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.