The real price of loadouts (Edited with a real statistics analysis)

[Scrazzor]

Is it just me who thinks trading up from lead is not worth it? I rather buy cases with the credits instead. Seems more efficient if you are trying to get higher tier skins. If you still need bronze loadouts trading up from lead is still worth it. I´m too lazy to to proper calculations though

[Matuno1]

Is it just me who thinks trading up from lead is not worth it? I rather buy cases with the credits instead. Seems more efficient if you are trying to get higher tier skins. If you still need bronze loadouts trading up from lead is still worth it. I´m too lazy to to proper calculations though

If you need a specific loadout, then yes, it is definitely cheaper to just straight up buy that bronze loadout.

In any other case, trading up is the only way to get skins.

[Aazhyd1]

Depends. I already got lots of irons, so when Stoker wad released, I only had to trade up a few times to get good loadouts. I spent 5k and got 2 good loadouts. Much better than spending 17.5 k.

[FireWorks]

Whats the point in making an unreal base assumption? Why would you buy all the crates? You get the vaste majority dropped for free.

I ran an excel sheet with the indepth math for getting cobalts. This includes all the cost lowering factors of the drops while opening the required amount of crates etc.

Baseline:
On average:
-You require 328 crates and 176327 Credits for a single cobalt trade up excluding the chance of a cobalt drop.
-If you factor in the chance of a crate having a cobalt drop, the values change to 247 crates and 212234 Credits (less crates opened mean less cost lowering drops like a gold etc)

Mind these are totally average number of expectations.

So, as an example of the interpretation, after 1000 crates you should have 4 cobalts (or hold the materials for trading them up) and it would have cost you around 850K to get them.

Now everyone is different in his income, but for me, buying crates is an absolute nogo in terms of getting cobalts. That said, i wasted 400k on CW crates just to get the chance on limited edition cards, while cobalts are not limited in their acquisition time.

[Szakalot]

[quote=“FireWorks;108202”]Whats the point in making an unreal base assumption? Why would you buy all the crates? You get the vaste majority dropped for free.
[/quote]

not only that, but the assumption that you only get lead is also pretty silly (80% =/ 100% )

[Scrazzor]

I did not explain my thoughts well enough, I realize from your responses.

Let´s say I want a cobolt Stoker card. I trade up from iron and upwards, but ignore my lead cards. Instead of spending credits to trade up from lead to iron I buy cases instead. The value you get from iron, bronze, silver and gold cards you pull from the extra cases outweighs trading up from lead. I really think it´s too expensive to trade up from lead. But as I said I´m too lazy to actually calculate this

[Izzy]

[quote=“FireWorks;108202”]Whats the point in making an unreal base assumption? Why would you buy all the crates? You get the vaste majority dropped for free.
[/quote]

That’s how science is done my sweet summer child. You make assumption, do a first calculation, find out what assumption was the less likely to be true, refine and repeat.
Now, I do buy my cases as I don’t have anywhere else to spend my credits. So that calculation actually make sense to me.
I was considering actually considering to add in this script the occurrence of getting cases but that really depends on the player and how much case he makes per unit credits. I can’t predict this without data…

I can redo the calculation suppressing the 1000 initial credits to buy case to match people like you, but in the end, would it be the real loadout price or just another extreme?

[quote=“Szakalot;108206”]
not only that, but the assumption that you only get lead is also pretty silly (80% =/ 100% )[/quote]

Oooooh well. I should have made a TL:DR in my first message. If you have read until the end of the first post, I refine the assumption and take into account the higher tier rate drop… Not to self, always remember lazy readers.

[Szakalot]

[quote=“Izzy;108222”][quote=“FireWorks;108202”]Whats the point in making an unreal base assumption? Why would you buy all the crates? You get the vaste majority dropped for free.
[/quote]

That’s how science is done my sweet summer child. You make assumption, do a first calculation, find out what assumption was the less likely to be true, refine and repeat.
Now, I do buy my cases as I don’t have anywhere else to spend my credits. So that calculation actually make sense to me.
I was considering actually considering to add in this script the occurrence of getting cases but that really depends on the player and how much case he makes per unit credits. I can’t predict this without data…

I can redo the calculation suppressing the 1000 initial credits to buy case to match people like you, but in the end, would it be the real loadout price or just another extreme?

[quote=“Szakalot;108206”]
not only that, but the assumption that you only get lead is also pretty silly (80% =/ 100% )[/quote]

Oooooh well. I should have made a TL:DR in my first message. If you have read until the end of the first post, I refine the assumption and take into account the higher tier rate drop… Not to self, always remember lazy readers.[/quote]

yup you should have, if i see a (in my view) a flawed assumption, im not gonna follow your reasoning in case you change your mind further down, lol

[Izzy]

[quote=“Szakalot;108237”][quote=“Izzy;108222”][quote=“FireWorks;108202”]Whats the point in making an unreal base assumption? Why would you buy all the crates? You get the vaste majority dropped for free.
[/quote]

That’s how science is done my sweet summer child. You make assumption, do a first calculation, find out what assumption was the less likely to be true, refine and repeat.
Now, I do buy my cases as I don’t have anywhere else to spend my credits. So that calculation actually make sense to me.
I was considering actually considering to add in this script the occurrence of getting cases but that really depends on the player and how much case he makes per unit credits. I can’t predict this without data…

I can redo the calculation suppressing the 1000 initial credits to buy case to match people like you, but in the end, would it be the real loadout price or just another extreme?

[quote=“Szakalot;108206”]
not only that, but the assumption that you only get lead is also pretty silly (80% =/ 100% )[/quote]

Oooooh well. I should have made a TL:DR in my first message. If you have read until the end of the first post, I refine the assumption and take into account the higher tier rate drop… Not to self, always remember lazy readers.[/quote]

yup you should have, if i see a (in my view) a flawed assumption, im not gonna follow your reasoning in case you change your mind further down, lol[/quote]

I am editing the first message accordingly. I didn’t changed my mind further down, I have improved my precision further down.

[Matuno1]

[quote=“Scrazzor;108209”]I did not explain my thoughts well enough, I realize from your responses.

Let´s say I want a cobolt Stoker card. I trade up from iron and upwards, but ignore my lead cards. Instead of spending credits to trade up from lead to iron I buy cases instead. The value you get from iron, bronze, silver and gold cards you pull from the extra cases outweighs trading up from lead. I really think it´s too expensive to trade up from lead. But as I said I´m too lazy to actually calculate this [/quote]

Well, it’s 500 to convert 3 leads, 1000 to buy a case. So there’s your cost difference for an iron card.

You could argue that there’s still a 20% chance you won’t get lead, and a 5% chance that you get something better than iron (which you can then further reason to be more effective if you draw silver/gold etc.). Still, I don’t think you’ll come close to the 500 effective credits for certainty to get an iron card.