whatever Im annoyed about not fixed casual things in game, but for cb drop could be only the time issue. what I have noticed so far-it comes ,sacred shard after longer time or lego book. in about 2 month time rotation is completed with pretty similar result

Can I spit on you?  Lmao 🤣 🤣 

Please do not ask to spit on anyone, even as a joke. It's weird, dirty, and a bit degrading. I think Quinn, or anyone else, deserves better than a tasteless joke like that. 

Since Vlad fussion up to today - 2 account, 2 sacred shards and 3 lego tomes summary -daily NM last chests and UNM second chest...so, luck, rng, or whathever, especialy for me and my friend drop IS nerfed and it is seeable for us...there are not even Epic books, 5 or 6 to account, mostly Cruel and Immortal pieces and potions...

So...are there not even Epic books, or are there 5/6 per account?  If you're not getting UNM then that's not really bad.  

You need to get UNM chests or realize NM chests are not as good.  They do add up, but not nearly as fast.

As far as getting Cruel/Immortal pieces, well of course. Almost every chest you open will drop one.  Same with brews and potions, most chest will drop them.

Accoring to Ayumilove, Vlad fusion event/tourny ended November 14.  

Just for comparision, on 1 account, from November 15 through this morning, i've recieved from Demon Lord, 6 chests each day

Ancient 52

Void 19

Sacred 9

Epic Book 16

Leggo Book 9

I will explain. for me the sentence sounds something like this - I'm not an idiot who forgot about the screenshot. despite the fact that earlier I just posted a photo of the monitor screen (which is certainly not good, but initially it was not planned to publish them), and the text takes on a double meaning. roughly - I'm not an idiot forgetting about screenshots. At the same time, in our language segment, rudeness from the moderator is considered the norm, and an answer like * I’m fine, so you’re wrong * is quite an answer to the question asked. if I do not understand correctly, it means my mistake. anyway - I didn't * threaten * anyone.

[snip]

....and here's another day "just unlucky".  I really want to convey to you that this is not normal.  that's all I've been getting for a month now.  maybe you find it funny to read about it, because this is "another conspiracy theory", and you - everything is fine.  but it’s impossible to play like that.  I'll explain - all events like "double legendary hero" are skipped.  the merger is either impossible or almost impossible.  participation in clan wars is also difficult.  development of an account without the most important resources - also stands still.  I got 50 epic books at the moment, in a month.  but even an epic hero has nowhere to take.  I will repeat myself - I have been playing raid for 3 years already.  there were good moments, there were not good moments, but I did not go to complain about the forum.  however, there was no such thing as now.  I pick up at least 4 top chests daily.  2 from 5 boss, 2 from 6. and get - epic books.  I went to the discord bug channel, and the first message I saw was that a drop from the clan boss was missing.  they talk about it on YouTube.  the other day a video was released where a person with 30k subscribers says the same thing as me.  I understand that you passed it on to the developers, and it makes no sense to wait any longer from you, but it may need to be passed 10 or 15 times, because there really is such a problem.

[Screenshots from elsewhere in the forums and from our discord removed for readability. If you wish to report your results, that is fine, no need to spam them everywhere. -Mods]

[SCREENSHOT REMOVED FOR READABILITY AND QUOTABILITY, it is available in these very forums]

here is a screen from the Russian-language part of the forum, from a person I don’t know, and the translation of his words: 

because no one will sit for six months without fragments, I don’t know where to put these epic books, every day an epic book, I’m not talking about  Sacral shargs fragments, even the blue ones stopped falling for me, but books are falling.  And it really started on a specific date without exception.  Well, as I already said that many fell under the percentage, and even my clan, we kicked out 5 because they raging and stopped entering, and 7 from the clan also noticed that only books were falling for a month, although in 2 years of this  was not ... For a minute, in total, it turns out 13 people out of 30 with a problem, and this is just my clan.  I think this is a big problem.  Someone laughs at this, but these are the people who did not fall into this percentage.  He does not understand a hungry man when he is satiated, it just speaks of a person's selfishness and the fact that after all, something has been screwed up in the game.

