GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

Talk:Lockpick

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

It doesn't even exist yet. wtf? Sirocco 07:23, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Omg they are desperate to imitate WoW..—SigmA Omigod.jpg 14:39, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
Uh, what? You've never heard of lock picks until WoW came out? Oh please. Morrowind had lockpicks, Deus Ex had lockpicks. WoW is not the only game in the world you know? Sirocco 15:01, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
Lockpicks have been a game staple in D&D since the 1970's... they're nothing new in the least for the gaming world. -- Gorfax Silverdale

It's the only game I play actually. --—SigmA Omigod.jpg 15:59, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

They're out now. Cost 1500 gold. For instance, Tesserai, Merchant in Mehtani Keys sells it.

1500? Ouch... and I thought normal keys were expensive... Tycn 01:09, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Where exactly is this formula for survival rate coming from? Lorik 01:58, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

The lockpick themselves show the survival rate, however I don't see the need for level/2 for this as only lvl 20 characters can go into hard mode to use one. Did someone just look at a lockpick on a lower character to find this number? -Ezekiel 02:01, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Lockpicks aren't usable exclusively in hard mode, but are required to open hard mode chests. — User:Kyrasantae kyrasantae 02:14, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Two pieces of info I don't see yet that I'd like to know, but can't check until I get out of work. Do lockpicks stack? Does using them give points toward the treasure hunter and/or lucky (when they survive) title? DZwart 13:47, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Lockpicks do stack. However, I'm also wondering if they give points to the treasure hunter and/or lucky title --149.89.1.32 14:10, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Thus far I've only used them in hard mode, so those chests are considered 'high end' and give Treasure Hunter points. However, whether they break or not does not appear to affect the Lucky title. — User:Kyrasantae kyrasantae 17:37, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
It does now. SarielV 02:42, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Pre-Searing Availability[edit source]

The info on the article page is not accurate (at least, not completely) - I have a lvl 20, went back to Pre (in Factions), and Hard Mode IS available, and the merchants DO sell lockpicks.

There is no Pre-Searing in Factions. RossMM 20:31, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
Oh, ok - I had always been under the assumption that the island was considered Pre, never heard anything different 'till now.
What? Do you even know why it is called pre-searing? — Skuld 13:24, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Hard mode chance vs. normal mode chance?[edit source]

Tested on normal mode: 44% chance to retain lockpick after using Luxon chest (I have 14% chance normally with level 2 Lucky title). Please post yours so that we could figure out possible formula. --Mira 03:14, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

normal shiverpeak chest: 42%. lucky 1. btw that note about the scaling of percents needs to be more specific... — JediRogue JediRogueSig.jpg (talk |contribs) 04:46, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
It's an automatic +30%, confirmed by me and several guildies. --Dragonaxe 09:10, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Shing Jea chest in normal mode has 68% chance (level 2 lucky), so it's not flat +30%. I think we'll need some kind of chart that lists key price in correlation with chance to retain lockpick. --Mira 18:58, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Margonite chest: +25% (I had 16% + 25% = 41%).

Do the math[edit source]

Can someone do the math, and count from what point are the lockpicks better then keys? :P — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 03:22, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

They are always better than keys in HM.  :P Off the top of my head I would say at 30% or so for 600g chests. Queen Schmuck 03:37, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Ok, here's some math: the number of uses you get (in average) from a lock pick is S = 1 / (1 - X) where X is the probability (a number between 0 and 1) that the lock pick is retained. Assuming that the formula for the probability is similar in the normal mode + some bonus, and using the remarks given above, it looks like the bonus for (at least for the 600g chest) is 0.3. So, if you use lock picks to open 600g chests in normal mode, you'll get in average 1.667 uses out of each if you have no ranks in either relevant title. However, since a lock pick is much more expensive, you want to know how many uses per platinum you get. A 600g key gives 1.667 uses per platinum (UPP) whereas a lock pick with no ranks gives only 1.111 UPP. You only reach the 600g key efficiency with lock picks when you have 4 ranks in both treasure hunting and lucky titles, i.e., an additional 0.2 probability from titles. Thus it looks like you only benefit from lock picks in normal mode if you're quite advanced in both titles.--Tmakinen 07:12, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Lovely analysis (-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 09:35, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
I had wondered about this as well. Nice work. I TOTALLY missed the displayed % when using my picks. Do all normal mode chests have 30% bonus, if not can we get the %'s for other chests? And perhaps develop a "Key vs. Lockpick (UPP)" table? Image missing-16.png Frostty1 10:14, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Which means that 750 gold keys give 1.3333 use per platimun, making its worth debatable with little title investment. and elite mission keys have now 0.8 use per platimun which makes them inferior to lockpiks even with 0 titles. Yay, now I can stop storing all the stoneroot keys I will never use. Grima.worm@seznam.cz 11:59, 20 April 2007 (CDT) (logged off)
Great Tmakinen. Now we just have to write up a table for all key prices from 600 and add it to the article ^^ — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 17:03, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
If a pick has a 40% (10 always +30 normal mode bonus) chance of surviving, u would need to have it survive twice and open a third to make it cost effective for 600g chests, the chance of surviving 2 chests is 16%. 16% is not good odds for 600g chests. HOWEVER, i think lockpicks will have great value in the FoW and elite miss, 250g less, and have a 40% of opening another chest. UW, desolation, and SF chests only have to survive once to make them cost effective, and its up to you to decide if 20% is good betting odds. Just to finish off the "table" idea: 50g key=20 UPP; 80g key=12.5 UPP; 200g key=5 UPP; 300g key=3.375 UPP; 450g key=2.22 UPP; 1.25plat key=.8 UPP; Eric368 20:56, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
I added the break-even point information for each type of key in the table. For updates and further reference, the formula in question is R = 1 - B - C/P where R and B are the fractional (between 0 and 1) retention rate and bonus, and C and P are the cost of the key and the lock pick, respectively. Unsurprisingly, it's a bad idea to use lock picks for starter chests. A bit surprising is that it's always better to have lock picks than highest level keys.--Tmakinen 04:32, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
In other words, once you got treasure hunter (4) and lucky (4), (or (5)+(3) or (6)+(1) or (7)+(0)), it makes sense to carry a bunch of lockpicks instead of multiple kinds of 'high-end' keys. still, a luxury for few players. Foo 14:04, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

