Guild Wars 2

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

We aren’t talking about salvaging ectos out of rares/exotics but dust out of rares. I too got around 1.7-1.8 per ecto the last time I did it.

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

But the odds would be astronomical. But with a sample size of 2500 you end up getting a clearer picture of true probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Behellagh.1468:

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

But the odds would be astronomical. But with a sample size of 2500 you end up getting a clearer picture of true probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Of the application of it, perhaps. But with 2500 being the sample size, it may actually take something 100 to 10000 times larger to have a pointedly obvious result that shows the smaller result from 2500 salvages was simply a statistical “burp” from the lower end of the averages.

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

I have been dropped 700,000 precursors so far. True story.

DarkWasp.7291:

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

I have been dropped 700,000 precursors so far. True story.

entirely possible that every mob you kill @ 80 drops a precursor, I wont doubt your claim.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Behellagh.1468:

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

But the odds would be astronomical. But with a sample size of 2500 you end up getting a clearer picture of true probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Of the application of it, perhaps. But with 2500 being the sample size, it may actually take something 100 to 10000 times larger to have a pointedly obvious result that shows the smaller result from 2500 salvages was simply a statistical “burp” from the lower end of the averages.

Precisely. Considering the quantities being salvaged on a daily basis, 2500 in the grand scheme of the game could be 0.000001% of the total salvaged. Thus, though for 1 player it may be a low rate, it may be just a slight slip down the bell curve.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Behellagh.1468:

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

But the odds would be astronomical. But with a sample size of 2500 you end up getting a clearer picture of true probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Of the application of it, perhaps. But with 2500 being the sample size, it may actually take something 100 to 10000 times larger to have a pointedly obvious result that shows the smaller result from 2500 salvages was simply a statistical “burp” from the lower end of the averages.

That is actually false. 2500 is enough to have a clear picture.

http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator.html

The chance of flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries is like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

^That is with 160 zeros, I can’t even type it in.

What the OP described have even less chance than flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries. He is pretty much trying to flip a 3 sided coin(even though 1 have more probability of dropping) 2500 times and get almost 1 all the time.

Most likely the OP is trying to manipulate ecto/dust price. Or he accidentally stored the dust in collection or use the wrong salvage kit. Or there is some bug in the RNG system.

About the luck, I believe all types of kits should give the same amount of luck?

laokoko.7403:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Behellagh.1468:

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

But the odds would be astronomical. But with a sample size of 2500 you end up getting a clearer picture of true probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Of the application of it, perhaps. But with 2500 being the sample size, it may actually take something 100 to 10000 times larger to have a pointedly obvious result that shows the smaller result from 2500 salvages was simply a statistical “burp” from the lower end of the averages.

That is actually false. 2500 is enough to have a clear picture.

http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator.html

The chance of flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries is like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

^That is with 160 zeros, I can’t even type it in.

What the OP described have even less chance than flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries. He is pretty much trying to flip a 3 sided coin(even though 1 have more probability of dropping) 2500 times and get almost 1 all the time.

Most likely the OP is trying to manipulate ecto/dust price. Or he accidentally stored the dust in collection or use the wrong salvage kit. Or there is some bug in the RNG system.

Not if 2500 salvages represents a tiny percentage of the total number of salvages on any given day in game. By itself, yes 2500 is a not inconsiderable sample size, but against 250,000? 2,500,000, 25,000,000? Who knows how many salvages are done on any given day but if 2,500 represents <0.1% of the total then the average salvage rate derived from that would be meaningless.

Schneider.8615:

About the luck, I believe all types of kits should give the same amount of luck?

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Glob_of_Ectoplasm/salvage_research

base on other people’s research. salvage kit probably dont’ matter for ectos

Azrael.4960:

laokoko.7403:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Behellagh.1468:

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

But the odds would be astronomical. But with a sample size of 2500 you end up getting a clearer picture of true probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Of the application of it, perhaps. But with 2500 being the sample size, it may actually take something 100 to 10000 times larger to have a pointedly obvious result that shows the smaller result from 2500 salvages was simply a statistical “burp” from the lower end of the averages.

That is actually false. 2500 is enough to have a clear picture.

http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator.html

The chance of flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries is like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

^That is with 160 zeros, I can’t even type it in.

What the OP described have even less chance than flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries. He is pretty much trying to flip a 3 sided coin(even though 1 have more probability of dropping) 2500 times and get almost 1 all the time.

Most likely the OP is trying to manipulate ecto/dust price. Or he accidentally stored the dust in collection or use the wrong salvage kit. Or there is some bug in the RNG system.

