Guild Wars 2

BL Kit Test 1
Total Numbers 200
Mean (Average):1.285
Standard deviation:1.0193
Variance(Standard deviation):1.03897
Population Standard deviation:1.01675
Variance(Population Standard deviation):1.03377

BL Kit Test2
Total Numbers: 200
Mean (Average): 1.195
Standard deviation: 0.94416
Variance(Standard deviation): 0.89143
Population Standard deviation: 0.94179
Variance(Population Standard deviation): 0.88698

Master Kit Test 1
Total Numbers: 200
Mean (Average): 0.93
Standard deviation: 0.81141
Variance(Standard deviation): 0.65839
Population Standard deviation: 0.80938
Variance(Population Standard deviation): 0.6551

Master Kit Test 2
Total Numbers:200
Mean (Average):0.855
Standard deviation:0.81072
Variance(Standard deviation):0.65726
Population Standard deviation:0.80869
Variance(Population Standard deviation):0.65397

BL kit Test 1
If it follows the normal distribution
The 68.3% measure confidence range, ? 0.26570129537695 – 2.3042987046231
The 90% measure confidence range, 1.645? -0.39174636910492 – 2.9617463691049
The 95% measure confidence range, 1.960? -0.71282546106118 – 3.2828254610612
The 99% measure confidence range, 2.576? -1.340713463109 – 3.910713463109
The 99.9% measure confidence range, 3.291? -2.0695120369145 – 4.6395120369145

BL Kit Test 2
If it follows the normal distribution
The 68.3% measure confidence range, ? 0.25084314819834 – 2.1391568518017
The 90% measure confidence range, 1.645? -0.35813802121373 – 2.7481380212137
The 95% measure confidence range, 1.960? -0.65554742953125 – 3.0455474295313
The 99% measure confidence range, 2.576? -1.2371480502411 – 3.6271480502411
The 99.9% measure confidence range, 3.291? -1.9122201992793 – 4.3022201992793

Master Kit Test 1
If it follows the normal distribution
The 68.3% measure confidence range, ? 0.11858644342173 – 1.7414135565783
The 90% measure confidence range, 1.645? -0.40477530057125 – 2.2647753005713
The 95% measure confidence range, 1.960? -0.66037057089341 – 2.5203705708934
The 99% measure confidence range, 2.576? -1.1602013217456 – 3.0202013217456
The 99.9% measure confidence range, 3.291? -1.7403620146991 – 3.6003620146991

Master Kit Test 2
If it follows the normal distribution
The 68.3% measure confidence range, ? 0.044283461046549 – 1.6657165389535
The 90% measure confidence range, 1.645? -0.47862870657843 – 2.1886287065784
The 95% measure confidence range, 1.960? -0.73400441634876 – 2.4440044163488
The 99% measure confidence range, 2.576? -1.2334058043441 – 2.9434058043441
The 99.9% measure confidence range, 3.291? -1.8130681296958 – 3.5230681296958

Combined BL kit test 1 and 2 results.
Total Numbers: 400
Mean (Average): 1.24
Standard deviation: 0.98225
Variance(Standard deviation): 0.96481
Population Standard deviation: 0.98102
Variance(Population Standard deviation): 0.9624

If it follows the normal distribution
The 68.3% measure confidence range, ? 0.25775154361272 – 2.2222484563873
The 90% measure confidence range, 1.645? -0.37579871075707 – 2.8557987107571
The 95% measure confidence range, 1.960? -0.68520697451906 – 3.1652069745191
The 99% measure confidence range, 2.576? -1.2902720236536 – 3.7702720236536
The 99.9% measure confidence range, 3.291? -1.9925796699705 – 4.4725796699705

Wanted to post Wiki information so that it could all be seen in one single post together.

Type: Master’s
Cost: 15silver 36copper
Uses: 25
Chance of rarer materials: 25%
Chance of recovering upgrades: 80%
Cost/Use: 61.4copper
______________________________
Type: Black Lion
Cost: 300 Gems
Uses: 25
Chance of rarer materials: 50%
Chance of recovering upgrades: 100%
Cost/Use: Varies

Acquisition:
Gem Store (300 Gems)
Black Lion Chest
Daily Achievements
Map Completion

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Salvage_kit

When using Black Lion Salvage kit the most profitable/efficient way is to only use the ones you get from:
Rewards-100% No cost
Black Lion Chests-Varies

The best way to use bought Black Lion Salvage Kits is on gear that you wish to remove expensive/special upgrades from.

The choice is up to you, it is fine to buy them directly if you wish it will just come at a larger cost. Look for Flash Sales and discounts to maximize your return.

400 test point sample size is pretty close to reasonably large enough. It won’t give you the exact rate, but it will get you close enough that it doesn’t matter. And it’ll get you close enough that you can guess what it’s likely rounded to, as games rarely will have things like 0.8618271 ecto return rate.

For polls to see who’s winning elections, they only get around 200-1000 people’s opinions. It turns out that’s all that’s needed to give less than 1% error. ecto return is a bit more complicated than yes/no/maybe polls…

Added Master kit test 2 results.

Updated bounds with Geotherma’s 2nd set of data (600 points total):

Black Lion Kit: 1.241 +/- 0.084
Master Kit: 0.891 +/- 0.066

Both at 95% confidence.