Opening chests in GWEN Dungeons --- Recently broke 13 LP in a row. My chance of retention is 49%, but will round to 50% for easy math. Probability of 13 in a row would then be 1 chance in 512. However, during that run, the first 9 Chests yielded Purple Items. Assuming the Chance for a Gold Item is 20% (Shiverpeak Chests run about 25% according to the data reported at this site), the likelyhood of getting 9 Purple in a row and breaking those 9 keys is about 1 chance in 26,000. Worse, actually, because I rounded my Retention percent up. Either I am remarkably unlucky, or my math is flawed, or my assumptions are incorrect, or something else. /cryselephanttears Somehow, though, 9 Purple and 9 breaks just doesnt seem right. Of possible interest is the large number of comments in Public Chat about the hideous Purple drop rate for GWEN chests (likely, however, skewed as negative feelings are disproportionately more likely to be aired). Oh, well.

Rename page?[edit source]

Since the ingame use is "lockpick", can we change page's name to that, then redirect "lock pick" to lockpick? Queen Schmuck 03:37, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

I also agree with this. The standard is to label pages based on the games spelling (even if the game uses an incorrect term/spelling). I added the redirect as a stop-gap measure, until someone could rename the main page. Image missing-16.png Frostty1 09:38, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Just Missions?[edit source]

So the lockpicks only work in missions? Or do they work on all chests? -AJ75

Chests that appear as Locked Chests appear in Hard Mode of explorbale areas also.--Renegade26 16:46, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
To clarify that:
  • all chests in all areas of Hard Mode are Locked Chests
  • the only item that can open a Locked Chest is a lockpick
The only exceptions would be normally unlocked chests due to quests, but since they are unlocked it doesn't matter anyway. Queen Schmuck 17:54, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Titles[edit source]

Can anyone confirm if retaining the lockpick after use works towards the lucky title? And make sure that opening chests goes towards the treasure hunter title? Rhia Aryx 18:56, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
i don't know about the lucky part but i can confirm the chests do count towards treasure hunter --Fatigue 19:05, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

survival chart[edit source]

i just added this basic survival chance chart:

Treasure Hunter/Lucky 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 10 12 14 16 18 20
1 13 15 17 19 21 23
2 16 18 20 22 24 26
3 19 21 23 25 27 29
4 22 24 26 28 30 32
5 25 27 29 31 33 35
6 28 30 32 34 36 38
7 31 33 35 37 39 41

i am pretty new at editing stuff in gwiki though. I'd like to make the chart like the one below except having the "Lucky" text centered over the 0...5 columns

Level 20 Lucky
Treasure Hunter 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 10 12 14 16 18 20
1 13 15 17 19 21 23
2 16 18 20 22 24 26
3 19 21 23 25 27 29
4 22 24 26 28 30 32
5 25 27 29 31 33 35
6 28 30 32 34 36 38
7 31 33 35 37 39 41

someone's help would be greatly appreciated. making it better in any way would be appreciated, but thats just what id like to see. thanks --Fatigue 19:03, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

fixed. Queen Schmuck 19:15, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Locked Chests[edit source]