Not if 2500 salvages represents a tiny percentage of the total number of salvages on any given day in game. By itself, yes 2500 is a not inconsiderable sample size, but against 250,000? 2,500,000, 25,000,000? Who knows how many salvages are done on any given day but if 2,500 represents <0.1% of the total then the average salvage rate derived from that would be meaningless.

It’s not a probability problem.

.0000000001% is a small number.

But the OP isn’t describing a small number, he is describing a number with hundred of decimal places. It’s like 10 to the negative a few hundred.

Most likely there is an error some where, either because he lied, miscount the number of dust, or Anet make a mistake in the RNG generator. I would say most likely the error is on the OP’s end.

laokoko.7403:

Azrael.4960:

laokoko.7403:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Behellagh.1468:

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

But the odds would be astronomical. But with a sample size of 2500 you end up getting a clearer picture of true probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Of the application of it, perhaps. But with 2500 being the sample size, it may actually take something 100 to 10000 times larger to have a pointedly obvious result that shows the smaller result from 2500 salvages was simply a statistical “burp” from the lower end of the averages.

That is actually false. 2500 is enough to have a clear picture.

http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator.html

The chance of flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries is like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

^That is with 160 zeros, I can’t even type it in.

What the OP described have even less chance than flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries. He is pretty much trying to flip a 3 sided coin(even though 1 have more probability of dropping) 2500 times and get almost 1 all the time.

Most likely the OP is trying to manipulate ecto/dust price. Or he accidentally stored the dust in collection or use the wrong salvage kit. Or there is some bug in the RNG system.

Not if 2500 salvages represents a tiny percentage of the total number of salvages on any given day in game. By itself, yes 2500 is a not inconsiderable sample size, but against 250,000? 2,500,000, 25,000,000? Who knows how many salvages are done on any given day but if 2,500 represents <0.1% of the total then the average salvage rate derived from that would be meaningless.

It’s not a probability problem.

.0000000001% is a small number.

But the OP isn’t describing a small number, he is describing a number with hundred of decimal places. It’s like 10 to the negative a few hundred.

Most likely there is an error some where, either because he lied, miscount the number of dust, or Anet make a mistake in the RNG generator. I would say most likely the error is on the OP’s end.

I’m not talking about probability. I’m talking about statistical sampling

laokoko.7403:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Behellagh.1468:

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

But the odds would be astronomical. But with a sample size of 2500 you end up getting a clearer picture of true probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Of the application of it, perhaps. But with 2500 being the sample size, it may actually take something 100 to 10000 times larger to have a pointedly obvious result that shows the smaller result from 2500 salvages was simply a statistical “burp” from the lower end of the averages.

That is actually false. 2500 is enough to have a clear picture.

http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator.html

The chance of flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries is like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

^That is with 160 zeros, I can’t even type it in.

What the OP described have even less chance than flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries. He is pretty much trying to flip a 3 sided coin(even though 1 have more probability of dropping) 2500 times and get almost 1 all the time.

Most likely the OP is trying to manipulate ecto/dust price. Or he accidentally stored the dust in collection or use the wrong salvage kit. Or there is some bug in the RNG system.

No offense, but your math and reading comprehension are abysmal. We arent discussing some crappy coin toss where the results are binary. We’re discussing the results of salvaging ectos which have a possible result of ONE dust, TWO dust, THREE dust, FOUR dust, or FIVE dust. Each salvage has 5 potential outcomes. Short of salvaging billions of ectos for a definitive (but still not 100.00% accurate) odds calculation of each result, we’re stuck with the average, which is currently just under 2 dust an ecto. Since it’s just under 2, it’s a fairly safe assumption that a large probability value is assigned to only salvaging 1 dust, with a not as large, but still substantial, value assigned to salvaging 2 dust, with increasingly smaller values assigned to 3, 4 and 5 dust. The result of that is the averages weighing towards the value people have settled on.

Take the following set of “results:” {1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5}

The average here is a smidge over 1.77 for the set. Over 22 results, 12 were 1, 6 were 2, 2 were 3, and 1 each for 4 and 5. While the results arent exact, they’re more or less in line with what I figured the potential results could be.

Aidan Savage.2078:

laokoko.7403:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Behellagh.1468:

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

But the odds would be astronomical. But with a sample size of 2500 you end up getting a clearer picture of true probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Of the application of it, perhaps. But with 2500 being the sample size, it may actually take something 100 to 10000 times larger to have a pointedly obvious result that shows the smaller result from 2500 salvages was simply a statistical “burp” from the lower end of the averages.

