General The best method of collecting gold tokens

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

So I’m after thoughts; what is the best method of collecting gold tokens?
This can be done in a number of ways; topping the flight league tables (it can be done with some planning and good luck, but it can also be quite high risk and sink a lot of your fuel resources in my opinion).
Completing waterworld collections from red launches. One of the most common ways, but very time consuming, particularly if you are running day to day for launch ready kits/launch preparation items.
Finishing the events in the top 25 - again quite high risk and you can sink a lot of fuel trying.
And finally, conducting adventure flights.
This last one peaks my interest, as this has no reliance on others, and so the tokens are guaranteed (by the law of averages) for a given fuel spend. So what is the most efficient way of collecting tokens, and how much fuel (on average) will a token cost you?
Each completion of a collection that makes up the sands of time collection gives a large bronze chest (1 gold token), and the completion of the sands of time collection gives a gold chest (3 tokens).

For the sake of argument, let’s assume a player has completed all of the collections 5 times, so there is no benefit in chasing the different buildings other than for tokens. Is it better (less fuel per token) to complete the Aztec Legacy collection over and over, or is it better to chase the sands of time collection?

To consider this, I need a general consensus of the drop rate each of the 36 collections that make up the sands of time collection, and the total fuel cost for each return flight. Theoretically applying a GD bonus will have a constant affect and reduce the fuel needed equally across all flights. For the sake of this thread, I think it’s be better to get a consensus of the drop rate without bonuses, so that we can work out the best return fuel cost per token. Futuremore, it needs to be calculated to a base of 6 (or multiple thereof) collections, to include the additional gold chest received for the sands of time collection. If we apply a 90% confidence factor, the data should be true in most applications.

Machu Picchu - 20 + ?? = ??
Tollan - 20 + ?? = ??
Quetzalcoatl Temple - 24 + ? = ?
Tenochtitlan - 24 + ? = ?
Chichen Itza- 24 + ? = ?

Ancient Rome, all flights 24 + ? =

Avaricum 40+ ? = ?
Gergovie 40 + ? = ?
Londinium 40 + ? = ?
Bibracte 40 + ? = ?
Alexia 40 + ? = ?

Ancient Egypt, all 42 + ? = ?

Ancient World, all 50 + 100 = 150

If anyone can fill in the blanks it’d be appreciated.

 

[SASgold]

If you assume the same drop rate (reasonable, but at lvl 35 I've not yet flown any adventure flights outside a few to Machu Picchu, and hence have no idea) for items of every collection, you can still calculate which approach is most efficient - i.e. get correct relative numbers but not absolute.

 

[Madge59230]

At the beginning when I was collecting gold for infamous non appearing cbm, I would do mesoamercica flights. No flight items, cheap on fuel good drop rates. Picked up 174 collections. Never did the calculation but must be by far the cheapest and easiest way to get gold. It’s not in multiples of 6. 1 gold for each collection.

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

If you assume the same drop rate (reasonable, but at lvl 35 I've not yet flown any adventure flights outside a few to Machu Picchu, and hence have no idea) for items of every collection, you can still calculate which approach is most efficient - i.e. get correct relative numbers but not absolute.

With other flights there tends to be a variance in drop rates relative to the flight time/aircraft size, i.e. longer flight/higher level plane, more generous drops. Ideally someone will have tracked their drop rates and will provide this information. 🤞

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

At the beginning when I was collecting gold for infamous non appearing cbm, I would do mesoamercica flights. No flight items, cheap on fuel good drop rates. Picked up 174 collections. Never did the calculation but must be by far the cheapest and easiest way to get gold. It’s not in multiples of 6. 1 gold for each collection.

I need to correct my first post - I mean multiples of 5 (the five collections making up the Sands of Time collection, which upon completion drops a golden chest).

 

[Madge59230]

If you are purely and only chasing gold tokens as your thread title suggests then economically it has to be better to chase any old MesoAmerica collection 3 times which is the equivalent to one gold chest. The main advantage of the sands of time collection, which I have competed is the 36 sky captain you get.

 

[BrentCrude]

The Mesoamerican and Ancient Rome Hawk flights that are 24 to send are 50 fuel to bring back early. My experience is pretty close to 1 out of 4 drop rate with GD on both of those.

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

So I finally did the math on this, using a base of 50 drops, to 140 flights. A little pessimistic based on my experience using SG, SC and D.
Having completed a lot of adventure flights in the last 6 months, there isn’t a huge variation in drops across any destinations. I suspect most are down to your luck (or RNG) on the day.

