Guild Wars 2

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.

I’ll give it a try the next chance I get (tonight, report back tomorrow). CSK are quite a bit cheaper than MSK (2.1c vs. 61.4c per use). But if I don’t see similar rates to MSK within those 15 salvages, I’ll never use them again! :P

so I salvaged some level 68+ rares with Crude Salvage Kits
Total Salvaged = 15 rares
Return = 8 ecto
= 0.533 ecto/rare
also got 20 mithril

These were not all the same rare. Breakdown:
Berserker’s Reinforced Scale Pauldrons (CoF tokens) level 70 × 4 = 3 ecto, 5 mithril
Shaman’s Ring level 77 × 1 = 0 ecto, 2 mithril
Shaman’s Ring level 80 × 1 = 1 ecto, 1 mithril
Shaman’s Amulet level 77 × 1 = 0 ecto, 1 mithril
Shaman’s Amulet level 80 × 4 = 3 ecto, 6 mithril
Rampager’s Amulet level 69 × 1 = 0 ecto, 1 mithril
Rampager’s Amulet level 76 × 1 = 1 ecto, 1 mithril
Carrion Amulet level 80 × 2 = 0 ecto, 3 mithril

Based on the low sample size, the standard deviation is probably pretty high, but it still gives us initial insight and basic conclusions:
-Crude Salvage Kit can give you ecto
-ecto return is most likely significantly lower than MSK and BLSK, so much so that MSK is the most cost efficient, especially considering the socketed things that would be returned with MSK:
MSK profit = 26s/ecto x 0.9ecto/rare – 0.614s/salvage = 22.786s/rare
CSK profit = 26s/ecto x 0.533ecto/rare – 0.021s/salvage = 13.837s/rare

Mystic.5934:

so I salvaged some level 68+ rares with Crude Salvage Kits
Total Salvaged = 15 rares
Return = 8 ecto
= 0.533 ecto/rare
also got 20 mithril

These were not all the same rare. Breakdown:
Berserker’s Reinforced Scale Pauldrons (CoF tokens) level 70 × 4 = 3 ecto, 5 mithril
Shaman’s Ring level 77 × 1 = 0 ecto, 2 mithril
Shaman’s Ring level 80 × 1 = 1 ecto, 1 mithril
Shaman’s Amulet level 77 × 1 = 0 ecto, 1 mithril
Shaman’s Amulet level 80 × 4 = 3 ecto, 6 mithril
Rampager’s Amulet level 69 × 1 = 0 ecto, 1 mithril
Rampager’s Amulet level 76 × 1 = 1 ecto, 1 mithril
Carrion Amulet level 80 × 2 = 0 ecto, 3 mithril

Based on the low sample size, the standard deviation is probably pretty high, but it still gives us initial insight and basic conclusions:
-Crude Salvage Kit can give you ecto
-ecto return is most likely significantly lower than MSK and BLSK, so much so that MSK is the most cost efficient, especially considering the socketed things that would be returned with MSK:
MSK profit = 26s/ecto x 0.9ecto/rare – 0.614s/salvage = 22.786s/rare
CSK profit = 26s/ecto x 0.533ecto/rare – 0.021s/salvage = 13.837s/rare

Could you give me the specific numbers on the four zerker pauldrons so that I can calculate the standard deviation for a two-sample t-interval?

I didn’t record exact returns, but I remember only getting 2 ectos from one salvage once, and I believe it was from those. All the other ecto drops were 1 at a time.

Mystic.5934:

I didn’t record exact returns, but I remember only getting 2 ectos from one salvage once, and I believe it was from those. All the other ecto drops were 1 at a time.

Assuming that that’s true, I have enough data for what I want to do, thanks.

Be right back.

Okay, we’ve got two widely different n’s here, but we should be ok using the procedures as your data have no particular outliers, and (to the extent of my somewhat limited statistical knowledge) two-sample t-procedures tend to be fairly robust. I suppose something is better than nothing, at the very least.