That is actually false. 2500 is enough to have a clear picture.

http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator.html

The chance of flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries is like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

^That is with 160 zeros, I can’t even type it in.

What the OP described have even less chance than flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries. He is pretty much trying to flip a 3 sided coin(even though 1 have more probability of dropping) 2500 times and get almost 1 all the time.

Most likely the OP is trying to manipulate ecto/dust price. Or he accidentally stored the dust in collection or use the wrong salvage kit. Or there is some bug in the RNG system.

No offense, but your math and reading comprehension are abysmal. We arent discussing some crappy coin toss where the results are binary. We’re discussing the results of salvaging ectos which have a possible result of ONE dust, TWO dust, THREE dust, FOUR dust, or FIVE dust. Each salvage has 5 potential outcomes. Short of salvaging billions of ectos for a definitive (but still not 100.00% accurate) odds calculation of each result, we’re stuck with the average, which is currently just under 2 dust an ecto. Since it’s just under 2, it’s a fairly safe assumption that a large probability value is assigned to only salvaging 1 dust, with a not as large, but still substantial, value assigned to salvaging 2 dust, with increasingly smaller values assigned to 3, 4 and 5 dust. The result of that is the averages weighing towards the value people have settled on.

Take the following set of “results:” {1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5}

The average here is a smidge over 1.77 for the set. Over 22 results, 12 were 1, 6 were 2, 2 were 3, and 1 each for 4 and 5. While the results arent exact, they’re more or less in line with what I figured the potential results could be.

Take the following set of “results:” {1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5}

It don’t look like the coin toss problem? The flip is either 1 or not 1. And you do it over 2500 times, and you flip 1 almost all the time base on what the OP says.

It’s an astronomical small number. I dont’ know what the percentage is, it require a pretty good calculator.

Anyway, I’m just trying to say what the OP described clearly isn’t because he’s unlucky. And I tested it, I salvaged 250 ectos, and I think another guy in this post says he salvaged some ectos too. Don’t seem anything wrong.

laokoko.7403:

Aidan Savage.2078:

laokoko.7403:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Behellagh.1468:

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

But the odds would be astronomical. But with a sample size of 2500 you end up getting a clearer picture of true probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Of the application of it, perhaps. But with 2500 being the sample size, it may actually take something 100 to 10000 times larger to have a pointedly obvious result that shows the smaller result from 2500 salvages was simply a statistical “burp” from the lower end of the averages.

That is actually false. 2500 is enough to have a clear picture.

http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator.html

The chance of flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries is like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

^That is with 160 zeros, I can’t even type it in.

What the OP described have even less chance than flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries. He is pretty much trying to flip a 3 sided coin(even though 1 have more probability of dropping) 2500 times and get almost 1 all the time.

Most likely the OP is trying to manipulate ecto/dust price. Or he accidentally stored the dust in collection or use the wrong salvage kit. Or there is some bug in the RNG system.

No offense, but your math and reading comprehension are abysmal. We arent discussing some crappy coin toss where the results are binary. We’re discussing the results of salvaging ectos which have a possible result of ONE dust, TWO dust, THREE dust, FOUR dust, or FIVE dust. Each salvage has 5 potential outcomes. Short of salvaging billions of ectos for a definitive (but still not 100.00% accurate) odds calculation of each result, we’re stuck with the average, which is currently just under 2 dust an ecto. Since it’s just under 2, it’s a fairly safe assumption that a large probability value is assigned to only salvaging 1 dust, with a not as large, but still substantial, value assigned to salvaging 2 dust, with increasingly smaller values assigned to 3, 4 and 5 dust. The result of that is the averages weighing towards the value people have settled on.

Take the following set of “results:” {1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5}

The average here is a smidge over 1.77 for the set. Over 22 results, 12 were 1, 6 were 2, 2 were 3, and 1 each for 4 and 5. While the results arent exact, they’re more or less in line with what I figured the potential results could be.

Take the following set of “results:” {1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5}

It don’t look like the coin toss problem? The flip is either 1 or not 1. And you do it over 2500 times, and you flip 1 almost all the time base on what the OP says.

It’s an astronomical small number. I dont’ know what the percentage is, it require a pretty good calculator.

Anyway, I’m just trying to say what the OP described clearly isn’t because he’s unlucky.

You don’t seem to understand statistical analysis at all.

