@YoshiEnVerde I do realize how much complexity the consideration of an RNG alteration by time period would add to the equation itself but unfortunately I have to emphasize that if such a thing were in fact programmed into the system and those gathering data chose to ignore it, the conclusion from rendered data would undoubtedly be inaccurate if not completely false. For that matter, it would render most of the statistical data gathered thus far worthless.

That being said, in positive hopes that is not the case, it would be desirable to hope otherwise and only come to that conclusion once enough data has been gathered to determine that there is in fact such an anomaly not accounted for. All I'll ask is to set it aside but take it into consideration if something seems off down the road.

And admittedly yes, I'm not very meticulous when it comes to testing statistics (was more of a calculus guy) so everything I say is more or less unproven hypothesis, in some cases one that's like religion in that it can neither be proved nor disproved. Ultimately it will become little more than a plausibility to consider if all other statistical conclusions seem to fall short somewhere.

The "Happy hour theory": Some hours or periods have bigger success chance than others.
Example: At some periods, triple Chance might be 5% and other 15% with an average 10%.
How to test this? My suggestion look at waiting times. Number of spins from between one triple chance to the next.
If chance of triple "Chance" is, constant waiting times will follow an exponential distribution.
If happy hour theory is correct we could get more very short and very long waiting time.

I also look at how often did SR come in same spot 2 time i a row:
4 out of 24 times or just 1:6. Not much better than the 1:6 chance you get by picking at random.

Originally Posted by ChibiKika

@YoshiEnVerde I do realize how much complexity the consideration of an RNG alteration by time period would add to the equation itself but unfortunately I have to emphasize that if such a thing were in fact programmed into the system and those gathering data chose to ignore it, the conclusion from rendered data would undoubtedly be inaccurate if not completely false. For that matter, it would render most of the statistical data gathered thus far worthless.

That being said, in positive hopes that is not the case, it would be desirable to hope otherwise and only come to that conclusion once enough data has been gathered to determine that there is in fact such an anomaly not accounted for. All I'll ask is to set it aside but take it into consideration if something seems off down the road.

And admittedly yes, I'm not very meticulous when it comes to testing statistics (was more of a calculus guy) so everything I say is more or less unproven hypothesis, in some cases one that's like religion in that it can neither be proved nor disproved. Ultimately it will become little more than a plausibility to consider if all other statistical conclusions seem to fall short somewhere.

Actually, it does not become innacurate (or false) as long as you sample a broad enough data set.
That's the point of doing the data gathering for a long time, at as many different hours as possible, by as many people as possible: If you were to get an hypthetical data set for each and every "timezone" of the algorithm, then you'd be working with "perfect" statistical equations (averages and such).
It is a true fact from statistical math that once the data universe you're starting from becomes big enough you could never gather a trully perfect representation in your sample.That's why you try to gather from as representative a set you can.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting values for my first two days of data gathering.
I'll post everything together after the first week of gathering.

What I can see, however, still shows BA to not be that bad as was originally implied...

->Open Spoiler<-

So, GHQ has a triple-spin chance of over 90%, while BA has a chance below 30%. Just looking at that, and recalling my assurance that we only needed for BA to have half the chance of GHQ to keep up, we can see BA falls short (one third of GHQ, instead of one-half).

Why, then, do I say it's not as bad as we originally thought?

1. The weight of missed spins in BA seems to impact heavily on non-chancetime spins. That means that, while Exp/Pero/Gift get less than half the amount of triple-spins than in GHQ, Chance Time chances are still on par with GHQ.
2. Even though 1240sta in GHQ netted me barely enough triple-spins for 3*Chance Mission, and 2*Everything Else Missions, the spread of the spin results meant that I only managed to get 3*Chance and 1*Gift/Exp. I might have been able to sacrifice the last Chance Mission in exchange for getting all 1*, but I don't think a daily Kurito gift is worth sacrificing for a couple of N-WC...
   On the other hand, today, by now 1200sta (I leveled up last night, so there's almost 300sta extra) have given me the 3*Chance and 1*Gift, with 2 spins on the 1*Exp.

What I can preliminarily get from this is that you can, more or less get the same missions on both sectors.
Added to that, comes the net Exp/Pero gains from each sector:

• GHQ: 1125exp, 4380pero
• BA: 1240exp, 5000pero

Which confirms my early thoughts on grinding, with bove 10% extra gains from BA.

As I said above, I won't post any definitive thoughts on this until next week, when I'll have more solid data (I could as well get less than 5 Chance Time spins next BA run through).
Then, I'll collate the data loaded by other people too.