So, comparing against Geotherma’s first Master kit salvage test:
n1=200
x-bar1=.93
S1=0.81141

Now, your data (removing the lvl 69 point, by the way; makes the data more consistent with the typical level 76-80 range for salvaging for ectos. Also, for this test, I’ll remove the CoF stuff, as it’s below 76. I’ll add them in for the next test that I’ll be posting):

n=10
x-bar2= .5
(For standard deviation, I’ll assume that, since you said that the 2 ectos came from one of the berserker pauldrons, that that means that you got 1 ectos from three tries and 0 ectos on another try w/ the Shaman Amulets)
S2=.527

Thus

df=11.253
Confidence Level = 95%
Not pooled
Interval=(.04313, .81687)

Thus we can say with 95% Confidence that Master Salvage Kits spew between .04313 and .81687 more ectos than Crudes. Unfortunately, the data set is very limited, which makes it very difficult to calculate this out accurately.

Also using this data, Crude Salvage kits give between .12301 and .87699 ectos per salvage, although this data is probably a bit suspect due to the fact that n is so low. However, the data set has no outliers, which makes it a bit better to use.

Now, using all fourteen items (again excluding the level 69)

n=14
xbar-2=.571
S2=.646

Thus the 2-samp t-interval gives us

df=16.017
Confidence=95%
Interval: (-.0267, .74465)

Again, however, the data are a bit sketchy, so it’s a bit difficult to calculate a decent or even a useful interval for this. :/ Thanks though, I appreciate it very much, particularly given that you did have to sacrifice some level of your income in order to pull this off. In the future, I believe that we can compile a list of such salvages in order to determine which kit is most cost-efficient, although my guess is going to be either Journeyman’s or Master’s.

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?

Btw, thought I’d bring this up now.

I’m lazy, so I’ll just use Geotherma’s first tests for BLSK and MSK instead. I’ll give you the statistical evidence you want.

High and equal n’s, lack of outliers (I’m assuming, unless geo got, say, 10 ectos in one salvage…), and the general robustness of two-sample t-intervals make this a quite robust test.

First, here’s a hypothesis test, where Mu1=Average number of ectos given by BLSKs and Mu2=Average number of ectos given by MSKs. We’re testing hypotheses
H0: Mu1=Mu2
Ha: Mu1>Mu2

Alpha level = 5% level

BLSK kits
n1=200
x-bar1=1.285
S1=1.0193

MSK kits
n2=200
x-bar2=0.93
S2=0.81141

So

df=378.95
P=.00006836
or
P=.0068%
t=3.854

So, not only does the test succeed at the 5% level, but at multiple levels above that. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis.

Interpretation
Basically: if BLSK kits and MSK kits had the same rates of ectos drops, the probability of getting results like Geotherma got are virtually 0- a mere 0.0068%, approximately. Thus, we can reject any foolish ideas that BLSKs produce the same amount or even less ectos than MSKs.

Here’s additional information:

Difference between average numbers of ectos produced by MLKs and BLSKs.
Confidence Level: 95%
Interval:(.17386, .53614)

My results are consistent with the BLSK results posted by Geo. For the same item, i get 25%-30% more ecto than items salvaged as if it were clockwork. 200 of the same item will yield me 250-260 ecto without fail. Any larger sample size would probably pin it down to about 27.5%.

cool. I knew someone would be able to say how much accuracy that had. I never did take statistics… skipped it and took geometry and calculus instead. I knew it wouldn’t be anywhere close to conclusive, but also wouldn’t be worthless.

Zumy.6318:

In my eyes 200 samples is jut not enough.
I have a way bigger difference between the two kits.

A sample of 30 would have been statistically viable. http://tinyurl.com/ccslwxh

Basic stat class in college teaches ya that.

Also, it was 400 tries per kit-type. Two sets of 200 each.

400 tries, with a spread this wide, pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of all the “scam” arguments. BL Kits made a pretty huge difference. You’ll get over a hundred more ectos out of 400 salvages.