Azrael.4960:

laokoko.7403:

Aidan Savage.2078:

laokoko.7403:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Behellagh.1468:

Xbon.9086:

Azrael.4960:

If we could get 2500 players each salvaging 2500 ectos, that would give us a much nice randomised sample set to make extrapolations from.

still subject to rng, all 2500 of these people could get 9 each time just because rng

But the odds would be astronomical. But with a sample size of 2500 you end up getting a clearer picture of true probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Of the application of it, perhaps. But with 2500 being the sample size, it may actually take something 100 to 10000 times larger to have a pointedly obvious result that shows the smaller result from 2500 salvages was simply a statistical “burp” from the lower end of the averages.

That is actually false. 2500 is enough to have a clear picture.

http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator.html

The chance of flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries is like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

^That is with 160 zeros, I can’t even type it in.

What the OP described have even less chance than flipping 900 tail in 1000 tries. He is pretty much trying to flip a 3 sided coin(even though 1 have more probability of dropping) 2500 times and get almost 1 all the time.

Most likely the OP is trying to manipulate ecto/dust price. Or he accidentally stored the dust in collection or use the wrong salvage kit. Or there is some bug in the RNG system.

No offense, but your math and reading comprehension are abysmal. We arent discussing some crappy coin toss where the results are binary. We’re discussing the results of salvaging ectos which have a possible result of ONE dust, TWO dust, THREE dust, FOUR dust, or FIVE dust. Each salvage has 5 potential outcomes. Short of salvaging billions of ectos for a definitive (but still not 100.00% accurate) odds calculation of each result, we’re stuck with the average, which is currently just under 2 dust an ecto. Since it’s just under 2, it’s a fairly safe assumption that a large probability value is assigned to only salvaging 1 dust, with a not as large, but still substantial, value assigned to salvaging 2 dust, with increasingly smaller values assigned to 3, 4 and 5 dust. The result of that is the averages weighing towards the value people have settled on.

Take the following set of “results:” {1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5}

The average here is a smidge over 1.77 for the set. Over 22 results, 12 were 1, 6 were 2, 2 were 3, and 1 each for 4 and 5. While the results arent exact, they’re more or less in line with what I figured the potential results could be.

Take the following set of “results:” {1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5}

It don’t look like the coin toss problem? The flip is either 1 or not 1. And you do it over 2500 times, and you flip 1 almost all the time base on what the OP says.

It’s an astronomical small number. I dont’ know what the percentage is, it require a pretty good calculator.

Anyway, I’m just trying to say what the OP described clearly isn’t because he’s unlucky.

You don’t seem to understand statistical analysis at all.

ya I dont’.

Are people trying to explain what the OP described to me actually happened and he is just unlucky?

He is not describing a chance to roll 2 precursor in a roll in the mystic forge. He is describing a chance to roll 50 precursor in a roll in the mystic forge.

Anyway I don’t think the post is going anywhere. Since I’m not really good at math. And it seemed many poster’s math are just about as bad as mine or even worse.

There’s a lot of bad math in this thread! I think a lot of people posting might benefit from taking an introductory statistics course. Even if the distribution is not for a binary set of data, the standard deviation can still be calculated. In this case the standard deviation of one trial is not more than 2, and probably closer to 1, meaning that a sample of 2500 has a standard deviation between 1/50 and 2/50. A sample size of 2500 is more than sufficient. OP might want to be more careful in recording his results.

Lamir.6702:

There’s a lot of bad math in this thread! I think a lot of people posting might benefit from taking an introductory statistics course. Even if the distribution is not for a binary set of data, the standard deviation can still be calculated as a higher bound (in this case it’s certainly not more than 2, and probably closer to 1 but I don’t know the actual salvage distribution). A sample size of 2500 is more than sufficient. OP might want to be more careful in recording his results.

As has been said repeatedly, 2500 salvages is sufficient only if it is a substantially representative subset of the total number of salvages done on any given day. If only 10k salvages were done a day, then 2500, 25% of the total, would be a decent sample. If 1 million salvages are done a day, then 2500 samples, merely 0.25%, is grossly inadequate.

@laokoko
The bad luck of the OP is not in question. S/he’s produced a set of data so we’re not calculating their probability, which is a wholly different calculation. What we’ve been looking at, and trying to explain to you, is whether the average rate of dust drops has changed. This requires a couple of things:

1) How many salvages are done over a fixed period, the longer the better.
2) How many units of dust are produced over the same period.

From this we can calculate a few things

1) The average rate of dust per ecto that is produced
2) The average rate of dust per ecto produced per day

If we break it down into 2500 salvage lots over time we can calculate whether there is a difference in the salvage rate over time or if it’s largely random and from that determine what the distribution of salvage rates are. From that we could kitten whether OP’s salvage rate per 2500 ectos is on the low end or in the middle of the distribution.