Ursan.7846:

DarkSpirit.7046:

And we are saying that 200 may not be enough of a sample size to account for the “luck” factor. I won’t be surprised if someone repeats this little experiment and come up with the opposite conclusion after just 200 salvages.

Hahahahahahaha

Wait what? Is 201 be large enough to account for the “luck” factor? 202? 300? 400? What arbitrary number do you think is enough of a sample size to account for the “luck” factor, I’m curious?

Though I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt, the way you worded it makes it seem like you fail to grasp the concept of statistics.

Ok, since you brought it up first, then justify, with statistical calculations, why you think the number 200 is enough to prove that BLSK would give more ectos. All I see from you so far is a lot of taunts about how well you know statistics compared to me but no math to prove it.

There may be other factors that can affect the rate. For example, are the salvages done, with different kits, at exactly the same time and place?

DarkSpirit.7046:

Ursan.7846:

DarkSpirit.7046:

And we are saying that 200 may not be enough of a sample size to account for the “luck” factor. I won’t be surprised if someone repeats this little experiment and come up with the opposite conclusion after just 200 salvages.

Hahahahahahaha

Wait what? Is 201 be large enough to account for the “luck” factor? 202? 300? 400? What arbitrary number do you think is enough of a sample size to account for the “luck” factor, I’m curious?

Though I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt, the way you worded it makes it seem like you fail to grasp the concept of statistics.

Ok, since you brought it up first, then justify, with statistical calculations, why you think the number 200 is enough to prove that BLSK would give more ectos. All I see from you so far is a lot of taunts about how well you know statistics compared to me but no math to prove it.

There may be other factors that can affect the rate. For example, are the salvages done, with different kits, at exactly the same time and place?

I see your grasp of the concept of “first” is as poor as your understanding of statistics. As for your nonsensical demand:

Ensign.2189:

So the reason I’m pressing for standard deviation data is to calculate standard errors. When you know the standard errors of multiple samples of the same distribution, you can combine that data using inverse-square error weighting to get a joint distribution with an even smaller standard error.

To wit, at 95% confidence:

Black Lion Salvage Kit:
Syeria: 1.253 +/- 0.163
Geotherma: 1.285 +/- 0.1442
Joint: 1.271 +/- 0.108

Master Salvage Kit:
Syeria: 0.889 +/- 0.081
Geotherma: 0.93 +/- 0.1148
Joint: 0.903 +/- 0.0662

Obviously more data always helps, but their data combined is starting to look pretty robust, especially for the Master Salvage Kit case.

To follow that up we have:

Ensign.2189:

Updated bounds with Geotherma’s 2nd set of data (600 points total):

Black Lion Kit: 1.241 +/- 0.084
Master Kit: 0.891 +/- 0.066

Both at 95% confidence.

Imagine that, the people who declared (completely without any basis after having demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of any statistical concept) that any data they didn’t like “isn’t a big enough sample” turned out to be wrong.

Syeria.4812:

DarkSpirit.7046:

Ursan.7846:

DarkSpirit.7046:

And we are saying that 200 may not be enough of a sample size to account for the “luck” factor. I won’t be surprised if someone repeats this little experiment and come up with the opposite conclusion after just 200 salvages.

Hahahahahahaha

Wait what? Is 201 be large enough to account for the “luck” factor? 202? 300? 400? What arbitrary number do you think is enough of a sample size to account for the “luck” factor, I’m curious?

Though I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt, the way you worded it makes it seem like you fail to grasp the concept of statistics.

Ok, since you brought it up first, then justify, with statistical calculations, why you think the number 200 is enough to prove that BLSK would give more ectos. All I see from you so far is a lot of taunts about how well you know statistics compared to me but no math to prove it.

There may be other factors that can affect the rate. For example, are the salvages done, with different kits, at exactly the same time and place?

I see your grasp of the concept of “first” is as poor as your understanding of statistics. As for your nonsensical demand:

Ensign.2189:

So the reason I’m pressing for standard deviation data is to calculate standard errors. When you know the standard errors of multiple samples of the same distribution, you can combine that data using inverse-square error weighting to get a joint distribution with an even smaller standard error.

To wit, at 95% confidence:

Black Lion Salvage Kit:
Syeria: 1.253 +/- 0.163
Geotherma: 1.285 +/- 0.1442
Joint: 1.271 +/- 0.108

Master Salvage Kit:
Syeria: 0.889 +/- 0.081
Geotherma: 0.93 +/- 0.1148
Joint: 0.903 +/- 0.0662

Obviously more data always helps, but their data combined is starting to look pretty robust, especially for the Master Salvage Kit case.

To follow that up we have:

Ensign.2189:

Updated bounds with Geotherma’s 2nd set of data (600 points total):

Black Lion Kit: 1.241 +/- 0.084
Master Kit: 0.891 +/- 0.066

Both at 95% confidence.

Imagine that, the people who declared (completely without any basis after having demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of any statistical concept) that any data they didn’t like “isn’t a big enough sample” turned out to be wrong.

You are still avoiding my question. Did you perform the salvages at exactly the same time and place across both kits?

DarkSpirit.7046:

Ok, since you brought it up first, then justify, with statistical calculations, why you think the number 200 is enough to prove that BLSK would give more ectos. All I see from you so far is a lot of taunts but no math.

