That’s a worthwhile idea but I don’t think it’s consistent with experience. I personally have gone through very long dry spells (many months long) when ascension materials seemed almost to have vanished, and insanely fruitful periods when in a day or two I collected fistfuls of three and four star materials. I get the impression from the forum that other players have had the same experience.
(That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t test your theory. Testing theories is good.)
Let’s be clear: now you’re introducing a new idea. I think we can say with confidence that players not hitting Titans are penalised by losing opportunities to collect good Titan loot. We would expect them to collect fewer acsension materials than players who maximise their opportunities by hitting Titans. You are suggesting something else, perhaps - either that there is some sort of reduced chance of drawing ascension materials from other chests, if you choose not to hit Titans, or that the loss of Titan rewards is balanced by an increased collection rate from other sources.
Either way, that seems outlandish to me. I suppose it wouldn’t be too hard to compare the ascension material collection of Titan-hitters to the AM collection of those who don’t hit Titans, but isolating all other influencing factors would be insanely difficult. I might be misunderstanding your idea, here, but I’m not convinced this one really requires investigation.
This is another new idea, and another one that seems to have a simple answer (yes, by not opening war chests). Testing whether there is any greater impact, war chests aside, would seem to face the same challenges as testing the war participation theory: how could we isolate other influencing factors? Again, I find this idea a bit outlandish: do we have any reason to suppose players are penalised (or rewarded) for non-participation in wars, war rewards aside? Not really, right? So it seems like a random and slightly weird idea to focus on.
Still, I think your first theory was an interesting one that might benefit from some investigation. I’m going to reword it here - please tell me if I’ve got it about right:
Hypothesis: Players receive roughly the same quantity of ascension materials regardless of how many chests they open.
Over what time period? A week is obviously too short. Two years is obviously too long.
Over a month, then? (I feel like our collective experience says this can’t be true, but I’m happy to be guided by you.) But why does the number of chests opened matter? Aren’t you suggesting that ascension material drops are roughly constant, regardless of the number of chests opened?
There might be something here that we can investigate collectively, but I think a bit more effort needs to go into refining the proposition and the methodology before we start anything.