 Just inform Plarium that there are a lot of complaints, there has never been such a mass scale.  Let them at least check, maybe they just didn't even pay attention, but write, then at least they will check.

I have stated 3 separate times in this very thread I have spoken to Plarium about this:

i

i

i

So, if your aim is to draw Plarium's attention to this, you do not need to post your daily CB chest pictures in mutliple threads across the forums, nor screenshot and translate other forum posts for us.

I also should point out that the Russian mods also reported this for you, and told you in the thread you are posting in over in that forum that they did so. Their advice was that CB rewards come in waves, in their 1.5+ years of experience, and that you just have to ride out the waves of both bad luck and good luck. Yet, like me, they shared your concerns with Plarium.

So basically, several moderators have reported your complaints, and all of us have told you that. I'm not sure what else you want from us besides this. If you have something else the entire moderator team is not doing for you, please share so that I can address that.

well, as Plarium says, they dont change rates...for a part of users...may be that part, who are not f2p...or may be change it for that part from Eastern Europe, where there a lot of f2p players and less whales...and seem they dont nerf all the drop...just drop from NM, where he most of such people (f2p) play (like me, without CS or Unkilable champs, so they dont have a change for UNM)...i dont play already., gave up my account to my friend when they release so called "dupe system" wich is just a way to make us recycling garbage heroes and pay for this...as i see, nothing changed...

and silence. and I continue to type epic books at the moment, during the month there are already 58 of them. I know that no one has fixed the drop on the boss. I am sure about that. again, over the past 5 days, a player from my clan has 6 sacral shards. this is exactly 2 times more than mine in a month. only the epic of the book continues to fall every day. what to do with them if there is nowhere to get the characters?

in the discord they answered - we did not change anything. in those. We wrote to support - we checked, everything is fine. but I keep getting only epic books.

The moderator from the Russian-language page said - I conveyed that the players are complaining about the drop again. exactly in this form. with strikethrough * again * which is clearly sarcastic and not what the players are really talking about. At the same time, his experience, based on a year and a half of the game, speaks of the waves of a drop, but my experience at 3 years old says that this is the first time. I have never written to the forum with problems with the loss of something. but now it is not normal. it is out of bounds. I see no reason to continue playing when there has been nothing from the main place of obtaining resources for more than a month.

I am a Physicist (PhD) and familiar with statistics tests and programming through my work.   But this is really simple stuff.

The binomial test will tell you if your own observed sacred shard drop probability is significantly different from the expected population distribution.  The math is not too hard and available online even but difficult to format the formula in text.

I would like to consider instead how many people have seen no sacred shards drop in the last month or longer.  This lets us simplify to a straight binomial probability.   Getting zero sacred shards would also be more easily achievable with a programming glitch than changing the probability.

Let us just consider the odds of getting zero Sacred shards over n days.  My experience getting 1xUNM was 1-2 shards per week which agree with the numbers you can find in an internet search about 14% chance.  Considering a binomial distribution of either getting or not getting a shard then the chance is 86%.  

For 1 week (7 days) the chance of 0 sacred shards is 0.86^7 = 35%. (this seems to agree with observation)

For 1 month (30 days) the chance of 0 Sacred shards is 1%

6 weeks 42 days = 0.18%

I have not seen a sacred shard in at least 6 weeks now, at least this is when it got my attention.  Still, 1 in every 500 players getting daily UNM chests will see zero shards drop in 42 days and 1% of players will see zero shards.  

I do not know the number of people getting the UNM chest drop.  There are 2 of us in our clan, our clan is ranked <1000th.  So a big assumption but say a maximum of 40,000 players getting UNM top chest...  Here it gets difficult since most of the top clans are getting 2 UNM chests per day.  As an example, though from 40000 players you could expect 80 players to see zero sacred shards in 42 days.  This result surprises even my expectations.  That is the bias kicking in.  

Now, that hopefully being said to establish my credibility,  I have looked at the translation of the author's results which considers the whole distribution, not just getting zero books, which gives a much much larger sample size.  Note that there were 2 reports, one from November showing results as expected, and one from December showing a change.