I’m lazy. But thankfully people have been doing the calculations, look at them.

Regardless though, it’s not about the math itself. What you’re not understanding is that in statistics, you cannot prove anything 100% unless your sample size is infinite. With finite sample sizes, you can only prove your hypothesis with near 100% confidence. As you increase your sample size, you get close to 100% but never 100%.

Which is why for most cases 95% confidence is used when proving a hypothesis. It’s not about having a sample size “large enough to account for luck.” It’s about asking yourself, with 200 data points, what is my confidence interval at, and is it acceptable to me? Because no finite sample size will completely eliminate this “luck” factor.

Which is why I chuckled at your post, because from the way you worded it you obviously do not understand the concept of statistics.

Ursan.7846:

DarkSpirit.7046:

Ok, since you brought it up first, then justify, with statistical calculations, why you think the number 200 is enough to prove that BLSK would give more ectos. All I see from you so far is a lot of taunts but no math.

I’m lazy.

Lol! I knew you would give that excuse when I challenged you to prove yourself.

The experiments are not done in a consistent setting because they assume that the random number generator does not take datetime into account.

DarkSpirit.7046:

Ursan.7846:

I’m lazy.

Lol! I knew you would give that excuse when I challenged you to prove yourself.

You also knew this beforehand because I clearly stated the same thing earlier in the thread. Good job disregarding the rest of my post however. I’m glad that we could agree on your lack of understanding of the concept of statistics.

Ursan.7846:

DarkSpirit.7046:

Ursan.7846:

I’m lazy.

Lol! I knew you would give that excuse when I challenged you to prove yourself.

You also knew this beforehand because I clearly stated the same thing earlier in the thread. Good job disregarding the rest of my post however. I’m glad that we could agree on your lack of understanding of the concept of statistics.

If you ask for feedback then I wish to know whether the salvages are done at the same time and place. If you are not interested to answer questions and instead try to force your conclusions down everyone’s throat, because you think you know everything, then I can’t help you.

DarkSpirit.7046:

If you ask for feedback then I wish to know whether the salvages are done at the same time and place. If you are not interested to answer questions and instead try to force your conclusions down everyone’s throat, because you think you know everything, then I can’t help you.

Oh don’t fret. I don’t think I understand the concept of statistics. I know that I understand the concept of statistics. I also know that you don’t understand it, as evident from your posts.

By the way, please take note that I never directly refuted your original conclusion, just was highly amused by your wording and lack of understanding of statistics in that post. Nowadays the only conclusion I’m shoving down your throat is the fact that you have no idea what the concept of statistics is, and unfortunately for you that is true.

Ensign.2189:

Updated bounds with Geotherma’s 2nd set of data (600 points total):

Black Lion Kit: 1.241 +/- 0.084
Master Kit: 0.891 +/- 0.066

Both at 95% confidence.

For BL I got a slightly different margin of error (+/- .09744) at 95% Confidence. I’ll check my math again, though.

Either way, the difference of approximately .013 is pretty insignificant, so I’d agree with that one. I’ll be doing the Master Kits next.

I’m laughing at the people who claimed that the sample size was “too small” so hard right now.

I’m going to suggest that the back and forth may not be the most constructive way to post in this thread, and is more likely to rack up infractions than have a good outcome. If anyone was wondering about where/when I did my own tests they were all at once acrossed several kits (They stack at 25 only) in the same place(as shown in the videos.). However I would assume that time and date don’t have a factor, although i can admit i could be wrong. But a dev or someone could clear this up easily by posting if this thread doesn’t get locked due to bickering and off-topic conversations. And just so people know I’m definitely no math whiz, these were all via calculator ^^ But thank you to those who contributed to sorting out my numbers in a more meaningful manner.

However, what I’m interested in knowing is whether the three conditions for inference were fulfilled, that is

1. Independence
2. SRS
3. Normality

With 10n<=N, 1 is fulfilled.

With n > 30, 3 is also fulfilled.

What about 2 though? Do some rares drop ectos, while others don’t? Or do they all follow the same distribution for ectos drops? It’d be interesting to know.

Geotherma.2395:

I’m going to suggest that the back and forth may not be the most constructive way to post in this thread, and is more likely to rack up infractions than have a good outcome. If anyone was wondering about where/when I did my own tests they were all at once acrossed several kits (They stack at 25 only) in the same place(as shown in the videos.). However I would assume that time and date don’t have a factor, although i can admit i could be wrong. But a dev or someone could clear this up easily by posting if this thread doesn’t get locked due to bickering and off-topic conversations. And just so people know I’m definitely no math whiz, these were all via calculator ^^ But thank you to those who contributed to sorting out my numbers in a more meaningful manner.

I did get a bit overzealous in defending your (and Syeria’s) sample sizes. I apologize.

Though if I may suggest one thing. I’m not sure how you’re storing your data, but I suggest attaching all the information you can on each data point. Weapon type, level, time stamp, etc. Just so as you accrue these data points and want to do some analysis later, you’ll have all the info on hand.

