Anyway ... if the underlying drop probability is set too low, I honestly don't think any strategies which boost # of completed wins by a smidge are going to make a whole lot of discernible difference to any individual player or be worth the effort. Even a factor of 2 boost might not make a discernible difference outside of a large statistical aggregate (which no individual player ever gets to experience): let's say the chance of getting a gold after 6 months of playing every 4 hours is 10% (just making up a number). Perhaps there's a brilliant gauntlet strategy that boosts that to 20%. (Getting all the power crew would probably do that by squeezing out an extra win or two from them before exhaustion). You would still end up with most players feeling miserable and cheated after 6 months, if they take the bait of "the gold is the point of this particular game mechanic".
Reading this paragraph, I couldn’t help but think of this:
“Ten percent of nothin’ is...let me do the math here. Nothin’ goes into nothin’, carry the zero...”
Realize that it is designed to frustrate you into spending merits/dilithium. Don't spend merits/dilithium.
The implication is that DB makes it more likely for you to fail at an inflated rate (spoiler alert: they don't) to encourage you to spend resources so that you can balance out that failure.
So there's data on skill/match selection now? If yes, I'd very much like to see that.
Some of the aggregate match result collections have been insightful, but they are far from the whole picture. Also have yet to see a data collection effort that successfully solves for coverage bias.
Saying things like "DB made it frustrating, therefore it forces people to spend" is really silly. Frustrated people don't normally look at a money sink and continue to throw things into the dispose-all if they aren't getting some value out of that investment.
Legendary drop rates and event rewards seem to disprove this statement.
Realize that it is designed to frustrate you into spending merits/dilithium. Don't spend merits/dilithium.
The implication is that DB makes it more likely for you to fail at an inflated rate (spoiler alert: they don't) to encourage you to spend resources so that you can balance out that failure.
So there's data on skill/match selection now? If yes, I'd very much like to see that.
Some of the aggregate match result collections have been insightful, but they are far from the whole picture. Also have yet to see a data collection effort that successfully solves for coverage bias.
Saying things like "DB made it frustrating, therefore it forces people to spend" is really silly. Frustrated people don't normally look at a money sink and continue to throw things into the dispose-all if they aren't getting some value out of that investment.
Legendary drop rates and event rewards seem to disprove this statement.
1) You're welcome to set up your own data collection. I submitted a request to iampicard that would make matchup selection tracking feasible, but it hasn't been implemented.
No one has yet to present any evidence that matchup selection is biased. I recognize the absence of proof isn't evidence, but at this point I think the onus is on the tinfoil hatters when it comes to gauntlet conspiracy theories.
2) Complete apples to oranges comparison. Pack drops gold at a 10% rate and events provide guaranteed result provided certain placement. The gauntlet odds are a fraction of a pack drop and has zero guarantee.
The better comparison would be the "best chance" packs DB used to put out. Those were an exercise in frustration because of small drop rates and unsure results. Spenders in my fleet would (for the most part) stay away from those completely.
My strategy - play often and don't expect anything but Merits - has payed off today - got Armus.
I don't expect to get a second copy of him, as the RNG seems to only grant me one copy of each Gauntlet legendary so far.
Realize that it is designed to frustrate you into spending merits/dilithium. Don't spend merits/dilithium.
The implication is that DB makes it more likely for you to fail at an inflated rate (spoiler alert: they don't) to encourage you to spend resources so that you can balance out that failure.
So there's data on skill/match selection now? If yes, I'd very much like to see that.
Some of the aggregate match result collections have been insightful, but they are far from the whole picture. Also have yet to see a data collection effort that successfully solves for coverage bias.
Saying things like "DB made it frustrating, therefore it forces people to spend" is really silly. Frustrated people don't normally look at a money sink and continue to throw things into the dispose-all if they aren't getting some value out of that investment.
Legendary drop rates and event rewards seem to disprove this statement.
1) You're welcome to set up your own data collection. I submitted a request to iampicard that would make matchup selection tracking feasible, but it hasn't been implemented.
No one has yet to present any evidence that matchup selection is biased. I recognize the absence of proof isn't evidence, but at this point I think the onus is on the tinfoil hatters when it comes to gauntlet conspiracy theories.
So when I red shirt a character and their skills pop up on the next match 2, 3, and 4 times in a row that's not bias - intended or otherwise? I've reported this multiple times, as have others. What about when the featured skill doesn't show up as often as other skills?
Meanwhile, there are serious limitations to aggregate match result tracking that pretty much every player engaged in such a collection effort likes to ignore. This type of collection likely wouldn't have caught the Shuttle AND bug, for instance. And coverage bias for such data collection could further obscure finding said bug. So drawing any conclusions from efforts such as these is irresponsible at best.
We know factually that DB did not RNG everything in Gauntlet, so it would seem a logical inference to investigate the match selection mechanics since this will have a rather large impact on final match results. And if there are bugs in Gauntlet, they're likely similar to the AND bug - situational and difficult to casually detect. Since this game is riddled with bugs, your ridiculous characterization of people raising questions is naive and counterproductive.
It should be noted that this is a game and we are not beta testers. I get paid to analyze data - I don't pay to do so or find it diverting within the setting of a game. If that's your cup of tea, the least you and others could do is learn some responsible data science practices and design better studies, especially if you wish to challenge others to collect data. Regardless, the onus is on DB, not the players, to provide a game that works and is relatively transparent in its mechanics.