Using this base, it would cost 376,180 fuel to complete the sands of time collection 50 times, totalling 400 tokens.
Dividing the total fuel by the number required to complete 140 flights to each destination (47,040) to complete Aztec Legacy gives 7.997. On the assumption that 140 flights gives 50 tokens, 50 x 7.997 = 399.85.

So in conclusion, there is no real difference in terms of fuel usage vs token generation between chasing Aztec Legacy over and over, vs Sands of time. The main difference, as @Madge59230 has said above, is the sky captain bonuses you get for completing the sands of time.

P.S. Hats off to the guys doing the Wiki, the data there allowed me to complete this, which I couldn’t do in December when I started this.

Data here for anyone interested:

Calc

docs.google.com

edit in red.

 

[ac huang]

The interesting thing is that GI develops this game, Airport City, and put the drop rate inside the program. Then, one good player(Barkmi who is much nice gentleman) do the real testing to see what the drop rate or something else is. Why the developer don't dare to release those defined rate or something, and everything is fair, fair, fair, no cheat(no change those defined number without announcement). In the past, sometime, we may hear that something is changed or the rate is reduced. Is it a right thing? Is this a kind of cheating?

 

[A-Flyin]

I'm doing a Spyglass run to Chichen Itza right now.

24 to take off
48 to speed up

I got two helmets out of (I think) a dozen flights this morning, with four left flying right now (I have 6 helmets, so I'm letting these run with their natural Speed-ups instead of burning more fuel).

Overall I have completed 36 flights to Chichen Itza (all with spyglass active) and have six helmets. So a very unscientific 1 out of 6 with spyglass?

I'll probably do a Spyglass run to Tenochtitlan tomorrow if you still need that data. I have zero flights to that location so far.

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

I'm doing a Spyglass run to Chichen Itza right now.

24 to take off
48 to speed up

I got two helmets out of (I think) a dozen flights this morning, with four left flying right now (I have 6 helmets, so I'm letting these run with their natural Speed-ups instead of burning more fuel).

Overall I have completed 36 flights to Chichen Itza (all with spyglass active) and have six helmets. So a very unscientific 1 out of 6 with spyglass?

I'll probably do a Spyglass run to Tenochtitlan tomorrow if you still need that data. I have zero flights to that location so far.

I’ve used a broad brush 50/140 rate (35.7%). I typically run with Sky Capt (+100%), Spy Glass (+150%) and Dice (+50%), so +300% total.
The best I’ve had with those bonuses is 52% (yes, I got 52 drops from 100 flights!), I’ve had 50% too.
I have also noticed I seem to get a better drop rate when I fly more planes at once - no actual number to back this up, but my best rates were achieved when flying 5/6 planes simultaneously. I see worse when flying just 2.

 

[Dan]

So I finally did the math on this, using a base of 50 drops, to 140 flights. A little pessimistic based on my experience using SG, SC and D.
Having completed a lot of adventure flights in the last 6 months, there isn’t a huge variation in drops across any destinations. I suspect most are down to your luck (or RNG) on the day.

Using this base, it would cost 376,180 fuel to complete the sands of time collection 50 times, totalling 400 tokens.
Dividing the total fuel by the number required to complete 140 flights to each destination (47,040) to complete Aztec Legacy gives 7.997. On the assumption that 140 flights gives 50 tokens, 50 x 7.997 = 399.85.

So in conclusion, there is no real difference in terms of token generation between chasing Aztec Legacy over and over, vs Sands of time. The main difference, as @Madge59230 has said above, is the sky captain bonuses you get for completing the sands of time.

P.S. Hats off to the guys doing the Wiki, the data there allowed me to complete this, which I couldn’t do in December when I started this.

Data here for anyone interested:

Calc

docs.google.com

I am going to disagree with you. I am disagreeing because I don't think that you included all of the fuel calculations that you needed to in order to fully value the cost of each location and the true cost of getting 500 tokens from the Aztec Legacy collection or from the Sands of Time collection (and everything that leads up to it). No where did I see you mention fuel in order to get the maps from the excavation sites (Mesoamerica, Ancient Rome....). If you assume the same map drop rate from the 5 excavations sites (the drop rate doesn't matter because we are assuming it is the same for all 5. It would matter if you calculated it and it was different). Taking the two extremes (Mesoamerica and The Ancient World) fuel for each flight starts at 20 (30 speed up) and increases to 48 (90 speed up). To get maps from the Ancient World takes 2.4 times (2.76 times with speed ups) as much fuel it does to Mesoamerica.
So in my opinion the only way that the Sands of Time collection would compare to the Aztec Legacy collection is if the excavations map drop rate increased from Mesoamerica linearly to The Ancient World by at least 2.5 times if you were doing instant speed ups.