← Moved from Talk:Hard Mode

Would someone mind adding a section on the Locked Chests, please? I was wondering what kind of treasure chests Hard Mode had to offer. I had to go to the Lockpick, and then from there search for "Locked Chests" to get my answer. (I'd add it myself, but I haven't even touched Hard Mode yet. ^_^;) Gwen Shadowsound 11:09, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

I think we really shouldn't and something here about the locked chests. It should be, imho, a seperate page dealing with the drops. in case you're wondering, my party of 3 ppl 1 hero in plains of jarin encountered 3 locked chests. out of the 9 drops from the chests 7 golds 2 grapes. 5 golds were maxed stats w/ non max mods. 2 golds were non maxed w/ non max mods. the 2 graps were max w/ non max mods. Lowest req from our run was 10, highest 12. maybe we should actually work on one of those chest drops pages from the statistic project? Ferdoc 11:29, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
Well, yeah. Sorry, that's not what I meant. Drop rates should stay on their separate pages. What I meant was that someone should add a little line saying that, for example, "A chest in Hard Mode will always be labeled as a Locked Chest, regardless of the region." But I don't even know if that's true yet, which is why I haven't added it. Gwen Shadowsound 18:54, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
True to my knowledge. Only Locked Chests. — User:Kyrasantae kyrasantae 04:36, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Lockpicking[edit source]

Just a brief voicing of my opinion. I don't care for titles influencing gameplay like this. Luck title is very bad because of the scenseless grinding required to attain it. Treasure hunter is bad because of it being character based, not account based. I also am still not a fan of salvage skill being based on character based titles. It your salvage skill is going to be effected by treasure hunter and wisdom, then treasure hunter and wisdom should be account based. The only title effects I approve of are sunspear and lightbringer. But at the same time I dissaprove of PvE only skills. Just the opinion of a single vocal minority... so I guess it doesn't matter. However, I do like that they consolidated keys into just one type for hard. --Mooseyfate 13:43, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, it sucks that I have to storage, log out and log in as my monk if I want to salvage valuable items, she is the only character with any sort of high Wisdom, these should be based on my account. I am also not sure I like Sunspear and Lightbringer being per character, I am getting a bit tired of grinding for those titles so I can play my 8th character through game. While on the subject, Skill Hunter should also be per account, there is no sane (outside of wanting the title) reason that any character would need all the Elites from all the professions, I should only need to have each skill once to have the title across my account (though that creates problems if I delete a character). --Heurist 14:57, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
ok, get out your flamethrowers, but I just can't let this go. (/rant on) Other than Lightbringer and Sunspear, titles DON'T affect gameplay ... not even lucky and unlucky ones. I know what you're thinking ... "can't you read? We just got done saying that luck and treasure hunter titles affect the chance of retaining a lockpick." That's true... but lockpicks don't affect gameplay. Lockpicks affect chests; chests affect money; but MONEY DOESN'T AFFECT GAMEPLAY. A warrior in black FoW armor with an Exalted Aegis and a Forgotten Sword isn't any better off than someone wearing gray Istani armor and wielding collector handouts. (In fact, odds are good that the FoW guy bought his gold on eBay and doesn't know the difference between energy and adrenaline. At least you know the Istani guy earned it.)
Apart from the token payments needed to learn certain skills and purchase salvage kits, money doesn't get you anything that you can't get some other way. You can get max weapons from collectors, or from bosses. You can get max armor from collectors. Money allows you, if you choose, to save time and/or get niftier skins on your armor and gear. That's all. So where's the harm? If someone sinks the cash and time for a high Luck or Treasure Hunter title, why in the names of the six gods *shouldn't* they get a little bit more money out of the game for having them? It's only money. (/rant off) Auntmousie 08:29, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
I have no personal issue with titles impacting salvage chances or lockpick retention. I don't think those should be character specific though. Treasure Hunter and Seeker of Wisdom would make more sense as an account based title rather then character based. Skill Hunter on the other hand never made sense in the first place. -Gildan Bladeborn 13:37, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Treasure hunter[edit source]

I assume opening with a lockpick counts towards treasure hunter, yes?-Silk Weaker 23:36, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Look above, Kyrasantae says you get Treasure Hunter points, but not (Un)Lucky points. --Thervold 02:46, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
I don't know about using lockpicks on low-level chests though. (Why one would is beyond me.) — User:Kyrasantae kyrasantae 04:35, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
I'm going to go do it now, in the name of SCIENCE. (Even though I'm broke) —Aranth 14:56, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
No, it doesn't give title points. Unsurprising, on reflection... on the plus side, with a 65% chance to retain the pick, I successfully retained it :D —Aranth 15:07, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

FoW/UW[edit source]

How useful are lockpicks in areas such as FoW and the UW?