Ursan.7846:

Geotherma.2395:

I’m going to suggest that the back and forth may not be the most constructive way to post in this thread, and is more likely to rack up infractions than have a good outcome. If anyone was wondering about where/when I did my own tests they were all at once acrossed several kits (They stack at 25 only) in the same place(as shown in the videos.). However I would assume that time and date don’t have a factor, although i can admit i could be wrong. But a dev or someone could clear this up easily by posting if this thread doesn’t get locked due to bickering and off-topic conversations. And just so people know I’m definitely no math whiz, these were all via calculator ^^ But thank you to those who contributed to sorting out my numbers in a more meaningful manner.

I did get a bit overzealous in defending your (and Syeria’s) sample sizes. I apologize.

Though if I may suggest one thing. I’m not sure how you’re storing your data, but I suggest attaching all the information you can on each data point. Weapon type, level, time stamp, etc. Just so as you accrue these data points and want to do some analysis later, you’ll have all the info on hand.

I have no problem with defending :P

I have the research on Excel and Word. But there is a limit to how much data I’m willing to work on as I’m doing this at a serious time/cash cost for the benefit of others without pay. I am a full time college student, husband, father, so I’m limited on time. And if I’m spending 6 hours on “video game research” I’m probably lacking in one department or another ^^;

While I have no problem with being helpful and altruistic in and out of game, I do have my limits which are based on responsibilities that outweigh the needs of gamers. I’m sure Arenanet will never give exact numbers as people would find some way to manipulate the information. But I hope this post has given at least some decent evidence to support the fact that the developers and wiki are at least somewhat accurate.

And as I mentioned in the beginning post all these rares were various types of Armor only (except the Master kit 2) and were all level 80. They were done in one time frame and I did not stop until all 200 were salvaged. Test 1 of both kits were done on the same day, as was test two of both kits. I’m unsure if any of that changes the results, again I’d need an answer from a designer or dev or whatever. Which I do not know if they are willing, but I don’t expect them to be really. they have enough on their plate ^^

Arganthium.5638:

For BL I got a slightly different margin of error (+/- .09744) at 95% Confidence. I’ll check my math again, though.

How are you weighing the data sets? I’m using inverse square standard error weights. I’m a little concerned about the unbiased estimator being a bit low on low average ecto rolls due to the skewness of the underlying distribution (still thinking on that), but it shouldn’t make a big difference.

There are certainly other ways to do a joint distribution estimate when the sample size is known; I just did it this way because I’m very familiar with the methodology from a lot of other work I’ve done and know it’s pretty robust.

Also, I should mention I’ve cranked up the error bounds on Syeria’s data in my model because I’m not 100% on the variance numbers; all it did was kick up the uncertainty a bit.

Ensign.2189:

Arganthium.5638:

For BL I got a slightly different margin of error (+/- .09744) at 95% Confidence. I’ll check my math again, though.

How are you weighing the data sets? I’m using inverse square standard error weights. I’m a little concerned about the unbiased estimator being a bit low on low average ecto rolls due to the skewness of the underlying distribution (still thinking on that), but it shouldn’t make a big difference.

There are certainly other ways to do a joint distribution estimate when the sample size is known; I just did it this way because I’m very familiar with the methodology from a lot of other work I’ve done and know it’s pretty robust.

Also, I should mention I’ve cranked up the error bounds on Syeria’s data in my model because I’m not 100% on the variance numbers; all it did was kick up the uncertainty a bit.

Oh. Let’s just say, then, that I don’t have nearly as much experience in this field as you do. :P I’m just a young, naive stats student, don’t mind me. :P

Geotherma.2395:

I have no problem with defending :P

I have the research on Excel and Word. But there is a limit to how much data I’m willing to work on as I’m doing this at a serious time/cash cost for the benefit of others without pay. I am a full time college student, husband, father, so I’m limited on time. And if I’m spending 6 hours on “video game research” I’m probably lacking in one department or another ^^;

While I have no problem with being helpful and altruistic in and out of game, I do have my limits which are based on responsibilities that outweigh the needs of gamers. I’m sure Arenanet will never give exact numbers as people would find some way to manipulate the information. But I hope this post has given at least some decent evidence to support the fact that the developers and wiki are at least somewhat accurate.

And as I mentioned in the beginning post all these rares were various types of Armor only (except the Master kit 2) and were all level 80. They were done in one time frame and I did not stop until all 200 were salvaged. Test 1 of both kits were done on the same day, as was test two of both kits. I’m unsure if any of that changes the results, again I’d need an answer from a designer or dev or whatever. Which I do not know if they are willing, but I don’t expect them to be really. they have enough on their plate ^^

Oh no no no. I don’t mean to suggest you go out of your way to do it.

Just during normal gameplay, I salvage around 8-10 rares a day and I record everything about them. Doesn’t take too long, and my database is small but it’s growing steadily, and I can do all kinds of analysis on it because of the information I’ve recorded. I’m not gonna have 200 data points in one day of course, but over a week or a month I’ll get a pretty sizeable database.

Again, I really do appreciate the time you’ve spent on this =).

Thanks to OP and others for doing all the work.

But you can’t be sure that Anet’s random number generator algorithm is not influenced by:
How many ballots it takes for the cardinals to elect a pope, The maximum soda size that you are allowed to purchase in NYC, The phase of the moon,Local tide tables, Solar flares, the presence or lack of extraterrestrial life, bigfoot, Nessie and drop bears. (joking on all of these)

Anyways, this test and others that I have seen all seem to be converging around the BL = 1.25 ecto/rare and Master = 0.9 ecto/rare average rates. Since we are in the trading forum, I’d suggest that these are reasonable numbers to use when calculating the expected return for the sell or salvage decision.

thehipone.6812:

Thanks to OP and others for doing all the work.

