## Here's a plot of the pull distribution from simulation

FORUMEDIT: Switched to a cumulative histogram, as I think that's easier to interpret for most people. x-axis is how many gems used, and y-axis is the percentage of people who would get the limited character if they decided to use a certain number of gems. For example, we can see that 60% of people would get the limited banner child with roughly 25k crystals. So instead of just throwing numbers out, I decided to make a plot to share. It represents if you decide to pull for a limited child, how many gems it may take for you to get them. I did 1 million trials to see, and results actually surprised me. I thought there was gonna be a peak in the middle at around 27000 gems (Gaussian distribution), but it turns out that a good number of people will get it very early on. The problem is the tail end. One of my trials took 468,990 gems to get, which I could image would make anyone quit... Overall the average number is 27000 gems, which is expected. Anyways here's the plot for those interested.

Python code for those interested in trying:

first here's a photo of it since formatting on moot is terribleActual python code with Moot's terrible formatting:

import numpy as np

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

nc=0

number_of_trials=1000000

probability=0.01

#above is the probability of getting limited banner child

history_of_gems_used=[]

while nc <= number_of_trials:

gems_used=0

got_child=False

while got_child is False:

gems_used+=270

if np.random.rand()<probability:

got_child=True

history_of_gems_used.append(gems_used)

nc+=1Sadly i'm above the average, 30k gems and no catherine, only giving me some shtty 5* that had been fully uncapped :(

And there will be no combined banners, damn it

Idk if i can get catherine and rinthere's still 1.5 weeks left so don't give up hope! you probably have a good 5-6 multis left from now till the end of the banner!

I had to pull 14 times to get Catherine (37800 gems). I didn't actually get any other 5* in the process, which was very unusual.

**1**

## Comment

4