John Smith.4610:

2500 salvages is nowhere near enough salvages to be certain about anything, but it is enough to make me query the datasets for enough salvages to be sure (say 100,000,000 or so)

Well, there we have it.

John Smith.4610:

I checked the numbers and everything is normal. There is less than a .01 standard deviation since the beginning of the year in day over day ratio of ecto to dust.

John Smith on Salvaging Ectos:
“Working as Intended.” -2015

John Smith.4610:

As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.

ah aha ha John Smith is my kittening hero.

John Smith.4610:

As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.

• OP salvages small number of ectos, gets less than desired quantity of dusts
• Claims on forums results were bad from larger sample size
• Forums more or less state it was within reasonable bounds of salvage results
• JS proves as much
• JS breaks a few toes as an afterthought

So… while we got your attention… how many ectos were salvaged in the last 7 days (1/12-1/19)?

John Smith.4610:

As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.

This is slighty embarassing OP.

To be accurate, the OP never stated he/she salvaged the 2500 Ecto…just that they were purchased.

But, it was easy to infer that was what happened.

I’m not used to Devs communicating like this, having come from all kinds of other MMOs.

You guys kick kitten :p

John Smith: Here is the data and it’s fine. Btw OP, BAM

Sir, I would send you cookies if they could last long enough to make it to you.

So even assuming 2500 were salvaged, that’s 0.29% of the total for this week….yeh, statistics ftw

John Smith.4610:

I checked the numbers and everything is normal. There is less than a .01 standard deviation since the beginning of the year in day over day ratio of ecto to dust.

Thank you for getting back to us so quickly.

John Smith.4610:

As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.

Owned…

Thanks for the info… also that is a lot of ectos… and that is just ectos that people salvaged… I can’t imagine the number that people actually used… though to be honest I can’t image 863,000 either.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

John Smith.4610:

As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.

Owned…

Thanks for the info… also that is a lot of ectos… and that is just ectos that people salvaged… I can’t imagine the number that people actually used… though to be honest I can’t image 863,000 either.

Bear in mind, that’s only just this last week

Don’t forget we had an influx of cheap ecto’s from mesmers combining EoLs due to new dailies.

John Smith.4610:

As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.

lmao

John Smith.4610:

As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.

Interesting that Anet tracks such data, but when you lose zone reward loot due to a bug with the inventory interface and encumber-ment, the data is nowhere to be found.

Neural.1824:

John Smith.4610:

As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.

Interesting that Anet tracks such data, but when you lose zone reward loot due to a bug with the inventory interface and encumber-ment, the data is nowhere to be found.

It likely isn’t registered to your account until it hits your inventory.

John Smith.4610:

As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.

Note to self: Don’t trust numbers from OP again.

Not only was his sample size a whole lot smaller than what he claimed and no where near large enough to warrant any investigation, his results were higher than he should have gotten. He got 1.92 dust per ecto.

OK, not sure where you got 145, because I am sure I definitely salvaged a whole stack (250) and got c. 270 dust, then I did a few more with a standard kit and got a low yield (1.2x, but not large enough sample size). I stopped at that point and didn’t do the rest of the 2500, but I did do another stack (250) now and got a normal result. Not sure what is going on, but problem is fixed.

Experience also looks normal again, almost 26K

Thanks for caring

Llethlin Dowr.3416:

OK, not sure where you got 145, because I am sure I definitely salvaged a whole stack (250) and got c. 270 dust, then I did a few more with a standard kit and got a low yield (1.2x, but not large enough sample size). I stopped at that point and didn’t do the rest of the 2500, but I did do another stack (250) now and got a normal result. Not sure what is going on, but problem is fixed.

Experience also looks normal again, almost 26K

Thanks for caring

It is not our fault you attempted to lie and got caught.

why would I lie?

Your lack of clarification that you bought 2500 and got a salvage rate of whatever it was leads people to believe that you salvaged all 2500 with that salvage rate

Llethlin Dowr.3416:

why would I lie?

Why would anyone lie? The list is endless. Attention seeking, trying to exaagerate to prove a point because they believe it’s true…hell it could be faulty memory and not lying at all.

But I find it more likely your post is inaccurate than otherwise.

Llethlin Dowr.3416:

why would I lie?

Maybe you are sitting on piles of dust you want to unload…

WOW, such faith in humanity is comforting.

Anyway I won’t be posting further on the subject except to say that I had no further issues with the rest of the salvaging and thanks ANET for caring and looking into it.

Gotta love RNG

Ayrilana.1396:

Gotta love RNG

I pray to RNGEsus every night

John Smith.4610:

As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.

John “Balthazar” Smith, setting pants on fire since 2012.