battle. And more importantly, is the only thing you control. The better you control it, the more chances you get for good luck.

@cannonfodder_iv
Assuming a binomial distribution with mean 0.25 the probability of exactly, or fewer than, 100 successes out of 500 trials is p = .0049037. So you are a ~1 in 200 case. Now in the population of the whole game that's not surprising at all, but it may be considered a surprising result if the population size is limited just to "people playing swgoh and tracking speed slices".

Here's the interesting part though (to me at least). If you (or anyone else tracking drops) have ever checked your success rate at any point during your tracking and thought "I must just need a bigger sample size" then you've committed a form of scientific malpractice that is very very common and almost exclusively unintentional, called p-hacking. It's ultra common in fields like social sciences, epidemiology, nutritional sciences, psychology but common to all research that involves some statistics and results in silly news headlines like "Scientific study shows chocolate helps you lose weight".

To give a concrete example. If someone tracked 150 slices and got 24 hits (19.2% success) this would be a p = .00540223 which again is a ~1 in 200 case. Following this further tracking is done to increase the sample size. To get to 100 successes out of 500 slices this person would need 76 out of 350 slices (21.7% success) which is a p = .08575196 so a ~1 in 11 occurrence. In order to get the mean result of 25% after N=500 you would need to have sliced speed 101 times and the probability of exactly, or more than, 101 out of 350 (28.9% success) is p = .05592093 which is ~1 in 18 occurrence so returning to the mean is quite a bit less probable than remaining below it.

None of this changes the fact that your data was a 1 in 200 occurrence and always would have been regardless of if you checked at any point during the tracking, the point is in the reporting of the data and who reports data. In science what occurs is people check a hypothesis and see a trend but note that it's not significant so collect more data. When combining the new data with the old, the probability of a "statistically significant" result increases and the paper gets published with an incorrect conclusion. In swgoh tracking, multiple people track a few 10s or 100s of drops and see the expected rate so stop tracking and never report. Those (not necessarily you) that track a few 10s of drops and get a rubbish droprate (but not one that is statistically significant) come on here and tell people and get the response "just track more data". I cringe at this because then, said person goes away and tracks more data, and then later rolls that into the previous data resulting in a much bigger sample size that will have a very high probability of showing a large difference from the true rate (whatever it is).

Anyway, been wanting to get that off my chest for a while and isn't necessarily directed at you just since you asked about the stats. :)