99.97% for 1 / .02% for 2 / .01% for 3 (unless the below conditions are present.) Then who knows…
Depending on the following criteria the algorithm takes into account the humidity in your area. Whether you had pancakes for dinner the night before, if you have a cat vs dog vs landscape desktop background. If the car that just drove by your house was blue.
Nothing is straightforward for these devs, even the simplest things. Especially honesty.
It seems like the event is performing fine in terms of tiers needed, but not as advertised. I’d like to see if the expected 1.18 is working across a sample of a few thousand. I can post my data later if others do/care too.
Maybe the advertised 1.18 average accidentally includes the 10 point reward?
Five. I done got five one time. That’s including a Queen Aurora that crashed the battle.
Thanks, you made me laugh. 
It shouldn’t, since Shade fights appear once every five or six battles on average, for an expectation of 1.6-2 points per battle from Shade alone.
No … that’s not it.
I have 80 fights, 250 points, so that’s north of 3 points per fight.
I have 62 non-boss fights, for 70 total points… that’s 1.1666 repeating per fight. So it’s solely based upon the non-boss fight.
Hmm, ok. Maybe it is correct at 1.18, then. I’m not sure how they arrived at that design decision, but if it works and the purchase expectations are reasonable, then no complaints here.
I’m pretty sure a previous event also had that same multiplier? The one where they said it was 1.8, but clearly that was incorrect? 2-3 events back?
I’m not sure how they get there either … Would seem to make more sense to do 1 point/fight + 10 per boss fight and be done with it. but I’m not complaining if T2 gets a guild all rewards. 
tldr;?
You have ~90% chance to get ONE Arcane energy per match.
I’m currently at 53 battles, of which 13 were Shades granting crystals, and of the other 40 Rare battles, only once did I receive 2 Arcane Energy.
With 98 normal battle in total, I got 6 twos and a single three. All average is 2.8, quite low than expected 3+ Redi calculated.
The Multiplier is at 1.08x - 0.1 or more than 50% lower than 1.18x of the official formula. But as the score requirement is reasonable, I think it didn’t matter much.