Depends on where you stand, title-wise. See the break-even point info on key bonus table--Tmakinen 04:39, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
I'd assume that they are almost a replacement for keys in those areas: cost the same as keys, always open the chest, and you may retain after use)AJ75

Break even[edit source]

I duno who added that Break-even thing, but personally i do NOT understand that. so iether explain it better or take it out. Right now its to confusing.

It's telling you what your lockpick survival chance (from the first chart) must be for lockpicks to be as cost-effective as keys. Specifically, it let's you know whether you should buy keys or lockpicks for the chests in the area you intend to enter. BigAstro 14:58, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
It might be better to call it something else than "break even". Perhaps it should be called "Minimum Survival Rate Required to make the Lockpick more Cost-Effect than the Key". A bit verbose but if I'm correct in understanding what its supposed to be, it seems quite a bit clearer.— JediRogue JediRogueSig.jpg (talk |contribs) 15:23, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
Well, only the 750 and 1250 keys are of any concern. Basically, you would always want to use lockpicks on 1250 key chests. But yeah, a quick read of that table doesn't tell you much until you think about it for a bit. --8765 15:28, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
I didn't understand it either until I went back and read it. The second column in the chart is the bonus obtained from normal mode. I edited the chart to clarify this. Hopefully it should be more clear.
lol? Hard mode only has one type of chests, the "Locked Chests". Of course the other are for Normal Mode <.< — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 23:54, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

The row in the break-even table for 50gold keys seems unnecessary, as keys of that value can only be obtained in Pre-Searing, where lockpicks don't drop. Whilst it might be nice to keep it for interest's sake (with a note stating this), I personally would have no issues with it being removed altogether. RossMM 06:02, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

That raises a question. How has it been possible to figure out the bonus percentage for those chests, then?--Tmakinen 07:35, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Keys in post-searing Ascalon are 50g. BigAstro 19:39, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
Yeah. I opened a chest in Old Ascalon. —Aranth 20:27, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Break even values are misleading. I'm sorry but opening a 1250g chest with a 1500g lock pick you are not going to get an item that IDs for 1500g. You don't even break even buying the 1250g key. In fact the only way to break even is for the lockpick to not break enough times for the gold ID values to exceed the price of the lockpick. Which means on average at least 4 to 5 openings per chest minimum. Lower end chests (those that don't count towards treasure hunter) nearly all the time will need over 5 openings since IDed values are significantly lower. 50g and 80g chests by the chart you already have to have the titles at max for breaking even according to the chart so there is no point in opening them at all. If the 60% chance is correct for 600g key chests then you only have a 2/10,000% chance to break even, 1250g key chests 7/10,000,000% chance of breaking even. In other words you will not break even ever using lockpicks on any chests in either mode, the chance of opening the chests enough times for the golds to pay for the key are astronomical. Only if you consider the loot gained from killing mobs in addition to the golds gotten out of the chest or gamble at the chance of finding a buyer for the item or upgrade can you even consider breaking even in which case you will almost always break even as long as you don't go right for the chests and kill sufficient mobs to cover the cost of the key/lockpick. Due to the extremely crappy trade ability is it worth hours of trying to pawn off the golds or an upgrade from them to cover the cost of the keys? To sum this up in one question is it honestly worth opening normal mode chests with lockpicks or is this some clever design from anet to sink even more gold opening chests than keys have been in the past? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.21.36.163 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 April 2007 (CDT).

break even compaired to regular keys, not against the merchant value of the drops. the low return value of keys is another topic. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 19:27, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

So then whoever designed the break even thing doesn't know the definition of break even. What the chart actually means then is that in order for the lockpick to be worth it you must open the chest X times were X is the number of keys totaling a cost greater than the cost of the lockpick. In that case then the heading should list point at which lockpick is cheaper than the regular keys. Since in fact you never actually break even from the loot unless you have the absurd time to spend spamming to try and sell the loot until a vastly improved trade system is added. But back to the key vs lockpick cost. with a 600g key chest you will need 3 openings with one lock pick which means only a base 6.4% chance you will successfully get that many. At a 60% chance the lockpick doesn't break you have only a 21.6% chance of successfully opening 3 times before breaking. For 1250g key you have a base 4% chance of successfully opening the chest 2 times and 13.7% chance at 37% chance lockpick doesn't break. But the article is still misleading since it implies that if I have X chance of lockpick surviving I'm guaranteed to save gold buying lockpicks vs keys yet looking at the math I just ran those are slim odds. 20% or less chance the lockpick survives the number of times to make it cost effective compared to keys is certainly not a guarantee and the article needs to reflect the actual chance you will spend less gold using the lockpicks vs the keys. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.21.36.16 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 May 2007 (CDT).

