Talk:Glob of Ectoplasm/salvage research

I've setup a form to edit this with since I think its a pretty good idea. Perhaps the layout within the form could be prettified, but I think its got everything it needs to have :) -Chieftain Alex 11:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a great use of forms - a highly standardized template where accuracy matters. —Dr Ishmael 15:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Results

Those results for the basic + mystic kits look pretty damn similar in terms of luck. (obviously more dust with master kit) -Chieftain Alex 11:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That's to be expected...there was dev confirmation that kit quality only affects the dust drops from salvaging ecto and not the luck drops.--143.111.22.45 19:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a confession to make. You remember the 2000 ectos that some guy salvaged and put on a table on the main page that originally started all this? Well, he consumed all his luck and recorded the total amount of luck that he got. Since, at the time, there were only 3 entries, those two and then the initial reddit post, I felt like it wasn't a good idea to just pitch them, so I "fudged" the results and calculated how many essences he probably got based on the proportion of essences in the reddit post, since I knew the rates should be the same. That's why they're not only similar, they're... identical. Cough, cough. Psycho Robot (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You make it sound so surreptitious. Like some kind of seedy reality show. Psycho Robot (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) with regard to deleting the data submitted for copper kits during the bug (28 nov - 20 dec: spacecat on 5 dec, tyr on 13 dec), the average from during the bug was not the same as the Master kit, the average for the copper results (now shown as basic) is unaffected if you leave the data there. -Chieftain Alex 21:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

starmie827's entry

It looks way out of line compared to all other copper-fed entries. Perhaps his data is wrong or was done when the copper-fed didn't work like a basic but worked more like a mystic (even in this case this entry is still quite atypical). Can it get removed? 187.172.222.164 17:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

the edit that added this is fairly recent, but feel free to remove it. Prior to his edit, average crystalline was at 1.62, and his stats get 2.47. Something is definitely different.

His other entries are a lot closer to the existing data, but his 54 black lion kits also have a higher-than-usual crystalline rate of return -Chieftain Alex 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that up. Now there's five or six copper/basic entries but the summary at the end is only listing 250 total salvages using copper-fed. How does the summary get updated? RazZen (talk)

(sigh) engage brain alex. (missed the second switch statement in this edit)-Chieftain Alex 07:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this page "dead"?

There doesn't seem to be a list of entries any more that you can edit. Is it considered complete now? Daddicus (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't "dead". I had to archive most of the data since the page was becoming very slow to load. If you press the "edit with form" button, you get taken to this page, where you add a line just like before. -Chieftain Alex 17:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Also note that the form actually works now for some reason, I had been adding my data "by hand" because the form always threw an error before. If you were doing the same thing as I was, take advantage of the functioning form, it is way easier. NerakanDrac (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I did that, and I think it worked. Daddicus (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetize?

I don't suppose we could get the table alphabetized by the contributor's name, could we? Daddicus (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Page broken?

I just added 200 salvages (in two lines, 100 each for black lion and silver-fed), and neither entry appears in the table. No error was given, they just vanished.

I can't reproduce the black lion entry any more, but the silver-fed was 100 ectos, 192 dust, 748 fine luck, 41 masterwork, 13 rare, and 2 exotic. Daddicus (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess you added the 100 for the silver-fed again? Sucks that you lost the black lion entry results, but we currently have 11781 entries for black lion salvage kits. I don't mean to sound rude but the sample size is so large that I wouldn't worry about the 100 entries. Can't fathom a guess as to why your entries just disappeared, but I'm happy you contributed to the research :) Lamarius (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I just read what was said up above. Well, glad the form works again XD Lamarius (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm having issues right now trying to add lines. Upon entering both lines of my salvage (black lion and mystic) and clicking SAVE, the page reloads into Edit and everything entered is not saved. I have my data backed up to re-enter when possible. Wolf Sabian (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This page is completely broken. It needs to be fixed. I just entered another 200 entries, and they just vanished like the last time.

Until someone posts that it's fixed, I'm done trying to help on this page. Data: 200 crude salvages; 305 dust, 1404 fine, 88 masterwork, 11 rare, and 2 exotic. Daddicus (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This button to edit a line doesn't work right for me. I edit the page instead to save my data.--Coffee2Go (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Runecrafter

Runecrafter's Salvage-o-Matic is 20% (same as Journeyman). Should this be added to the header and the form dropdown as well? --BryghtShadow (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Removed some of the more stupid abbreviations too. -Chieftain Alex 12:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Crude Salvage Kit

It seems to me as if the entry we have on here for the Crude Salvage Kit is wildly inaccurate. If the salvage results on the main page are accurate, 5 crystalline should be the max, but these results average 5.18? Not to mention it shows 3x the average luck as any other salvage kit. Should we simply remove this entry? Eearslya (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I rolled back the unnoticed vandal edit. Results look a lot better now. -Chieftain Alex 18:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ha! I'd never even thought to look for something like that. Great catch, thanks! Eearslya (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks sussy again. My 250 is about what should be expected. (250, 372, 1833, 129, 4, 3) Sheorajek (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There's an error on this page

Missing bracket. Affects several cells, so it might be in a function. Daddicus (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this template isn't blank parameter tolerant, so I had a look at the history, saw it broke with your edit on 8th May, and added the zeroes on the end (I assume you received zero rare and zero exotic luck). -Chieftain Alex 19:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Edited the template too to prevent future failures. -Chieftain Alex 19:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I probably didn't get anything for those slots. Daddicus (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)