But you can’t be sure that Anet’s random number generator algorithm is not influenced by:
How many ballots it takes for the cardinals to elect a pope, The maximum soda size that you are allowed to purchase in NYC, The phase of the moon,Local tide tables, Solar flares, the presence or lack of extraterrestrial life, bigfoot, Nessie and drop bears. (joking on all of these)

Anyways, this test and others that I have seen all seem to be converging around the BL = 1.25 ecto/rare and Master = 0.9 ecto/rare average rates. Since we are in the trading forum, I’d suggest that these are reasonable numbers to use when calculating the expected return for the sell or salvage decision.

I feel like we both read the same CNN page this morning. :P

Is this a fair summary of the thread so far?

• Someone took the time to post results for salvaging 800 L80 rares, half with BL Kits, half with master’s.
• Statistically, the results show that BL kits have a much higher ecto drop rate than master’s, but not enough to justify the increased per-use costs, given the current TP value for ecto.
• The results strongly suggest that, for the purposes of deciding whether to TP or salvage any particular rare, we can use the rates of 0.9 for Master’s and 1.25 for BL Kits.
• People who have studied stats have chosen to act as if those conclusions are valid.
• Others are not yet willing to accept the conclusions, for a variety of reasons.

(On a personal note: thank you Geotherma.2395 for taking the time to post your results, respond to questions, and to have an open mind about how to go about collecting/posting/summarizing data.)

it’s always funny how some people demand certain conditions, such as at the same time of day, when it’s night time in-game, alternating master/BL to account for potential DR, days until the next blue moon, etc. anything superstitious. most of these are technically possible, though highly unlikely and no one else, not even the I-just-salvaged-an-exotic-and-got-0-ectos-has-there-been-a-stealth-nerf people, has thought that they are a possibility.

yet they ignore the likely points: does Master SK have the same drop rate as Mystic SK?
that is the last thing I’d like to know.
400 data points is conclusive enough for me
thanks for your hard work!

I’d also like to thank the OP and others who have contributed to this research with additional data and/or calculations.

I agree, thank you. We need players who have the means to test and collect data on drop/salvage rates to have a better grasp on how things work.

Data? Allright.

BLSK 1,261 (recorded sample size 306)
(34+134+122+35+61)

(25+100+100+31+50)

Mystic 0,911 (recorded sample size 6295)
(94+134+228+222+241+182+44+234+201+219+214+254+216+222+218+105+277+250+212+220+237+4+464+467+218+244+9+19+7+11+1+10+10+17+1+2+14+15)

(100+139+250+250+250+200+50+250+250+250+250+250+250+250+250+125+285+250+250+250+250+4+500+500+250+250+13+20+7+14+2+9+16+16+5+3+19+18)

Master 0,892 (recorded sample size 43,485)
(218+214+227+224+101+214+221+352+62+149+514+205+184+213+492+376+679+649+698+448+217+245+26+137+218+630+2955+1575+223+2860+1250+230+652+293+3641+1774+2599+1635+69+108+3399+3652+3942)

(250+250+250+250+110+250+250+375+75+175+550+250+250+250+550+450+750+750+750+500+250+250+25+175+250+725+3350+1750+250+3250+1350+250+750+300+4000+2000+2925+1900+75+125+3825+4000+4425)

Additionally; I seem to have 2860/3250 + 1116/1275 for master salvage kit that weren’t in larger table.

Naturally it’s not sample size large enough, as everyone likes to point out, but would be in line with “BLTC gives more ecto than master/mystic”.

I used only crafted lv 80 rares for these figures. Also, it did take bit longer than weekend or two. I didn’t track down invidual ecto per salvage, since that’d been too much work.

I could also tell that salvaging lv 80 whites with basic salvage kits produces more t6 mats than crude, enough more actually to cover price difference in kits few times.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Is this a fair summary of the thread so far?

• Someone took the time to post results for salvaging 800 L80 rares, half with BL Kits, half with master’s.
• Statistically, the results show that BL kits have a much higher ecto drop rate than master’s, but not enough to justify the increased per-use costs, given the current TP value for ecto.
• The results strongly suggest that, for the purposes of deciding whether to TP or salvage any particular rare, we can use the rates of 0.9 for Master’s and 1.25 for BL Kits.
• People who have studied stats have chosen to act as if those conclusions are valid.
• Others are not yet willing to accept the conclusions, for a variety of reasons.

(On a personal note: thank you Geotherma.2395 for taking the time to post your results, respond to questions, and to have an open mind about how to go about collecting/posting/summarizing data.)

Finally someone talking my kind of language. Thank you for this summary kind Sir! I was just about to ask whether someone could please convert all the math flying around into plain English.

Articluna.4509:

Data? Allright.

BLSK 1,261 (recorded sample size 306)
[…]

Mystic 0,911 (recorded sample size 6295)
[…]

Master 0,892 (recorded sample size 43,485)
[..]

Naturally it’s not sample size large enough, as everyone likes to point out, but would be in line with “BLTC gives more ecto than master/mystic”.

