Some players pointed out that the drops seem off for our weekly event. I couldn’t comment on this further until I checked in with the team, and we have reviewed them. The actual drop rate of collectables in the world event is approximately 1.19x the base value. This was intended to be rounded down slightly when we told players, just to err on the side of caution. As such, we wrote that it was 1.18x.
Now comes the fun part. In a design document used during development, a typo was made. Instead of the document saying it was meant to be 1.19x, it read 1.78x. This has of course created a discrepancy in what we said versus what players are seeing. As such, we have adjusted the required scores for the event to take the real drop rate into account, and you should notice that all scores have now been lowered accordingly.
This fix has been deployed now, so if you are not seeing it please restart you game and/or device.
1.19? 1.78? That’s some typo. I mean 1 and 7 are so close together on the keyboard. Rofl. That guy must have had one hell of a party the night before. Ever heard of checking stuff? Ignore that question…we know it’s an alien concept.
This is so strangely worded. I think what you are trying to say is that an error was made, the wrong drop rate value was used to determine reward tiers and you have now corrected said error - reward tiers were updated to use the correct value. Mistakes happen, thanks for correcting
But the way it’s worded, it seems to say you’ve changed the reward tiers because you told us the wrong drop rate value. And that… eh?
I hope you don’t actually mean that the only reason the reward tiers were updated is because you told us 1.8 instead of 1.19. Would they have been changed even if the event post had the correct drop rate?
Thank you for listening to our complaints and taking them seriously.
Tier 4 should be enough.
The last few tiers have gone from:
7,000
10,000
15,000
Down to
5,000
7,000
10,000
Based on that alone, thats about 500 points less per person to get, dropping down to ~1200 needed per player, and a tier 4 on average, according to Redi, gets 1189.
EDIT
I checked numbers when I realised I still had them.
Total needed for the event has gone from 53,000 per guild down to 35,000. Thats 1167 per person.
Now requires 1166.66 points per per person in a 30 person guild. Avg points per battle with purely random selection based on actual intended scoring would be ~12.19. Completion should be possible in about 96 sigils given just the stated parameters. T4 is usually 92 or 94 battles for a perfect run. Real world points per battle are slightly higher than calculating with a 1.19 multiplier based on your average expected points because you get 6 random offered and pick 4 of them, which works out to a few more points per cycle of 5 usually. Leader average was about 12.72 per battle mid evening yesterday, with a standard deviation of 0.46. Assuming no great amount of score component tied to battle level, T4 should be possible without extreme bad luck.
FYI, there was no notable trend in the leaderboard where points per battle increased as a function of battles (eg., level of battle) played, at least nowhere near the degree of Council of Chiefs, which was apparent on day 2. Within the set, those with an “above average” score for their battles played and those with a “below average” were spread out all over, the highest recorded point per battle ratio at the time being 13.77 coming from someone with only 131 battles at the time, with the leaderboard frontrunner have a below average points per battle ratio (12.7) over 420+ total battles (where each battle would have to be leveled 70 times or more) and the second place having an above average,but not remarkably so, at 13.32 points per battle at 400 total battles. Less than half the battles that were “above average” were in the top 50. The lowest point ratio on the leaderboard was 11.3 points per battle, which was hopefully someone not practicing optimal scoring (only 2 sub 12s on the leaderboard). So if there is level based score growth, it is very very slow this time.
If choosing the highest room rarity each time and fighting the boss every 4 fights…
Tier 4 - 94 Sigils - 1,189 avg points
Tier 5 - 108 Sigils - 1,377 avg points
Tier 6 - 126 Sigils - 1,606 avg points
Needed Per Player - 1,166.6 [35,000 total]
Valravens calculated as (free sigils + shop sigils) x 2.25. It has been fairly consistent in the past across multiple events.
Points at 12.75 per Sigil
The event can now be complete if 30 member buy Tier 4 in most cases.
I’m quite happy that this event was corrected into something reasonable.
On the other hand, I’m not happy that I purchased tier 7 unnecessarily. My guild was on a red light most of Monday. When I saw the initial calculations, I went ahead and purchased through tier 7 in order to help my guild.
Maybe don’t think of it as wasting gems. Think of it as spending gems this week to make life easier for your guild mates, and then perhaps one of them will return the favor on a later week and save you some gems.
I could have bought Tier 4 and i bought Tier 6. I wasted something like 800 gems? And i should be thankful and happy about the way you corrected the typo? Is this a joke. No, i am NOT happy. This fix screwed me up. Players make the maths and buy accordingly so the cost can be equally divided within a guild. We need predictability. Players that will buy now will get the same rewards we are getting but with a much lower cost spent. This is NOT ok…
Were you playing back in the days when troops had to be added manually to the list of chest results, and on more than one occasion a mythic troop was not actually in the pool despite having been announced as such?
What I am hinting at is, the smart play moving forward is probably to buy only Tier IV on Mondays, wait to see if any scoring “irregularities” pop up, and then buy Tiers V, VI, or VII as needed later in the week.
The error was said to have been in the announcement and communication to players, and not in the programming/execution of the design. As such, regardless of this change in reward tiers, it appears it must have been intended for the event to have the same level of buy-in as Council of Chiefs, which doesn’t bode well.
I guess maybe if mapping out and entering in the reward tiers happened after the 1.78x typo, this wouldn’t be the case, but… Idk.
Another note – why “err on the side of caution” for the design document (1.19 → 1.18) but not for the official news website post (1.78 → 1.8)?