I am also going to disagree with you on another area and that is in the time spent collecting the 500 tokens. For the sake or argument we will assume that the player has already completed the collections all the way through The Sands of Time collection and is purely chasing 500 additional gold tokens. To me it makes more sense to only fly to one Excavations site (instead of 5) and to only one set of 5 locations (instead of 5 sets of 25). But this would be debatable to each person and would purely fall into their individual preference. What wouldn't fall into individual preference is the passenger generation required to fly all of these flights (which is time assuming no alarm clocks). It was 724,640 passengers to fly The Sands of Time for 500 gold tokens. To fly the Aztec Legacy 8 times over (7.997) the original amount needed to complete it for The Sands of Time collection to get 500 gold tokens is only 353,920 passengers. It is clearly faster to collect less passengers or there is an additional cost of other bonuses somewhere.

I am going to disagree with you again in a third area. That area is in the randomness and combining collections from different areas in order to make one final collection. I am currently flying for QLs and the Luna Park building. As I get closer and closer to completing the collection 18 times (for 6 Luna Parks) I see that there are extremes in the collection rates. One location has a much better drop rate than the middle 3 and another location has a much lower drop rate than the middle 3. This is just one collection that is based upon 5 other collections from 5 different locations and I can clearly see the spread that is happening. The Sands of Time collection is a collection that comes from 5 other collections that come from 5 different locations that also come from another 5 locations prior to that (excavation sites). The effect has to be compounding so again why not eliminate as much of the variation as you can and only go for one site, which would be the Aztec Legacy collection? I know that you have done QL farming so think of it in the same way. If there was a more complex way which required more tracking and more concentration in order to get QLs but had nearly the same results would you do it the easiest way of the more complex way? If you are striving for 500 gold tokens and two paths had identical results would you choose the easier path or the more complex path?

Thanks for the data. I would have never believed it would have been as close as to what you had published. I still think that there is a huge difference in fuel when you look at the excavation sites. I would love to hear your thoughts/facts on it.

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

I am going to disagree with you. I am disagreeing because I don't think that you included all of the fuel calculations that you needed to in order to fully value the cost of each location and the true cost of getting 500 tokens from the Aztec Legacy collection or from the Sands of Time collection (and everything that leads up to it). No where did I see you mention fuel in order to get the maps from the excavation sites (Mesoamerica, Ancient Rome....). If you assume the same map drop rate from the 5 excavations sites (the drop rate doesn't matter because we are assuming it is the same for all 5. It would matter if you calculated it and it was different). Taking the two extremes (Mesoamerica and The Ancient World) fuel for each flight starts at 20 (30 speed up) and increases to 48 (90 speed up). To get maps from the Ancient World takes 2.4 times (2.76 times with speed ups) as much fuel it does to Mesoamerica.
So in my opinion the only way that the Sands of Time collection would compare to the Aztec Legacy collection is if the excavations map drop rate increased from Mesoamerica linearly to The Ancient World by at least 2.5 times if you were doing instant speed ups.

Always nice to hear some feedback
As a point of clarity, I was going for 400 tokens.

Correct, I didn’t account for the fuel to gain excavation maps. First and foremost, this is because I don’t have any data. Personally I have only ever ran these in slow time - ideally if I’m doing another map run with bonuses I’ll send these out for the better rates. But due to the sporadic nature, i’ve never logged the results. I suppose my general assumption is that most players would do this, and thus the fuel used is negligible as it’s a part of normal day to day. Particularly as you can now buy 10 excavation maps a week, and gain another 10 per day via videos (if you have 0 in the warehouse). This makes the maps readily available as a disposable resource, in my opinion.
The other point that makes this difficult to do in a broad brushed manner, is defining how many maps one would use to gain the 50 drops from each collection (based on the sands of time method), or the 400 items (1,120 flights) based on the Aztec legacy collection. Personally, I would use 1 map to do 140 flights, but recognise most people wouldn’t.
Those were the reasons for not including that portion of fuel.

