I just spent the last week grinding at least 8-10 hours a day, fighting what feels like can only be bots when they score 300 points in a literal minute, and I made it to place number 6. I couldn’t find anything about what the rewards were anywhere else online, but I stupidly assumed they should be good for anyone scoring over 100k points. I just got slapped in the face with 1 singular mythic ingot, 15k gold, (I’ve grinded easily over 7m during the course of the week) and 50 gems. I am so disappointed. Also, the rewards should not be limited to only 100 people.
Everyone who participates in pvp gets “rewards” based on LB position (pvp > stats > ranked rewards). But yes pvp rewards are pretty bad; the only upshot beyond tier rewards is double class xp and pet gnome possibility. Most players grind elsewhere like explore.
I’m struggling to find a reason to grind at all anymore now that its the day after, especially when i’ve never seen a Nysha token from explore. What’s the point in grinding up my team scores when it means nothing to win against other teams? This whole thing has really soured my affair with this game again. I just hope my post keeps someone else from wasting their time.
I feel your pain believe me. Nysha are mega rare and only appear at level 10 explore or above. Most of the stuff you want seems to become rarer and rarer so the best approach is to have no grind expectations at all. Enjoy the surprise of a cursed or verse gnome etc when it happens. Same with nysha or a horde mimic battle. Expectations will eat you up so just switch off from it all.
The “rewards” are listed under PVP > Stats → Ranked Rewards
They are minor, and not worth spending time on.
Unfortunate that you found out the hard way
i mean… then dont grind?
If you cant enjoy a game, why play it at all?
Just a small correction, I think, Nyshas can also drop on Explore 9. However, they are so rare on E9, that grinding out a token or even a complete medal will take significantly longer than doing this on E12. (E12 in general is the most effective for grinding any type of medals, not only Nyshas).
@ShiftySquid I would assume, if you take only half of the time of your PvP grind for an Explore 12 grind, you should have plenty of Nysha tokens, possibly one or even two complete medals after a week
lol yeah. i have done a ridiculous amount of L12 explore since tokens became a thing and have only recently got my 3rd nysha medal. Drop rates for the unlucky amongst us are ludicrous.
And “a ridiculous amount” would be like… ?
On average, you should get one Nysha token per 20 chests, if you are farming E12. This assumes, that the 2% drop rate for Nysha tokens and the average number of 2.5 tokens per chest is still valid, but I don´t have any reason to believe anything else. For 3 medals, you will need 27 tokens, meaning you will have to open 540 chests on average for 3 medals. Some people would consider 540 chests already a “ridiculous amount”, others are doing this within a week.
For me, E12 is my “main game mode”, as I used it as my main method for gold farming for almost 2 years now. Since the Hoard Mimic update, I have changed my focus in E12 from maximizing gold output to collecting as many chests as possible. And from what I can see, drop rates for Nyshas are working as expected. There are droughts, when I get none or only one for 3 or 4 days, but then again other days with 4 or 5 tokens in one day
I´ve seen you claiming in various threads, that the game isn´t treating all players equal in terms of drop rates - meaning, that the RNG would be biased or unfair. I think, this is a serious accusation and if it would be true, I am sure, that most players are interested in a proof for this and of course also a fix of it. However, I have only seen you giving more or less obscure hints, as far as I can remember you never supported this with any kind of data, numbers, whatever. Then again you have already said in another thread, that collecting data is pointless, as “RNG doesn´t work like this in the game” (one of these obscure hints I was referring to). It is hard to start any kind of useful discussion based on just vague claims , sorry.
No. I absolutely and repetitiously point out that RNG is not something you can predict or build expectations upon. I make no accusations. I merely point out that RNG is RNG. You get lucky or you dont. If you have read my posts as you claim, I make no complaints but illustrate that expectation is futile and self destructive.
I´m just in the mood, so I´ll reply also here…
First, it is of course important, that a RNG is working correct. A “correct” RNG will give the same chances with every roll and the results of every new roll are independent from the results of previous rolls. When the devs state for example drop rates for the chests in the game, every player should be able to rely on the fact, that this means, that a correct RNG is determining the outcome of every single chest (meaning for example every gem chest has the same chance for droping a mythic, legendary,…). I think, we are in line here, as you have stated on various occasions, that you also think, that the chances for every try are the same and won´t increase (and also won´t decrease…) with the number of tries.
But my point is, if a RNG is giving “correct” results, then of course I can build expectations on it. Of course never in a single try and never in a low number of tries, but in a long run the results must meet the expected values - or the RNG isn´t correct anymore. By refusing the concept of “expected values” in correlation with RNG you are contesting central aspects of probability calculations. The mathematical theory behind this exists since many centuries and is used succesful in many different applications. Why would it not be correct to use it in context with Gems of War?
I am not refusing expected values at all. But I do cast doubt upon data collection projections where the drop rates are deliberately secreted. As you point out, “correct RNG” should even out eventually but there is no definition of when that equilibrium will occur. We all experience different RNG “pot luck” en route to this correct RNG eventuality. Its not an accusation of bias, unfairness or anything such like; its an acceptance of uncorrective RNG streakiness as a concept. Grind away is your solution to this but those who hit the jackpot early may consider that MO irrelevant.
Well, from my point of view, there are two reasons for a data collection. One would be, if a drop rate is officially stated, then I can start to collect data to control, if the real values do align with the drop rate. One might do this, if there are doubts about the accuracy of the stated drop rate. The data collection then is just for controlling purposes.
The other reason is, if a probability for something is not known or, as you said, deliberately secreted. In this case, a data collection is the only way, if one wants to get any idea of the probabilities working behind the scenes. And this case has of course its uncertainties. It is always questionable, when the samplesize is big enough, so that the probabilities deducted from the data collection portray the real values. As you pointed out, there is no definition, when the equilibrium will occur. But does this make data collection in the context of Gems of War useless at all? I don´t think so or data collection would be useless in any case with unknown probabilities, not only a video game. Yet, it is used in many cases of unknown probabilities and it is useful, as long as it is done in a correct way.
That being said, there are some data collections on the forum, and from my point of view, most of them are done with a lot of effort, have a big to huge samplesize - and are done good. I remember for example a thread about the appearance rate of the mimic fight during explore. The statements there were something like “after 1000 boss chests, 105 mimics appeared, in a first guess I would assume a chance of 10%…”, “after 2000 boss chests, 208 mimics appeared, 10% seem still valid”, “after 5000 boss chests, 498 mimics, so I would take the 10% as confirmed”. I don´t see, why this should be a wrong use of data collection. And if you say, that “data collection is misleading and irrelevant” like you did in the other thread, then I dare say, that you are just wrong.