Sorry, Hickeroar, but I don’t agree that 30 salvages is conclusive. with some things, such as melting points, this is probably enough. But in those cases, the variation is not very much (98 to 102). In salvaging, it’s 0-3.
An example to why this doesn’t always apply: the lottery. take 30 random lottery tickets and tell me with precision the average return for the cost, WITHOUT knowing the chances of each number being drawn. I can tell you I’ve purchased 40 lottery tickets for $40 before, and won $12 from it. with those $12 I purchased more and won $2. with that $2 I purchased more and won $0.

Mystic.5934:

Sorry, Hickeroar, but I don’t agree that 30 salvages is conclusive. with some things, such as melting points, this is probably enough. But in those cases, the variation is not very much (98 to 102). In salvaging, it’s 0-3.
An example to why this doesn’t always apply: the lottery. take 30 random lottery tickets and tell me with precision the average return for the cost, WITHOUT knowing the chances of each number being drawn. I can tell you I’ve purchased 40 lottery tickets for $40 before, and won $12 from it. with those $12 I purchased more and won $2. with that $2 I purchased more and won $0.

Actually, it is because the variation is so small that 30 salvages can be conclusive. Because of such low variation, it becomes easy to predict the mean number of ectos salvaged just from a sample size of n>30.

On the other hand, the lottery has huge variation, making it extremely difficult to provide accurate results due to outliers.

I agree the variation is pretty small. I’ve done hundreds if not thousands of salvages using both BLSKs and MSKs and the BLSK are far and away the best kit to use for salvaging rare or better items. The MSKs on average yield about %10 less ectos than items salvaged.

I’m getting about 0.75 ectos for every rare salvaged at the moment using Master Salvage Kits. It’s a bit less than the 0.9 that’s been reported here but o well, I’ll keep salvaging and hopefully the number will go up.

Mystic.5934:

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.

Ecto drop rate is separate……………. I thought everyone already knew about this……..

For the past 100 tries with master salvage kit, I got roughly 100 ecto(~90).

ok, makes sense. at first I thought it should be by percent different in results. but even flipping a coin should give you numbers close to 50% within 30 flips.
I like to see it like this:
if you roll it one more time, how much will it change the average if it’s the highest or lowest possible result. say 30 flips gives 15 heads and 15 tails. 16 heads and 15 tails will change the percentage to 51.6% : 48.4%, which is still pretty close.

Mystic.5934:

ok, makes sense. at first I thought it should be by percent different in results. but even flipping a coin should give you numbers close to 50% within 30 flips.
I like to see it like this:
if you roll it one more time, how much will it change the average if it’s the highest or lowest possible result. say 30 flips gives 15 heads and 15 tails. 16 heads and 15 tails will change the percentage to 51.6% : 48.4%, which is still pretty close.

Coins don’t have variables and fuzzy logic tho :P Well at least not as many.

Has there been any study done comparing Master kits to the 250 use Mystic Kits?

It would seem they should have identical returns, but I had a very disappointing return rate on about 60 rares – around 80% ectos, after using up all my free BLSKs and getting expected returns on 220 rares.

JakHammer.7094:

Has there been any study done comparing Master kits to the 250 use Mystic Kits?

It would seem they should have identical returns, but I had a very disappointing return rate on about 60 rares – around 80% ectos, after using up all my free BLSKs and getting expected returns on 220 rares.

All i use are mystic kits. When i’ve mentioned master kits, it’s always been mystic kits that i refer to. Although i haven’t tested using master kits, supposedly the return should be identical.

JakHammer.7094:

Has there been any study done comparing Master kits to the 250 use Mystic Kits?

It would seem they should have identical returns, but I had a very disappointing return rate on about 60 rares – around 80% ectos, after using up all my free BLSKs and getting expected returns on 220 rares.

Sure. Such results were posted on this topic, earlier, as well. Not identical rate, due rng, but close enough for my liking. It’s just that while mystic is convenient and easy, it’s also expensive and bad investment in long term due current gems<>gold ration.