Now i got 171 spin at gatheres at 8 different times:

3x Chance 9 times (5.3%)
3x Pero 10 times (5.7%)
3x Gift 8 times (4.7%)
3x Exp 7 times (4.1%)
Nothing 137 times (80.1%)
Total 171 spins.

My estemate yesteday was 5% for each of the 4 triple results so even though my data tripled no big changes.

I can only collect 22 spins each time then I have to wait 3 hours.

Last 4 times I colleted 20-22 same poor result. Data collected 4 different times with 3 hours between all show 80% nothing spins. Waiting 3 hours don't seem to change proberbilities.

Spin cost should at bonus stage should be reduced to atleast 5 stamina or maybe even to 3 stamina.
Even with a spin cost of 3 stamina area 5-3 is still better.
Spin cost of 2 stamina is too low imo and would make it overpoweres.

Originally Posted by Opalia24

Now i got 171 spin at gatheres at 8 different times:

3x Chance 9 times (5.3%)
3x Pero 10 times (5.7%)
3x Gift 8 times (4.7%)
3x Exp 7 times (4.1%)
Nothing 137 times (80.1%)
Total 171 spins.

My estemate yesteday was 5% for each of the 4 triple results so even though my data tripled no big changes.

I can only collect 22 spins each time then I have to wait 3 hours.

Last 4 times I colleted 20-22 same poor result. Data collected 4 different times with 3 hours between all show 80% nothing spins. Waiting 3 hours don't seem to change proberbilities.

Spin cost should at bonus stage should be reduced to atleast 5 stamina or maybe even to 3 stamina.
Even with a spin cost of 3 stamina area 5-3 is still better.
Spin cost of 2 stamina is too low imo and would make it overpoweres.

I'm online pretty much 24/7, so I run my stamina burns in 50~100sta bursts every hour or so. The different times do change numbers.
Instead of a 5% triple-spin overall, and 80% failure, like you got, mine are around 12% Chance, 5% The rest, 75% failure.

I can tell you that most of those CHance triple-spins actually rolled in two different bursts, at a rate of 5~6 Chances in 10 or less spins.

Okay, i have to say that i am getting somewhat frustrated at explore at the moment. Currently i am sitting in area 7-3 waiting for that lucky time that i get the SR before i move on. However, the SR can be gotten from the thursday daily as well, and with a higher chance to get the chance triplet. Currently pondering whether i should stay in 7-3 until i get it or just move on and get to GHQ asap because this will be the second day in a row where i haven't been able to finish the 10x chance daily, something i never fail with in the GHQ area whenever i can do it. Severely hurts my Kurito attempts...

So any suggestions? Blast away or stay in 7-3 for now?

A little point. I saw that during chance time the rarest card of the deck (between N cards could be one that you don't own) drops 1-2 places for next roll (between gacha and explore runs). The only problem? It does in both directions (that's the random fact).

Well, is my sight.

Tenhou, just move on and get her from the GHQ later. The GHQ doesn't just seem to have a higher chance of hitting Chance Time, it seems to hit on longer pseudorolls than normal exploration, which raises the rarity of the cards that show up, step ups or not.

143 spins at GHQ gave me:

Triple Pero 20 times (14%).
Triple Chance 52 times (36%)
Triple Exp 29 times (20%)
Triple Gift 37 times (26%)
Nothing 5 times. (4%)

Just looked at the Girls cards I got shown at GHQ:

287x N-Girls (92%)
22x R-Girls (7%)
3x SR-Girls (1%)
Total 312 girls

Normal area spins (fx 5-3)
790x N-Girls (76%)
206x R-Girls (20.5%)
36x SR-Girls (3.5%)
1032 girls

So Chance for SR and R girl form a triple chance is 3 times bigger at area 5-3 than from GHQ.
Maybe both GHQ and Bonus Stage both sucks.

Bonus stage 217 spins:
Triple Pero 13 times (6%).
Triple Chance 15 times (7%)
Triple Exp 12 times (5.5%)
Triple Gift 12 times (5.5%)
Nothing 165 times. (76%)

49x N-Girls (55%)
37x R-Girls (41%)
2x SR-Girls (2%)
2x Wilds (2%)
Total 90 girls/wild

Triple Chance seen to give Little bette drops from Bonus Stage than from 5-3. Area 5-3 gives 4 time more triple Change for same stamia which more than ofset the Little better chance for a R-girl and maybe SR-girls.