I am also going to disagree with you on another area and that is in the time spent collecting the 500 tokens. For the sake or argument we will assume that the player has already completed the collections all the way through The Sands of Time collection and is purely chasing 500 additional gold tokens. To me it makes more sense to only fly to one Excavations site (instead of 5) and to only one set of 5 locations (instead of 5 sets of 25). But this would be debatable to each person and would purely fall into their individual preference. What wouldn't fall into individual preference is the passenger generation required to fly all of these flights (which is time assuming no alarm clocks). It was 724,640 passengers to fly The Sands of Time for 500 gold tokens. To fly the Aztec Legacy 8 times over (7.997) the original amount needed to complete it for The Sands of Time collection to get 500 gold tokens is only 353,920 passengers. It is clearly faster to collect less passengers or there is an additional cost of other bonuses somewhere.

I can see your logic on gaining the different maps - it would be more painful for the sands of time method. I can only reference my earlier point about the availability of the maps, and my personal preference of completing this in slow time.
I agree with your point on passengers, and it was one reason for not drawing attention to it. To help with my point, let’s make the assumption that a player will complete ~140 flights with each activated map in one go, with only one map active at a time. The passengers needed are;
Owl, 5320
Hawk, 11,200
Raven, 22,400
Eagle, 39,200
Jumbo 53,200
It is certainly easier with the smaller planes, you don’t need to think about it. But equally, you could argue it the other way if you are in an alliance that wants to place high in the league table. Again, personally, the numbers aren’t an issue for me - I wouldn’t need bonuses, just a little forward planning with my Visa Centres - my city has an ‘instant‘ max output of around 25,000. I’d probably run 2 3H contracts to be safe, or a 3H and 1H. Personally the token cost for that is insignificant.
As a side note, I added the passenger breakdown for 140 flights to my native file, but I haven’t updated the link - I will do this shortly.
My broad brush data didn’t go into how to complete this, rather it provided a basis of estimate with top line figures. I’m hoping these are pessimistic for those using +300% bonuses by the way. It is certainly a point to consider, and re-reading my original conclusion statement, it is a little misleading. My intended statement was, in terms of token generation, there is no real difference in terms of fuel cost (notwithstanding the points above about excavation flights).

I am going to disagree with you again in a third area. That area is in the randomness and combining collections from different areas in order to make one final collection. I am currently flying for QLs and the Luna Park building. As I get closer and closer to completing the collection 18 times (for 6 Luna Parks) I see that there are extremes in the collection rates. One location has a much better drop rate than the middle 3 and another location has a much lower drop rate than the middle 3. This is just one collection that is based upon 5 other collections from 5 different locations and I can clearly see the spread that is happening. The Sands of Time collection is a collection that comes from 5 other collections that come from 5 different locations that also come from another 5 locations prior to that (excavation sites). The effect has to be compounding so again why not eliminate as much of the variation as you can and only go for one site, which would be the Aztec Legacy collection? I know that you have done QL farming so think of it in the same way. If there was a more complex way which required more tracking and more concentration in order to get QLs but had nearly the same results would you do it the easiest way of the more complex way? If you are striving for 500 gold tokens and two paths had identical results would you choose the easier path or the more complex path?

Thanks for the data. I would have never believed it would have been as close as to what you had published. I still think that there is a huge difference in fuel when you look at the excavation sites. I would love to hear your thoughts/facts on it.

There will always be spread in the collections, and I’ve purposely used a value which is above the mean in terms of drop rate- 140 drops for 50 items is pretty much the worst I’ve had actually, but this goes some way to accounting for additional fuel due to bad weather too. The number has been used as a basis of estimate to try and prevent anyone following this and becoming very disappointed due to a skewed average.
On to your point ’the effect has to be compounding’ - I would probably disagree with this. The collections that I have most of (800+) actually tend to converge with a much lower %age spread over time, this is consistent with statistics too. There will always be a few collections that are ridiculously painful, but theoretically most should be pretty consistent. This is consistent with the QL destinations I have chased too, albeit a slightly different beast as each has 5 items compared to 1.

Actually, I would be more tempted togo for the more complex option in this case but mainly due to the passenger numbers (as alluded to above). I’m considering it currently, I have 10 more giant destinations to finish and then I will decide. Truth be told, I’m considering going for 100 drops per destination (which would give some great data) - I‘m only missing 3 maps so it should be relatively painless to prepare.