Firstly, I noted that the December results did not show a spike of people reporting zero shards.  That does not support my idea that there is an error resulting in more people getting zero shards.  I note though their data includes drops from NM chests and clans killing the boss which is a slightly different mechanic.

Secondly, their comparison of the distribution in sacred shards given their large data set (1900 drops per day?) absolutely convinces me there was a change.

Thirdly.  The most convincing thing for me is their results from the epic book drops.  This clearly shows that there are two separate populations represented in the sample.  One population is the same as represented in the previous month.  The second population is getting more epic books (and therefore less of other things)

I have read some comments above about how the data is unreliable because they removed some samples.  This is rubbish from the uneducated.  Scientists always remove data points that are clearly bad and this is not the same as removing data that disagrees with you.  For example, there are a fixed number of drops from each chest type, so the authors removed data from people who had reported the incorrect number of drops, or people that reported repeated drops like 2 shards.

There is always the chance that the authors have faked their data, and no way to test this.  But come on, the game is not really that important for people to put so much time into a fake of this magnitude. I would reject this hypothesis without hesitation.

I would like to thank the original authors wholeheartedly for their work and its presentation.  I encourage everyone to read it in their browser with auto-translation.   https://telegra.ph/Statistika-po-KB-dekabr-2021-12-12  Given the effect of translation it is obviously written by people with scientific or statistical experience in both the analysis and the writeup.  All results are explained clearly.  It is probably the most well-written experiment in any game data that I have seen ever.

I got 2 lego books today, 1 from NM and 1 from UNM. Please delete from sample, I am not worthy... lol

"Well written study"? Maybe.

Well conducted study, definitely not. You take author at word, that no bias exists in sample. I do not. I see a self selected subset of individuals with below average luck, selectively reporting the data that supports the hypothesis. I rate the credibility of the study a 0 of 10. Fancy graphs and basic statistics when applied to shitty data = a pile of shit.

Going to bat for selectively reported data is insane, and no one at my work or in my lab meetings would do it. This "study" would absolutely be absolutely laughed out of the room. And it is no way well-written. That makes me seriously question the "established credibility" the poster above you claims, Trips.

You can see how they doctored the data in their own words: 

i

They ended up with a little over 10% of their original poster count. Do you think this makes for good research? We have the self-reported data of people who are all admittedly on bad streaks, then that data was trimmed to illustrate and better confirm to their "two reward groups" theories. 

Furthermore, why would you or I ever take the time to log our stuff, Trips? We are not on a bad streak. I got yet another legendary book today. Why would I invest my time in this? Why would anyone not on a bad run?

More than that, why would anyone keep logging/self-reporting after they pulled a couple sacreds or a legendary book? Why would you log for another month after your variance turned a little positive? The "bug" no longers applies to you, now does it? You are definitely not as invested in proving that Plarium has broken your CB rewards once you get a few good drops. What this means is that the people likely to be edited out of the data, becuase they didn't report on greater than 90% of the days, are the very people whose drop rates could invalidate the data. 

Basically, you stop posting cause you got good rewards, you don't get counted anymore. Why would you even post your good rewards? How many sacreds or legendary books before someone stops posting? 1? 2? 3? Either way, we don't know becuase the data is totally self-reported only from people motivated to participcate, only bad beatz from eastern europe/russia. We don't even have a true worldwide sample.

Finally, there is no actual mathmetical hypothesis testing at all. Any scientific study I would participate in requires it. This isn't even "a study". It's someone making charts from handpicked data.

I have not read the translation and don't intend to.  To many other things to do as this doesn't effect me.

You said this: "I note though their data includes drops from NM chests and clans killing the boss which is a slightly different mechanic."

and this: "The most convincing thing for me is their results from the epic book drops.  This clearly shows that there are two separate populations represented in the sample."

Doesn't the fact that their 'sample' includes both NM and UNM chests in and ofitself garantee that there are two seperte populations represented?

I don't doubt any of their personal observations or experiences, or even the data itself.  But it's hardly a rigourous study.  How can it be when they can't define the population, or even the sampling method.  Even in robust studies where sampling is tightly controlled there can be many issues that must be controlled.  Self-reported data is only acceptable when there is no other means available, and then it's seldom considered anything but preliminary which may indicate further research needed.