2) Complete apples to oranges comparison. Pack drops gold at a 10% rate and events provide guaranteed result provided certain placement. The gauntlet odds are a fraction of a pack drop and has zero guarantee.
The better comparison would be the "best chance" packs DB used to put out. Those were an exercise in frustration because of small drop rates and unsure results. Spenders in my fleet would (for the most part) stay away from those completely.
Is there data collection on legendary drop rates? Also, what about when the golds don't actually drop due to bugs? Who proves these things? Surely not VIP0.
As for events, "provided certain placement" is not a guarantee when a player can't be sure they'll actually get to a certain placement. We see the frustration on missing out on top 1k or even top 3k week in and week out. The solution? Spend more time, resources, (and possibly) money. Or you know, buy a special offer instead of, ahem, "competing".
DB clearly has designed major elements of the game not to delight, but to frustrate. I tend to agree that frustration is not a good monetization strategy and it does not drive my spending, but the lack of substantial structural changes to the game would indicate that this is a minority sentiment.
It is starting to feel like the only viable Gauntlet strategy, regardless of what the featured skill is, is to have Banjo Man and Surak. It is pretty much just Engineering, Medicine, and Science anymore.
My strategy is simple - acceptance that you are unlikely to get the 5*.
I did not get Armus yesterday. I doubt I shall get him today, nor tomorrow. But I have the supreme satisfaction of knowing I don't care.
I tried to chase Locutus and Guinan, and both came - not from strategy, but from hangover-induced procrastination of getting out of bed. And when all hope evaporated for The Caretaker, he came.
The only strategy is to have no strategy, anything else is merely going to leech the joy out of your life, and chasing one just ends up with your blood pressure being so high, you could camouflage yourself with tomatoes and strawberries.
May as well chase the end of a rainbow in the vain hope that a short Irish bloke has buried some gold there.
Comments
The Hero of Canton, the man they call Jayne!
So there's data on skill/match selection now? If yes, I'd very much like to see that.
Some of the aggregate match result collections have been insightful, but they are far from the whole picture. Also have yet to see a data collection effort that successfully solves for coverage bias.
Legendary drop rates and event rewards seem to disprove this statement.
1) You're welcome to set up your own data collection. I submitted a request to iampicard that would make matchup selection tracking feasible, but it hasn't been implemented.
No one has yet to present any evidence that matchup selection is biased. I recognize the absence of proof isn't evidence, but at this point I think the onus is on the tinfoil hatters when it comes to gauntlet conspiracy theories.
2) Complete apples to oranges comparison. Pack drops gold at a 10% rate and events provide guaranteed result provided certain placement. The gauntlet odds are a fraction of a pack drop and has zero guarantee.
The better comparison would be the "best chance" packs DB used to put out. Those were an exercise in frustration because of small drop rates and unsure results. Spenders in my fleet would (for the most part) stay away from those completely.
I don't expect to get a second copy of him, as the RNG seems to only grant me one copy of each Gauntlet legendary so far.
So when I red shirt a character and their skills pop up on the next match 2, 3, and 4 times in a row that's not bias - intended or otherwise? I've reported this multiple times, as have others. What about when the featured skill doesn't show up as often as other skills?
Meanwhile, there are serious limitations to aggregate match result tracking that pretty much every player engaged in such a collection effort likes to ignore. This type of collection likely wouldn't have caught the Shuttle AND bug, for instance. And coverage bias for such data collection could further obscure finding said bug. So drawing any conclusions from efforts such as these is irresponsible at best.
We know factually that DB did not RNG everything in Gauntlet, so it would seem a logical inference to investigate the match selection mechanics since this will have a rather large impact on final match results. And if there are bugs in Gauntlet, they're likely similar to the AND bug - situational and difficult to casually detect. Since this game is riddled with bugs, your ridiculous characterization of people raising questions is naive and counterproductive.
It should be noted that this is a game and we are not beta testers. I get paid to analyze data - I don't pay to do so or find it diverting within the setting of a game. If that's your cup of tea, the least you and others could do is learn some responsible data science practices and design better studies, especially if you wish to challenge others to collect data. Regardless, the onus is on DB, not the players, to provide a game that works and is relatively transparent in its mechanics.
Is there data collection on legendary drop rates? Also, what about when the golds don't actually drop due to bugs? Who proves these things? Surely not VIP0.
As for events, "provided certain placement" is not a guarantee when a player can't be sure they'll actually get to a certain placement. We see the frustration on missing out on top 1k or even top 3k week in and week out. The solution? Spend more time, resources, (and possibly) money. Or you know, buy a special offer instead of, ahem, "competing".
DB clearly has designed major elements of the game not to delight, but to frustrate. I tend to agree that frustration is not a good monetization strategy and it does not drive my spending, but the lack of substantial structural changes to the game would indicate that this is a minority sentiment.
I did not get Armus yesterday. I doubt I shall get him today, nor tomorrow. But I have the supreme satisfaction of knowing I don't care.
I tried to chase Locutus and Guinan, and both came - not from strategy, but from hangover-induced procrastination of getting out of bed. And when all hope evaporated for The Caretaker, he came.
The only strategy is to have no strategy, anything else is merely going to leech the joy out of your life, and chasing one just ends up with your blood pressure being so high, you could camouflage yourself with tomatoes and strawberries.
May as well chase the end of a rainbow in the vain hope that a short Irish bloke has buried some gold there.