Wikipedia:Probability & Wikipedia:Probability theory - Read at least part of that. Probability never "Guaranties" you anything, unless it's 0% or 100%. Seriously, the basics of how probability works doesn't require match knowledge, just logic. Oh, and please SIGN YOUR COMMENTS and add the proper amount of ":" in new comments. — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 14:44, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

lol check out the "what?" section on this page, we were having a similar arguement, but I've come to believe that the table does reflect accurate information, however it is misleading since it is not specific enough.

Lucky/Unlcuky[edit source]

Well I just had my first chest in Hard Mode with a lockpick and have 25 unlucky now... however a question I have is... If you use the lockpicks in low end areas and they are retained... does that count toward lucky?

Thats the exact same question that was on my mind--Blade Smallscout.png (talk|contribs) 19:59, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
A fast way to get VERY high lucky if you just open a ton of ascolon chests. Need to test that. Kelvin Greyheart 20:33, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
eggactly what I was thinking :P that was me for the first post by the way--Saji-Kun 21:21, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
While I can't say for sure about lucky points, I can definately confirm that low-end chests give UNlucky points >:( --Lavos 21:47, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
So no one thus far has actually looked into it... perhaps I will later... If I do I will post what I find here for sure.--Saji-Kun 04:57, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
I can confirm that retaining a lockpick on Istan chests gives 250 Lucky points, so i bet it counts for all chests in Normal mode. --Roland icon.pngRoland of Gilead (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Thanks. So now we just need a economics on the Lucky/Unlucky title... -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 07:36, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Done. See Luck titles guide. --Roland icon.pngRoland of Gilead (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Wrong numbers on economic table?[edit source]

I have Lucky title rank 0 and Treasure hunter rank 1, so according to the table, I should have a 57% chance to retain a lockpick. However, I actually have a 67% chance. Screenshot can be provided if requested. The numbers need to be confirmed. **Edit** I am talking about opening Istani chests, 80 gold per Istani key. --Roland icon.pngRoland of Gilead (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Well, according to the first table your base (hard mode) retain rate is 13%, and if you open a 80g chest, you get a +54% bonus on top of that, as shown in table 2. 13% + 54% = 67% and that's exactly what you get, there's nothing wrong with the data--Tmakinen 07:29, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for clearing that up. I find it a very confusing table indeed. For the 50g chests it says that the break-even cannot be reached because one would need a +42% chance from base chance and titles, but if the maximum base&title bonus is 43%, it should be possible, no? Same goes for the note on the base chance table, where it says the chance for a lvl 20 character is 10%...41%. Shouldn't that be 10%..43%? --Roland icon.pngRoland of Gilead (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Yes, and I did that just now. The article was made when the presumed max Lucky title was 5, but it was just recently revealed to be 6. — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 09:43, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
And as I've just noticed, the table also doesn't account for the new price of lockpicks. Both the most expensive high-end keys and lockpicks cost 1250g, but since lockpicks have at least a 10% chance of being retained (saving 125g per opening on average), they are even cheaper than those normal mode 1250 keys. The other numbers should be calculated accordingly. --Roland icon.pngRoland of Gilead (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Discounnted lockpicks table[edit source]

I took the liberty of crunching the numbers for 1200g lockpicks.

Key price Survival chance needed
to match normal keys
Inherent survival
chance bonus 1
Bonus needed from titles
(includes base chance)
50Gold.png 96% +55% 41%
80Gold.png 93% +54% 39%
300Gold.png 75% +45% 30%
450Gold.png 63% +35% 28%
480Gold.png 60% +30% 30%
600Gold.png 50% +30% 20%
750Gold.png 38% +25% 13%
1250Gold.png 0% +10% 0%

1 The varying cost of opening a chest with a normal key is represented by the ease in which a lockpick can open it. With more expensive keys, the chests are harder for the lock pick to open, and the inherent survival chance bonus is lower.

Note that at the discount price, 1200g lockpicks are cheaper than 1250g keys, so there's no reason not to use them instead. The same applies to 600g chests when you have a 20% bonus or above, which is pretty easy to acquire. Further data can be found on my user page.

~ BlueNovember 13:34, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for this chart and the info on your page. Can this info be added to the main article? It certainly has relevant value for those who have access to discounted lockpicks. Image missing-16.png Frostty1 18:12, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Certainly. ~ BlueNovember 20:37, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

I don't think this information really makes sense. The value of a lockpick isn't necesarily related to the value of lesser keys, because the drops are different from locked chests. I could buy many many Istani keys for the same price as a lockpick, but I'm not going to get any treasure hunter points or decent loot from the chests. Until we know the drop rates for locked chests I don't think a comparison can really be made. --Jasmine1.jpgJasmine Jasminethetender 18:24, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

The calculations are based on whether it is better to use a Lockpick or a normal key on the same chest, not the relative drop rates between hard mode and normal. RossMM 18:36, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Um, why am I italicised? RossMM 18:38, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Jasmine's sig had some apostrophe's floating around. I fixed it here. ~ BlueNovember 20:37, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

So the difference is between using a key in normal mode or a lockpick in normal mode. This didn't really seem clear.

