Guild Wars 2

Anyone else notice in the last week or so (before the latest update) that when salvaging rares with Black Lion, mystic, or masters kits that you’re getting a LOT less ecto?

I used to get an average of 1-3 ecto/rare, and maybe 1-2 of 10 would not have any ecto. Lately it’s been around 1 ecto for every 5-6 rares, very noticeable. Though I could be wrong, it does not seem like RNG here.

Am I the only one?

Tic Tac Toe.1482:

Though I could be wrong, it does not seem like RNG here.

Actually, that seems exactly like RNG.

RNG is random, thus unpredictable. Especially in very small sample sizes.

Another less ecto thread! takes drink

Oh look, another thread. Did you only get 1 ecto from your huge sample of 5 rares OP?

/popcorn.

Tic Tac Toe.1482:

Anyone else notice in the last week or so (before the latest update) that when salvaging rares with Black Lion, mystic, or masters kits that you’re getting a LOT less ecto?

I used to get an average of 1-3 ecto/rare, and maybe 1-2 of 10 would not have any ecto. Lately it’s been around 1 ecto for every 5-6 rares, very noticeable. Though I could be wrong, it does not seem like RNG here.

Am I the only one?

The average ecto salvage rate from rares is ~ 0.875.
If you got 1-3 ectos per rare until now, you were very lucky.

I salvage between 500-1000 rares each week and salvaged 90 since last update.
I got 82 ectos.

My personal conclusion is this: The more ppl that Salvage, the higher risk for a superior low rate. Atm there is a much higher salvage hype going on and like the original poster, my rates have been crap. The funny thing is, before last two living stories, I could have a dip of maybe 12 rares, but it always came back to normal (0,9 ecto per rare) and sometimes a lucky spike. But rarely this bad as it is now. If the RNG chance is not lowered, a higher ecto salvage activity, could mess up the algorithms for single players, meaning more players get superior low rates.

Laugh wathever you want, but this is my conclusion. It was similar in another game. More ppl (doing something with same rng) = more chances for superior bad luck streak.

Tic Tac Toe.1482:

Anyone else notice in the last week or so (before the latest update) that when salvaging rares with Black Lion, mystic, or masters kits that you’re getting a LOT less ecto?

I used to get an average of 1-3 ecto/rare, and maybe 1-2 of 10 would not have any ecto. Lately it’s been around 1 ecto for every 5-6 rares, very noticeable. Though I could be wrong, it does not seem like RNG here.

Am I the only one?

I used the Mystic Forge twice the other day. Once with Major Sigils that gave me a Superior Sigil. And once with Major Runes, which gave me a Superior Rune. Back to back. Should my conclusion be that upgraded items from the MF have increased in output?

there are only two guarantees about Random Number Generation:
- You will get streaks of bad luck
- You will get streaks of good luck
when those occur are – you guessed it – random!
this is a random ecto return: 01100101011111101011000100000111010100000101001111
this is not a random ecto return: 101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101

Getting 1 ecto from 6 rares isn’t even that uncommon, much less rare. I think it’ll happen about once every 4000 rares? 1/(0.25^6) should approximate the chance fairly well. actual number is likely lower than that, as the chance of getting 0 ectos is more than 25%.

The other day I salvaged around 12 rares and got 17 ectos. The next 6 I got nothing from. Happens to me all the time. It really is just random unfortunately.

Guess it maybe RNG. Though my sample size is not THAT large (playing since launch, at least a few hundred rares) it seems like recently the ecto rate went down a lot.

Mystic.5934:

this is a random ecto return: 01100101011111101011000100000111010100000101001111
this is not a random ecto return: 101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101

But this isn’t true.

Tic Tac Toe.1482:

Guess it maybe RNG. Though my sample size is not THAT large (playing since launch, at least a few hundred rares) it seems like recently the ecto rate went down a lot.

As i said, i salvage a few hundred rares a week. Your sample size is minimal.

Mystic.5934:

Getting 1 ecto from 6 rares isn’t even that uncommon, much less rare. I think it’ll happen about once every 4000 rares? 1/(0.25^6) should approximate the chance fairly well. actual number is likely lower than that, as the chance of getting 0 ectos is more than 25%.

Chance of getting 0 ectos is ~36.5%, chance of getting 1 is ~46.5%. Chance of getting only 1 ecto from 6 rares is ~ 1/(6*46.5%*36.5%^5) ~ once every 54 rares.

Not an uncommon occurrence at all.

RemiRome.8495:

Mystic.5934:

this is a random ecto return: 01100101011111101011000100000111010100000101001111
this is not a random ecto return: 101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101

But this isn’t true.

Any reason other than your own preconceptions and perception? Because it is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests#Specific_tests_for_randomness

Randomness does not care about your previous result. Streaks will occur. It won’t balance out just so it looks “random” and “balanced” to your eyes.

As for the repeated “I salvaged x ectos”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insensitivity_to_sample_size

When you salvage 1,000 and have a statistically smaller result, that’s when you have a problem. I don’t even look at individual salvages because I trust my large data set.

CynC.4765:

wiki warrior nonsense

Except it isn’t.

“On probabilistic grounds, all strings, say of length 64, have the same randomness.”

Would be the relevant part of what you linked.

Anyway. If it was random. The latter string would be a possibility. It would look less random to us however.

CynC.4765:

Randomness does not care about your previous result. Streaks will occur. It won’t balance out just so it looks “random” and “balanced” to your eyes.

You even agree with me so I’m not really seeing the point.

This thread again

takes a drink

RemiRome.8495:

Mystic.5934:

this is a random ecto return: 01100101011111101011000100000111010100000101001111
this is not a random ecto return: 101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101

But this isn’t true.

RemiRome.8495:

CynC.4765:

Randomness does not care about your previous result. Streaks will occur. It won’t balance out just so it looks “random” and “balanced” to your eyes.

You even agree with me so I’m not really seeing the point.

…Because of your flip flopping opinion, I’m just going to assume that you either don’t know what you said earlier, or misread something, or whatever, and end it here.

Besides, I’m not going to reference sources that no one will ever look up.

CynC.4765:

Randomness does not care about your previous result. Streaks will occur. It won’t balance out just so it looks “random” and “balanced” to your eyes.

If the pseudo-random algorithms didn’t include distribution (to “balance out” the results), then you wouldn’t have a reliable X% “chance”.

These algorithms can and probably have been altered many times since release without notice.

RemiRome.8495:

CynC.4765:

wiki warrior nonsense

Except it isn’t.

“On probabilistic grounds, all strings, say of length 64, have the same randomness.”

Would be the relevant part of what you linked.

Anyway. If it was random. The latter string would be a possibility. It would look less random to us however.

I’ll grant you a few things; I made those up out of my head, so they weren’t actually random, only represented what random is likely to give you. Sure, you can get the second one as a truly random string, but the chance of getting it are astronomically small. 45 bits = 2^45 combinations = 35,184,372,088,832. of those, two would be exactly 1,0,1,0… (the other being 0,1,0,1…). You would actually be more likely to win the mega millions lottery 27,952 times in a row than randomly get either of those ‘non-random’ strings. On the other hand, around half of those combinations would look similar to the first string I presented, so that’s why I believe the first was a better representation of a random string.