I used only crafted lv 80 rares for these figures. Also, it did take bit longer than weekend or two. I didn’t track down invidual ecto per salvage, since that’d been too much work.

There should be special titles for people like you that can be displayed proudly in-game. You give yourself way too little credit for your work of recording your salvage rate. I believe the wiki page on this topic should provide a summary of your conclusions with a link to this page. [Could anyone savvy with Wiki please do this, we’re not gonna get a more solid sample size than this].

Interesting and thank you for the work.

Edit : Just saw that the mystic is in there – great stuff!

Man, I love it when people are like “200 samples isn’t enough.”
Sigh, take at least a basic statistics course before you apply your own rules of “stats.”
Thanks for the statistical analyses with diff. confidence intervals Geo.

So, I guess I will be sticking to Master’s Salvage kits and using Black Lion when I get them. Well, that’s just me being lazy figuring out which sigils are worth more, etc.

Now, I’m curious about exotics. I expect to see the same conclusion though.

Apo.5301:

Man, I love it when people are like “200 samples isn’t enough.”
Sigh, take at least a basic statistics course before you apply your own rules of “stats.”
Thanks for the statistical analyses with diff. confidence intervals Geo.

So, I guess I will be sticking to Master’s Salvage kits and using Black Lion when I get them. Well, that’s just me being lazy figuring out which sigils are worth more, etc.

Now, I’m curious about exotics. I expect to see the same conclusion though.

For the nominal fee of 900g I’ll do that test :P

I was wondering if one of the Math Wiz contributors could take it one step further?

If we assume that the Statical theory is correct here(which i am NOT qualified to do), what is the estimated Return on Investment if one would buy say, 10 Master Kits from a Merchant at its static value and 10 BL Kits at its current Gold to Gem value.

Would the GP RoI yield a conclusive recommendation of using one Kit over the other?

Wouldn’t a more practical concern be the ecto drop rate with lower level rares, rather than agonizing over a small difference in confidence?

A simple test would be taking the lowest level of rare (or rares from the bottom several levels, if rares of one specific level are too tough to collect) that can produce an ecto and salvaging them out. If Master/Mystic kits produce ectos at the same ~90% rate, then it’s pretty much solved.

I may try this tonight, but it’ll be a couple days before buy orders produce enough cheap rares. Or has this already been done?

Also, if lower level rares do salvage at 90% with Master kits, then lower level exotics might also be a cheaper way to test exotic ecto salvage rates

I hate statistics. Only took it because my degree required it. But I’d like to throw out some simple numbers from my recent salvage attempts.

~30 rares (lv 77+) using Mystic Salvage Kit = ~41 ectos
In those 30 or so attempts, I only failed to get an ecto four times. The failures were negated by some awesome 2 or 3 ecto drops.

So you did a quite a bit better than the 0.9 if it has the same average as the Master Kit.

Behellagh.1468:

So you did a quite a bit better than the 0.9 if it has the same average as the Master Kit.

I don’t know how to get all those other numbers that the above posters calculated. I threw away my text book as soon as the semester as over. In my small sample size, what would my number be, as compared to the 0.9?

Yalora Istairiea.6287:

I was wondering if one of the Math Wiz contributors could take it one step further?

If we assume that the Statical theory is correct here(which i am NOT qualified to do), what is the estimated Return on Investment if one would buy say, 10 Master Kits from a Merchant at its static value and 10 BL Kits at its current Gold to Gem value.

Would the GP RoI yield a conclusive recommendation of using one Kit over the other?

I think I did this already… I made a spreadsheet where you could enter the current ecto cost, current gem price, and drop rates for each type of kit, then it calculated cost per salvage and ectos per salvage and gave you profit per salvage.
some example results:
1.25 ecto/BLSK, 0.9 ecto/MSK
1.9 gold per 100 gems:
ecto = 20s each: BLSK profit = 2.2s, Mystic profit = 16.87s, Master profit = 17.39s
ecto = 30s each: BLSK profit = 14.7s, Mystic profit = 25.87s, Master profit = 26.39s
ecto = 40s each: BLSK profit = 27.2s, Mystic profit = 34.87s, Master profit = 35.39s
1.5 gold per 100 gems:
ecto = 28s each: BLSK profit = 7s, Mystic profit = 17.09s, Master profit = 17.39s
ecto = 30s each: BLSK profit = 19.5s, Mystic profit = 26.09s, Master profit = 26.39s
ecto = 40s each: BLSK profit = 32s, Mystic profit = 35.09s, Master profit = 35.39s

note how BLSK is getting pretty close to MSK in that last one… if ecto price is high enough and gem price is low enough, BLSK will produce the highest profit. This was the case at the beginning of the year when ectos first reached 40s (but only just barely)

I also used this to find that Mystic SK is only cheaper than Master SK if you can buy 100 gems for less than 0.93 gold. not going to happen anytime soon :P

Mystic.5934:

Yalora Istairiea.6287:

I was wondering if one of the Math Wiz contributors could take it one step further?

If we assume that the Statical theory is correct here(which i am NOT qualified to do), what is the estimated Return on Investment if one would buy say, 10 Master Kits from a Merchant at its static value and 10 BL Kits at its current Gold to Gem value.

Would the GP RoI yield a conclusive recommendation of using one Kit over the other?

