Had 2 copies from Monday, 0 from Tuesday
Starting Wednesday
Explore 1, Wild Plains
Battle 9 - KOS
Battle 10 - KOS
Battle 12 - Flesh Horror /The Devil
Battle 14 - Flesh Horror/ The Devil
Battle 16 - KOS
Battle 27 - KOS
Battle 30 - KOS
Battle 33 - KOS
Battle 34 - KOS
Battle 37 - KOS
Battle 42 - KOS
Battle 43 - KOS
Battle 45 - KOS
Battle 46 - KOS
Battle 51 - KOS
Battle 54 - KOS
Battle 60 - KOS
Battle 63 - KOS
Battle 65 - KOS
Battle 68 - KOS
Battle 81 - KOS
Battle 82 - KOS
Battle 86 - KOS
Battle 92 - Verse 1 Gnome
Battle 96 - KOS
Battle 98 - Treasure Gnome (normal, 2500 gold)
Battle 101 - KOS
Battle 103 - KOS
Battle 107 - KOS
Battle 109 - KOS
Battle 112 - KOS
Battle 114 - KOS
Battle 116 - KOS
Battle 123 - KOS
Battle 125 - KOS
Battle 126 - KOS
Battle 127 - KOS (oh baby a triple)
Battle 128 - KOS (!?)
Battle 129 - KOS (…)
Battle 133 - KOS
Battle 138 - KOS
Battle 141 - KOS
Battle 153 - KOS
Battle 161 - KOS
Battle 162 - KOS
Battle 166 - KOS
Battle 175 - KOS
Battle 182 - KOS
Battle 192 - KOS
Battle 194 - KOS
Battle 195 - KOS
Battle 199 - KOS
Battle 200 - Treasure Gnome (regular, 5 diamonds)
Battle 201 - Soul Gnome
Battle 202 - Glory Gnome 200 glory
Battle 203 - KOS
Battle 210 - KOS
Battle 220 - KOS
Battle 222 - KOS
Battle 234 - Treasure Gnome (regular, 100 souls)
Battle 242 - KOS
Battle 243 - KOS
Battle 248 - KOS
Battle 249 - KOS
Battle 252 - Treasure Gnome (regular, 500 souls)
Totals:
7 gnomes
2 The Flesh Horror Battlecrashers, 2 The Devil Drops
56 KOS Battlecrashers, 54 of them after both Flesh Horrors were encountered
Edit:
Video:
Some impressive streaking there, but nothing I haven’t seen before.
Will include video link tomorrow.
I’m every bit as interested in modeling the drop rates for drops 1 and 2 as the third one as drops 1 and 2 with a claim of “reduces every time you encounter it” informs what a “reasonable expectation” for drop 3 would be. A high confidence rate model for drops 1 and 2 shows that the “cliff” at drop 3 is might be more severe than intended, even if drop 3 is just a documented several dozen “misses” in a row. For example, something that could sort of reasonably fit just my sample would be a 40% (of all battlecrashers) > 10% > 2.5% reduction, where no individual sample segment would be that extreme of an outlier (getting 0/54 on a 2.5% would actually be much closer to expectation than getting 1/1 on a 1/10). However, I highly doubt this will hold over multiple samples based on what people had already reported from Monday/Tuesday. A linear reduction model that subtracts the same number would always hit zero based on where we are at drop 3, which at this point already cannot reasonably be higher than ~5.5% or so based on just my data above to see 0/54, and that is using a very conservative estimate of “reasonable”. Meaning if it were 15.5% > 10.5% > 5.5% > 0.5%… then there is still a hard cap in place, which has now been claimed three times is not the case.
It could be that they didn’t use this type of multiplicative encounter rate reduction and instead used a table or some other type of math that has a more extreme cliff, like 30%/15%/0.5%… but this would just point to that cliff being intentionally behind hidden behind two “generous” drops to establish a pattern purely to have people futilely hunt for the third, which for now I’m at least giving the benefit of the doubt this isn’t the case, but it also does not fit the “encounter rate will decrease (drastically, according to Kafka) after every time it is defeated” claim (taken to meant here, every time it is defeated and the reward is collected, since losing the battle doesn’t give a reward and doesn’t seem to count against your rates).
Basically, if said claim holds true (read: not stated in a way to hide the fact that there is an intentional cliff after expectations have been established by a 2 drop pattern) that have now been repeated on three separate occasions, there should be a model that could show a reduction between 1 and 2 where a similar reduction could be applied between 2 and 3.
But the disparity between 1 and 2 being very small and 2 and 3 being gigantic, given how the event was described, presents kind of a problem. Since the idea that drop rate reduction could possibly go to 0 and result in a per day cap despite there technically not being a cap in the code (whether accidental or intentional) was directly denied, either it is broken in some other way and there is a chance it can be fixed before the weekend players come in, the cliff is not as severe as we are noticing from preliminary data which we can only determine with more data, or the “hidden cliff” exists intentionally and informs a very bad policy when it comes to giving misleading information about chance based mechanics.