Talk:Glob of Destabilized Ectoplasm/Drop Rate

Suspicious data point

Aimery's data point looks very suspicious to me. It seems like they earn ridiculous amount of ecto in their sample size, mostly because of unnaturally high number of ascended massive globs(500 ecto) they dropped compared to all the other samples, including other big samples. It skewed the averages and now it looks like you can actually EARN a lot of ecto, worth much more than the gold you lose on average. --78.11.171.236 21:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree, this data point completely contradicts the very clear quantity relation of Globs of Ectoplasm and the exotic container apparent in both the possible result and the other data points. I have removed the data point now. Endaris (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

If you get 17.24ectos and 4.37 containers with each 50 ectos as well as 0.03 containers with 500 ectos and 83.65 objects selling for 1 gold as well as 0.14 objects selling for 100g for each container you open.. Wouldn't that mean you get 268.74 ectos and 97.65 gold average per container? If you buy one for 250 ectos and 100 gold that means you would make 18.74 ectos plus and 2,35g minus.. That's a total plus of 6g isn't it?

--84.129.125.70 16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Notes

Page is up now. Don't think I'll be doing any tests for this one. I'm sure there are some brave/crazy people out there who will though. Vormmor (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Loot

Can implicitly confirm the drop quantities, orbs seem to only drop in 5's (400 opened). Also you should really separate the ascended Massive Glob of Ectoplasm from the regular ones for the sake of clarity :)

Suspicious data

The line 100 / 150 / 482 / 0 / 8950 / 25 / 10 / Beta_test 3:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC) looks like a mistake. It's more likely to be either 1500 or 1150 globs of ectoplasma. In the doubt I suggest to remove it. 176.186.202.254 14:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The massive entry

The new massive entry that accounts for 3/4 of the total entries now seems suspicious. Mostly because of the sheer amount of money involved in the endeavor (in total, 718750 ecto spent, 715400 recovered for a net loss of 3350, and 287500g spent, 278500g recovered for a net loss of 9000g), and the difficulty of keeping track of such a huge number of items (and it obviously ignored goo covered objects, unless they've been straight up removed from the game, and rounded chunks at least). But there's also a substantial difference in the amount of ecto and money per gamble as well, compared to previous results (I mean, obviously that's the point of drop rate research, but the sample size was sufficient to have a reasonable level of confidence in it), with -1.165e vs the previous -2.754e, and -3.1304g vs the previous -0.5461g, with 1.6g of that difference in gold loss coming from chunks, which have a huge sample size (and the number is pretty obviously rounded, so who knows how much error there is)

I REALLY hope I'm not disparaging a legit data set that someone put a preposterous amount of money and effort into --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"submission" of incomplete data point

100 globs opened

net drop 24500 ectos and 8750 gold (didn't record distribution of the ecto packages or gold trash)