PSA: Your fewer than 100 pack pulls is not evidence that the pull rates have dropped

You are just unlucky, and that is expected in a game in which you have too low of a pack pull rate to have any meaningful data in a player base of tens of millions. Outliers will exist, and they will occur more often in such large populations. I am on the opposite side of that luck scale and have pulled 93 packs and have every ex card. I also have 2 copies (minimum) of each ex card, with the exception of Mismagius and Gallade, which I only have 1 copy of each.

The perception of lower pull rates is very likely (almost certainly) due to statistical variance rather than an actual change in pull rates. In any system with a fixed probability (such as pack openings), individual experiences will vary due to natural randomness. In a game with tens of millions of players, individual pull rates will naturally vary due to this statistical variance. While the true pull rate converges to the developer-stated rate over a large enough sample, an individual player would need to open tens of thousands of packs to reliably see that convergence. Because everyone opens far fewer packs, variance plays a major role, meaning some will be unusually lucky while others will be unusually unlucky. This is expected in any probabilistic system.

Statistical power, which is the ability to detect a real change, requires a large dataset. Your individual pack opening sample size has the statistical power of a fart trying to blow over a skyscraper. The Law of Large Numbers states that as the number of trials (packs opened) increases, the observed pull rate will converge toward the expected pull rate. However, for small sample sizes, variance is much higher, leading to more extreme experiences. If a player opens only 60 packs, their experience is highly susceptible to variance, meaning they may pull significantly fewer or more EX cards than expected. However, a player opening 10,000 packs will see results that align much more closely with the true probability. All of these individual reports of "bad pull rates" are often a result of this small sample pull rates, where short-term randomness is mistaken for a systemic issue. Without thousands of independently tracked openings, claims of pull rate changes lack the necessary evidence. That dataset would have to be 1,000s of players opening 1,000s of packs, by the way.

Also, reporting bias skews perception. Players with below-average luck are far more likely to report their experiences, while those with average or good luck remain silent. This creates a false confirmation loop, where negative experiences appear more common than they actually are. Unless a large-scale dataset contradicts it, any claim of reduced pull rates is likely due to normal variance and reporting bias, not an actual change.

I am not making this argument to defend the company, before anyone tries to pull that one. I am just giving statistical facts. You can argue that a pity system should be put into place to mitigate the effects I described, which would be fine since these instances will occur until they do.