Yes, exactly. I will try to clarify the table. ~ BlueNovember 21:26, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

What formula is used to determine the economical value of using lockpick including price of lucky title points? Let's use my situation as an example. I want to max both Treasure Hunter and Lucky titles the cheapest way possible. My best interests is to obviously start using lockpicks as soon as my retention rate allows it. Let's figure out what retention rate is needed. I have access to 1,200 gold lockpicks and 480 (normally 600) gold keys. Value of lockpick is thus 1,200 and price reduction from lucky titles is 221.5 times chance to retain X (to actually get those lucky points). This is further multiplied by (1-X). We get (1200-221.5X)*(1-X)=480 . In this case we are using reduced values 1200 and 480, but the formula applies with standard prices too. After some number crunching I get quadric equation 305.6x² - 1421,5x + 720 = 0 . After displaying some math skillz I get the number 0,58 = 58% . Including retention bonus, I would need to get 28% bonus from titles. Anyone care to double-check this? --Mira 23:47, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Ummm... the answer on your quadratic is correct (0.5784), but how you got there leaves me at a loss. When I simplified and set the answer to zero [(1200-221.5X)*(1-X)=480] I got 221.5x² for the first term. Solving with 221.5=A gives 55.4% as your target. How did you get 305.6?
I also take issue with your evaluation of 221.5 as the savings you would otherwise need to spend on tickets for lucky points. Now that I see where you got it (Scyfer's work, below), I think you failed to take into account that his valuation includes the extra cost that you'd spend to get the Unlucky title. Since you specified Treasure Hunter and Lucky (but not Unlucky), the cost would be (250lucky pts)x(0.886gold per lucky point)x(retention rate in decimals), using 0.4 as your retention rate (30% for the chest type and 10% for being level 20). This yields A=88.6. If you check his original numbers, the other 132.9 comes from the amount you'd end up spending on the Unlucky track since Unlucky costs more than Lucky. With that in mind, the quadratic becomes (88.6x²+1288.6x+720=0). The [usable] solution to this is 0.582, or close to what you'd gotten originally. So I think you'll need +18% just from titles to make it worth it, or +15% if you're willing to take a loss to fund your Unlucky growth rate.
DaveK 02:02, 7 July 2007 (GMT)

Keys[edit source]

Is there an actual reason to use keys anymore unless you've only just started playing the game...? -203.218.174.219 00:35, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Lockpicks drops suck :) Solus DiscipleSymbol2.jpg 00:36, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

To clarify, the droprate on a lockpick is...well...probably even lower than that on a Key. And using a lockpick doesn't get you any better or worse items than using a key. Compared to Keys, one shouldn't really bother with a Lockpick unless they have (a) lots of money; (b) are too lazy to buy different keys; and/or (c) they have a high Lucky title. Otherwise, keys are pretty much always more feasible economically. Exception of course is in Hard Mode, where you can only use Lockpicks. Unless ANet changes the price of lockpicks significantly, this will always be true. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 00:59, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Or if you buy lockpicks at 1200g from outpost merchant or 1300g from someone selling lockpicks as an outpost holder. I would also disagree that "having lots of gold" is a good reason to use lockpicks :P. The titles required to make opening 600g chests with lockpicks are the points in this table where the bonus is 30% or greater. If you are using 1200g or 1300g lockpicks, refer to the tables in my user page.
--BlueNovember 08:20, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Hey, BlueNovember, want to make a chart which takes into account the below discussion? (Amount of gold that lockpicks save when going for Lucky/Unlucky titles in addition to going for opening chests/Treasure Hunter, which is fairly significant, imo). -Scyfer 22:49, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Ask and ye shall recieve. Lockpick uses required for lucky title to become cost effective. Thankfully, Treasure Hunter can be done independantly. Will get on that too. --BlueNovember 14:48, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Lucky Title Change[edit source]

Lockpicks just got a big boost with the additional lucky title points they add. As per the Luck Title's Guide Page, the tickets won / hour over the gold cost / hour means each lucky point is worth 1.13 gold, which boosts the value of a retained lockpick by 283.3 gold. For someone with a chance of retention of 40% (600 gold key chest, no titles), the lockpick is now worth 1188.9 gold (as opposed to 1000 gold, originally). Still less than the 1500 gold they cost, this lowers the "break even" point if one is willing to invest. If one assigns any worth to the unlucky title, then it has additional worth. For math sake, the chance of earning lucky points is "Lucky point chance = ( 1 / ( 1 - X ) ) - 1", or for the 40% example, 0.6667 .