One thing I failed to quantify originally, is the fuel ‘gained’ via the chests in either method. Since the ratios of fuel to tokens between the chests is the same, the fuel gained via either method remains proportional. 20,000 units.

I don’t see you as disagreeing with me - I think you’ve raised some valid points for all readers to consider if/when they are looking to chase tokens. My (reworded) conclusion remains, that in terms of token generation, there is little difference in terms of fuel cost. Most of the remaining points are down to personal preference, as outlined above.

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

I have done a load more analysis on the numbers which I will update in the coming days. I need to transfer this from an excel file to a google file on a different account.
Key points; fuel for gaining excavation maps hasn’t been accounted for.
Passenger numbers haven’t been considered.
This is based on instant returns.
All of this assumes that the data provided by G! regarding drop increases is acturate (e.g. +100% rate, not x100%), and that the bonuses stack correctly. If they don’t, then the base rate will be wrong. All of my data is worked backwards from a 300% rate.

I have ran the numbers for how much fuel is required for a 0%, 50%, 100%, 150%, 200%, 250%, 300% and 400% bonus using a base drop rate between 8% and 15% using 0.1% intervals. This is using a base of 50 drops per map, from each map under the sands of time collection.
My gut feeling is that the base drop rate is 9% ish. I hope to hone in on this in the coming months.
Key figures before I publish the data, with a base rate of 9%, for 50 drops of each collection;
No bonuses - 1,493,000 fuel - 625 flights per map (average)
50% - 995,200 fuel - 417 flights per map (average)
100% - 746,400 fuel - 313 flights per map (average)
150% - 597,200 - 250 flights per map (average)
200% - 497,600 - 208 flights per map (average)
250% - 426,500 - 179 flights per map (average)
300% - 373,200 - 156 flights per map (average)
400% - 299,00 - 125 flights per map (average).

For 100 drops, multiple by 2, etc.

For those doing sands of time the first time, here are the figures for 36 drops with the different bonuses, using 9% base again.
No bonuses - 1,075,000 fuel - 400 flights per map (average)
50% - 717,000 fuel - 267 flights per map (average)
100% - 537,500 fuel - 200 flights per map (average)
150% - 430,000 - 160 flights per map (average)
200% - 358,500 - 133 flights per map (average)
250% - 307,000 - 114 flights per map (average)
300% - 269,000 - 100 flights per map (average)
400% - 215,00 - 80 flights per map (average).

 

[Madge59230]

Yesterday I ran 100 flights to Kyiv and 100 flights to Chernihiv.
Bonuses running SG, GD, and Dice. Forgot about SC!
Got 38 and 39 drops.
All on speed up. So each group of 100 cost 14,200 fuel, 50,000 pax. Drop rate very good I reckon.

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

I might move this to a private group to share more - I’m conscious of publishing a bit too much in the open.
A few headline figures though;
385 flights to Machu Picchu, +400% bonus, best running drop rate 56.6%, average 51.7%, running worst 51.7%. For those of you questioning this, the running average is the average after a batch of 5 flights. The last 5 flights came in with no drops which brought the running average down to its lowest point.
No significant difference in first 100 flights, to the following 285. Average excluding the first 100 (gaining stars) = 50.9%. The first 100 had a better drop rate.
199 drops total from 385 flights.

300 flights to Tollan, +400% bonus, best running drop rate 56.7%, average 51.7%, worst running rate 48%.
155 drops total from 300 flights. 48/100 for the first 100 flights - worse running average here.

Comparing the two gives very similar results from a fairly large sample. Leads me to believe the base rate is 10%.
Additional bonuses active, golden wrench, lucky cap. All flights done with 5 owls, landing at once and long click on radar button.
Running average recorded after each 5 flights for both sets, other than the 1st 100 on each which was only logged as a batch of 100.

I ran both maps last night on my main (already 3 starred). I didn’t track in the same manner at all, but headline numbers;
26,xxx fuel when I started. +400% bonus. 150 items + 70 items. I didn’t record the actual amount of fuel - I just know it was 26 thousand and something.
Assuming base rate 10%, +400% = 50% rate. So to get 220 items should have cost 220 (items) x (1/0.5) (inverse drop rate) x 60 (fuel for instant return) = 26,400
Near enough spot on as far as I’m concerned. No weather bonuses used, so some additional fuel would have been used here.