I think I did this already… I made a spreadsheet where you could enter the current ecto cost, current gem price, and drop rates for each type of kit, then it calculated cost per salvage and ectos per salvage and gave you profit per salvage.
some example results:
1.25 ecto/BLSK, 0.9 ecto/MSK
1.9 gold per 100 gems:
ecto = 20s each: BLSK profit = 2.2s, Mystic profit = 16.87s, Master profit = 17.39s
ecto = 30s each: BLSK profit = 14.7s, Mystic profit = 25.87s, Master profit = 26.39s
ecto = 40s each: BLSK profit = 27.2s, Mystic profit = 34.87s, Master profit = 35.39s
1.5 gold per 100 gems:
ecto = 28s each: BLSK profit = 7s, Mystic profit = 17.09s, Master profit = 17.39s
ecto = 30s each: BLSK profit = 19.5s, Mystic profit = 26.09s, Master profit = 26.39s
ecto = 40s each: BLSK profit = 32s, Mystic profit = 35.09s, Master profit = 35.39s

note how BLSK is getting pretty close to MSK in that last one… if ecto price is high enough and gem price is low enough, BLSK will produce the highest profit. This was the case at the beginning of the year when ectos first reached 40s (but only just barely)

I also used this to find that Mystic SK is only cheaper than Master SK if you can buy 100 gems for less than 0.93 gold. not going to happen anytime soon :P

Was this calculating the Mystic cost as buying the forge stones at 5 for 250 or at 10 for 450? I’m still glad I stocked up on those way back when gems were around 75s per 100.

Mystic.5934:

Yalora Istairiea.6287:

I was wondering if one of the Math Wiz contributors could take it one step further?

If we assume that the Statical theory is correct here(which i am NOT qualified to do), what is the estimated Return on Investment if one would buy say, 10 Master Kits from a Merchant at its static value and 10 BL Kits at its current Gold to Gem value.

Would the GP RoI yield a conclusive recommendation of using one Kit over the other?

I think I did this already… I made a spreadsheet where you could enter the current ecto cost, current gem price, and drop rates for each type of kit, then it calculated cost per salvage and ectos per salvage and gave you profit per salvage.
some example results:
1.25 ecto/BLSK, 0.9 ecto/MSK
1.9 gold per 100 gems:
ecto = 20s each: BLSK profit = 2.2s, Mystic profit = 16.87s, Master profit = 17.39s
ecto = 30s each: BLSK profit = 14.7s, Mystic profit = 25.87s, Master profit = 26.39s
ecto = 40s each: BLSK profit = 27.2s, Mystic profit = 34.87s, Master profit = 35.39s
1.5 gold per 100 gems:
ecto = 28s each: BLSK profit = 7s, Mystic profit = 17.09s, Master profit = 17.39s
ecto = 30s each: BLSK profit = 19.5s, Mystic profit = 26.09s, Master profit = 26.39s
ecto = 40s each: BLSK profit = 32s, Mystic profit = 35.09s, Master profit = 35.39s

note how BLSK is getting pretty close to MSK in that last one… if ecto price is high enough and gem price is low enough, BLSK will produce the highest profit. This was the case at the beginning of the year when ectos first reached 40s (but only just barely)

I also used this to find that Mystic SK is only cheaper than Master SK if you can buy 100 gems for less than 0.93 gold. not going to happen anytime soon :P

As long as people keep in mind that it is possible to get free BLSK at no charge, and sometimes at a smaller rate through chests if your lucky. ^^

Syeria.4812:

Was this calculating the Mystic cost as buying the forge stones at 5 for 250 or at 10 for 450? I’m still glad I stocked up on those way back when gems were around 75s per 100.

10 for 450

yeah, I bought 10 stones like 6 months ago when gems were 40s for 100. I’m currently only half way through using kit #3. (I was finding so many BLSK early on that those were what I was using on rares for a while :P)

Geotherma.2395:

Apo.5301:

Man, I love it when people are like “200 samples isn’t enough.”
Sigh, take at least a basic statistics course before you apply your own rules of “stats.”
Thanks for the statistical analyses with diff. confidence intervals Geo.

So, I guess I will be sticking to Master’s Salvage kits and using Black Lion when I get them. Well, that’s just me being lazy figuring out which sigils are worth more, etc.

Now, I’m curious about exotics. I expect to see the same conclusion though.

For the nominal fee of 900g I’ll do that test :P

Hmm, seems like it’s worth it. :P

I’m wondering if anyone has observed my anecdotal sense that rares with runes/sigils return higher rates than rares without?

Or that higher vendor cost rare items may return more than lower cost items (coats vs. gloves, 2h weapons vs 1h weapons)?

Something I realized after it happened:
I was buying and salvaging lots of mithril trinkets over the weekend. most were salvaged with Mystic SK. I was most focused on the ecto and the socket, so I didn’t pay attention at the time, but afterwards it struck me as weird that I didn’t get a single ori ore from ~300 salvages.
I was salvaging things like Snowflake Mithril Amulet, and it would give me mithril, ecto, and brilliant snowflake. I got around 400 mithril, but maybe only 5 ori. I remember there were a few ori in the first few salvages, but noted that later on I would salvage 50 trinkets and not get a single one. could be the trinkets I was salvaging can’t drop ori? (I was also salvaging non-crafted trinkets as well) or is there DR on that 25% chance to get upgraded materials?