Exactly what I was thinking, but didn't bother to calculate the exact worth increase. Added in a note about this to the main page. -Scyfer 22:06, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
So the worth of lockpicks is increased approx this much: 283xyour lockpick retention % + (unlucky cost per pt)x(break %). I'm lazy, someone calc that if they want and incorporate it into another table ;) -Scyfer 22:11, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Ignore the above. According to the math on the lucky title guide, the worth added to lockpicks would be approx: (250lucky pts)x(0.886gold per lucky point)x(retention rate in decimals) + (25unlucky points)x(12.6gold per unlucky point)x(1.0-retention rate in decimals). Or 221.5gold x(retention) + 315gold x(1.0-retention rate) = 22.15+ 283.5 gold = 305.6gold for a base 10% retention rate. (Scyfer 22:16, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
This works out to about 10% (8% for lowest two chest and 11% for highest chest categories) decrease in native retention rate needed to benefit from lockpicks. I.e. If you are going for Lucky and/or Unlucky title as well, lockpick usage saves you 305.6 gold per lockpick use (break or retained, most of the value coming in from money saved from 9 Rings unlucky title gains), which increases the range of chests which you should open with lockpicks instead of keys. If you are only playing Rings of Fortune and only want to go for the unlucky title (?!) the amount of gold that lockpicks save you is way less (4x 5x? less). -Scyfer 22:38, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
With reference to the lucky + unlucky feature of lockpicks, reducing the retention % breakeven point, is this following information accurate?
  • "This works out to about 10% (8% for lowest two chest and 11% for highest chest categories)".
If it is correct, can this specific:
  • (8% for the lowest two chests, 11% for the highest chest and 10% for all the rest) be put into the article vs. the current,
  • (10% for most of the chest key categories)
I did not want to make an edit, without first making sure the info was correct. Not criticizing... but the current (10% for most...) is not sufficient in determining the retention % breakeven point, one would need for each category of chest.. Image missing-16.png Frostty1 14:30, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Upcoming Lockpick Weekend: May 18, 2007[edit source]

This weekend will be offering 2x the (un)lucky points. If the above information is correct, will the lucky + unlucky feature of lockpicks, reduce the retention % breakeven points by: 16% for the lowest two chests, 22% for the highest chest and 20% for all the rest? For all the math wizzes laughing atm... after reading about the "best" spot to pick in 9 rings (and digesting why)... I don't assume that the "obvious" conclusion is the correct one Image missing-16.png Frostty1 14:57, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

What?[edit source]

Key price Retention chance needed
to break even
Inherent survival
chance bonus 1
Bonus needed from titles
and base chance 2
50Gold.png 97% +55% 42%
80Gold.png 95% +54% 41%
300Gold.png 80% +45% 35%
450Gold.png 70% +35% 35%
600Gold.png 60% +30% 30%
750Gold.png 50% +25% 25%
1250Gold.png 17% +10% 7%

How can you say, in order to "break even" you need to retain the lockpick 97% of the time? If you open 10 low-end chests and retain a lockpick 9 times and lose a lockpick 1 time, you do not break even. You lost 1k (1500 - 500g = 1k)

Hold it right there. That's a 90% chance, table is 97, but is rounded from (100 - (50/1500 * 100)), which is 96 2/3. If you open 100 chests and get 3 1/3 breakges, that's a cost of 3 1/3*1500 = 5000g. 100 chests opened with 100 50g keys is a cost of 100*50 = 5000g also, hence break point. (The two costs are equal). I realise that you cannot break "1/3 of a key", but that's statistics for you - it will all work out in the end. Hope this makes things clearer. --BlueNovember 05:58, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Would it not be more accurate to state that you must retain a lockpick a certain number of times before you break even, Ie: opening high-end chests with a lockpick would only need to be retained once in order to make a profit.

You can retain one at 10% and break even and you can not retain one at 99% and NOT break even.

Thinking about it more.... if you open two chests with one lockpick, you saved the cost of the second key. If you buy one lockpick and open 100 chests with it at 10%, by mere luck, you most definitely made a profit.

Does anyone really care PRECISELY how efficient each of their lockpicks was? People care about the entire group of potential lockpick/key purchases. It's trivial to calculate how many retains you need for a single lockpick to be more price-efficient, and not really useful at all (except as a step on the way to calculating the break-even point). You can only use it to judge things that have already happened, and thus those you have no control over. —Aranth 04:39, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, there are many people calling the given tables confusing which only goes to show that basic concepts of the probability theory are inadequately covered by the standard curriculum. To the anonymous person who complains about the table: the number of uses you get out of a lock pick is a random variable, and you can estimate the expectancy value for that by the given probability for retainment. We have already done the math for you and you only have to compare the values on the table to the number the lock pick helpfully provides to you when you use it to find out whether you are making a good or a bad bet. And as Aranth points out, you're mixing a priori with a posteriori which doesn't help a lot.--Tmakinen 06:04, 29 April 2007 (CDT)