Removing outlying data is common when needed.  The responses that reported 9 sacreds per chest obviously needed to be removed.  But the fact it was there to begin with demonstrates some of the failings of self-reported data.  People who self-report are the type of people who are likely to self-report.  This is bias in itself.  People who have a headache or sprained ankle or more likely to fill out medical questionaires.  This increases bias.

But here's the real thing.  What do the author's want people to do?  There results have been reported.  Do they want me to travel to Plarium headquarters with a sign and protest outside their doors?  I don't doubt their observations.  But they do not match mine.

There are two standards of truth in this world.  Authority and experience.  If mother tells you the stove is cold, then you know the stove is cold.  If you touch the stove and burn your hand, then you know the stove is hot.  Are you going to believe mother saying the stove is cold and touch it again when your hand is blistered?

You find it hard to believe the authors may have faked their results. So do I.  I find it equally if not more unlikely that Plarium would isolate a population and change rates just for them.  Why would they?  Because the are not whales?  That makes no sense.  If I were Plarium and wanted to change rates for only some, I'd reduce rates for the whales.  Afteralll, if I decrease rates for minnows, they are not all of a suden going to become whales.  But if whales are not getting enough shards/leggo books, then they are much more likely to spend more money.

you do not understand the purpose of the bot correctly.  it was not built to track epic books.  rather for personal summing up the results of the month.  people enter data only for themselves.  not taking into account the fact that someone will sum statistics in the end.  it is on this basis that they build a conclusion about the impartiality of the audience.  once again, it's just a personal counter.  and when you enter for yourself, there is no point in entering incorrect data every day.  in one of the most popular telegram channels about the raid - in the library, people often post screenshots from the bot with good results.  and continue to conduct purely for themselves.  as before, for example, there was a count of open crystals, and the number of discoveries before the guarantor.

i

I want to touch on this since the technical/scientific side of things has already been well handled.

I see two different issues at play here:

1) Taking the people collecting data at face value which is perhaps less of an issue than:

2) Taking the people providing the data at face value.

This game absolutely causes people to be irrational to a degree in which they would lie or falsify data while simultaneously being prey to biases they don't even notice that are in play. We see people everyday blame everything going wrong in their game outside of their own decisions, though perhaps that is not completely analogous to this situation. This doesn't even take into account the entitlement that we often see in disgruntled players.

Also, the fact that this game simultaneously can involve gambling/variance (shards for example, and in this instance clan boss drops) along with people spending money in the game can lead to extremely irrational emotional responses. 

Hello, everybody.

It is not first thread about our's post. To tell the truth, I'm a little bit tired of answering same questions on each thread. So it will be my single post :)

I advice you to visit https://www.reddit.com/r/RaidShadowLegends/comments/rfhklt/clan_boss_drop_changes/

You can find raw data link inside post and process it like you want. Also our conclusions were verified by independent user https://www.reddit.com/r/RaidShadowLegends/comments/rfhklt/comment/hoq0wgn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Also you can find some opinion about this situation on hell haides channel: https://youtu.be/FrwKtfavc_M?t=439

Breef:

1)  We crowdsource data, so it can be compromised, but we don't see any evidence for this theory

2) This post is about our second report. First report did not find anything strange on drop distribution. Moreover until 17th nov our data was in broadly agreement with datamined probs

3) We did not find any anomalies with our users, fill rate or something, that can be related to the bot itself and affect collected data. We just see that a lot of people with average drop (until 17th nov) started to fill drop with huge amount of epic books after 17th nov.

4) Splitting users makes sense in case of A/B test for example

5) Filtering assumes removing users with incorrect drop (5 sacred per day) or with low fill rate in case we try to work with month data. Actually it is common practice for crowdsourced data.

6) We also apply stat tests for our data (raw and filtered). We did not publish it because nobody in russian comunity read anything with math inside:)

Feel free to use our data (you can find it at reddit post) for your own research and good luck.

// Vadim, bot developer