Mystic.5934:

Something I realized after it happened:
I was buying and salvaging lots of mithril trinkets over the weekend. most were salvaged with Mystic SK. I was most focused on the ecto and the socket, so I didn’t pay attention at the time, but afterwards it struck me as weird that I didn’t get a single ori ore from ~300 salvages.
I was salvaging things like Snowflake Mithril Amulet, and it would give me mithril, ecto, and brilliant snowflake. I got around 400 mithril, but maybe only 5 ori. I remember there were a few ori in the first few salvages, but noted that later on I would salvage 50 trinkets and not get a single one. could be the trinkets I was salvaging can’t drop ori? (I was also salvaging non-crafted trinkets as well) or is there DR on that 25% chance to get upgraded materials?

I believe Ori is based on what you are salvaging. Notice my results show no more than 3-4ish ori after all those salvages. And yet when I salvaged 200 of the same type of armor I made 14ish Ori.

So I think its just that the Ori is a very low drop rate and also depends on which type of gear. I actually noticed this as well as I was doing the test. I seen every 200 only gave me like 4 Ori, I was like cmon now.. almost 300 ecto and 4 Orichalchum whyyyy :P

My results for Black Lion Salvage Kits for 200 rare armor pieces are:
4 orichalcum
My results for Black lion salvage kits #2
3 orichalchum
My results for Master Salvage Kits for 200 rare armor pieces are:
3 orichalcum
My results for Master Salvage Kits for 200 rare armor pieces #2 are:
17 orichalchum

“There is no DR associated with salvaging.”
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Diminishing_returns

well, ori is what the “25% chance of rarer materials” actually refers to.
so if you recover 200 mithril, you should also recover 67 ori (25% ori, 75% mithril)
but it sounds like it’s item-dependent, meaning some have their recovery things set, and others have the chance of rarer.

I came late to this thread but became fairly angry with the folks who were suggesting that a sample size of 200 BLK v 200 Master kits was inadequate. I have a bit of stats knowledge so thought I’d demonstrate just how far off beam they were. To describe Geothermal’s findings as only “pretty robust” is a gross understatement.

The null hypothesis in this case is that both the BLK and MK draw from the same loot table, ie that the apparent observed difference is entirely due to chance. Using Geothermal’s post giving the Mean, and sd it’s possible to calculate the probability that the null hypothesis holds. I’ve used the unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test to do this (free online calculator at http://graphpad.com/quickcalcs/ttest1.cfm).

Comparing only BL Kit test 1 v. Master Kit test 1 gives a t-statistic of 3.854 with 398 degrees of freedom, which corresponds to a probability P of <0.0001. Furthermore, we can calculate that the mean difference is an excess of 0.355 ectos per salvage for the BLK, with 95% confidence limits of 0.174 to 0.536 ectos per salvage.

Putting this into plain English – the probability that the BLK is equivalent to the MK and the apparent observed difference is due entirely to chance is less than 1 in 10000. That’s based on a sample size of 200 BLKs and MKs. Geothermal hasn’t given summary data for the entire BLK dataset (tests 1+2) versus the MK dataset (tests 1+2) but the probability will likely be in the order of several hundred thousand to a few million to one against. To be honest, 100 kits each way was more than enough to prove the point; 200 each way is massive overkill (never mind 400 each way).

Now, you could ask to compare categorical data – how many salvages produce 0, 1, 2 or 3 ectos – and does this differ between BLK and MKs. For that you’d need to use a chi-squared test. I haven’t bothered: I don’t care whether I get 1,2, or 3 ectos per salvage, just that at the end of the session I’d have a bigger stack if I was using BLKs than MKs… (so long as I get the BLKs free : the salvage advantage still isn’t justified by the gem cost for the kit)

Hope that settles the question!

Anyone tried the lesser kits? I get about the same amount of ectos using basic kits on CoF rares as I do with master kits. Usually use master kits for rares with upgrades.

ATC Alpha.4098:

Anyone tried the lesser kits? I get about the same amount of ectos using basic kits on CoF rares as I do with master kits. Usually use master kits for rares with upgrades.

There’s just no way I’m doing this :P It is at an insane loss, I’d much rather just assume since BL kits and Master kits have their stats worked out mostly, that I can trust the wiki on basics.

I will say I always use basics instead of crude for all salvageable items. Which again, on a large scale would be very expensive to test. Plus to really prove what you say, I’d need to see large samples and video evidence which is my core style of doing such tests.

Mystic.5934:

well, ori is what the “25% chance of rarer materials” actually refers to.
so if you recover 200 mithril, you should also recover 67 ori (25% ori, 75% mithril)
but it sounds like it’s item-dependent, meaning some have their recovery things set, and others have the chance of rarer.

The tooltip says “25% higher chance”, not “25% chance”. So if the “normal” chance for rarer materials was 1%, using the better kit would increase that to 1.25%, not 26%.

I highly doubt that is the case, though it is an interesting interpretation.
I’ve never actually compared those drop rates and usually consider them bonuses to the expected.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Salvage_kit
this lists each kit’s chance of rarer materials. Master and Mystic have 25%, Black lion has 50%. I think the number displayed is the exact percent chance of ori instead of mithril.