KK first off this post "Does anyone really care PRECISELY how efficient each of their lockpicks was? People care about the entire group of potential lockpick/key purchases. It's trivial to calculate how many retains you need for a single lockpick to be more price-efficient, and not really useful at all (except as a step on the way to calculating the break-even point). You can only use it to judge things that have already happened, and thus those you have no control over. —Aranth 04:39, 29 April 2007 (CDT) "

Kinda made me laugh. He says Nobody cares about a single use of a lockpick. You do not use all of your lockpicks at once. As a matter of fact you only use ONE AT A TIME. When you attempt to open a chest if your lockpick breaks you say something like "damn" haha, and if you retain it, depending on the level of the chest and the number of retentions that have already occurred you can think, wow i just saved x amount of gold. (or think, i have to retain a lockpick on every other chest in order to save money. Or i have to retain x amount of the lockpicks I've purchased. not hard, infact much easier) Makes a lot of sense actually, a lot more than doing this funny probability stuff. I appreciate all of you who are attempting to explain this for people like myself, however I never liked it back in highschool either. Probability states that you have a 50% chance of getting one particular side on a coin. How many times have you flipped a coin in your science class experiment in like 4th grade and did not get the 50%? The probability that your probability will be wrong is much higher than your probability of it being completely accurate. I always found probabilities to be odd and exponential functions for natural events were completely unnecessary, but that IS just me, and I understand people get into this probability stuff. Thanks again for attempting to explian, but I'm still going to do it my way. Simple calculation, no margin for inaccuracy, gg lol

50% chance of retaining lockpick, need retain lockpick once (2 chests opened) before breaking even = (50/100)^2 = 25/100 = 1/4 25% chance to break even opening that particular chest with a lockpick as opposed to a regular key

-Leach

1) How did you manage to directly quote me then claim I said something I didn't? 2) Are you seriously saying that the entire study of probability and statistics is wrong? 3) What exactly are you going to do with the knowledge of how much money each lockpick saved you? About all I could see it being useful for is running a VERY large number of tests to verify that the number ANet gives us is how it actually ends up calculated. 4) Do you realize the very last part of what you said ("50% chance of retaining...") is more or less how the table in the article could have been come up with, except worked backwards to achieve at least 50% chance to break even? —Aranth 10:55, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
I believe that in this case the proper answer is "Good luck and have fun!"--Tmakinen 10:41, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Right, i think you need to calm down, 1) Are you stating that this statement, "Does anyone really care PRECISELY how efficient each of their lockpicks was?" does not directly relate to the total of your lockpick usage? If I am not mistaken one is part of a whole. 2) I never stated anything negative about the study of probability, or how it was wrong. I merely stated in a roundabout manner that, if what you claim to be is true, then what value does this probability statistic chart posses if there is a simpler way of understanding AND calculating. Also, there are many theories in relation to the probability theory which discuss probabilities of how things can only be probably for so long before they no longer follow the probable pattern. Yes, I AM against probability and I feel that mixing mathematical functions with nature should not be taught unless one is also taught the opposite side of probability. I never stated that probability is wrong, I merely pointed out that it has flaws. Look up probability on wikipedia, and read the section discussing science, and then afterward search for chaos theory and possibility theory, and perhaps you will understand where I am coming from. 3) The knowledge is very similar if not completely relevant to the table in discussion, and therefore I counter your question with, "What exactly are you going to do with the knowledge contained within that table?" since the answer is the same for both questions. 4) I understand completely that my statement reflected data contained within the table. I was making a point that the notion is as, if not more, effective than using the table, and that a similar, more accurate, table could be displayed.

Munch on that for a while :-D -Leach

I didn't mean to come off as worked up, I probably don't use enough smileys! :)
I'm not saying the individual lockpicks are totally unimportant- I'm saying that looking at the efficiency of exactly one of your lockpicks has negligible value compared to looking at the value of your lockpicks all put together, which is what the table is concerned with. Essentially, you have exactly one point where you can do anything about your efficiency- the point where you decide "will I buy a lockpick or a key?" If you have a greater than 50% chance to save money using lockpicks instead of keys, then it is better to buy a lockpick- if it's exactly 50%, you're even. It doesn't matter what your experience with lockpicks in the past is, or how much money you lost on your last lockpick, or how you feel about how efficient your lockpicks have been- your chances are always exactly the same, and it is always a simple decision if you are given the values in the table and your own percentage chance (provided by the two tables). The answer to your question is that I am going to decide whether to buy keys or lockpicks.
Applying statistics to real life can be... complicated, but for specific reasons that don't apply here- the process that determines whether you retain your lockpick is a mathematical algorithm. It probably uses a random number between 1 and 100, then compares that to your percentage chance- if the random number is higher than your percentage chance, you lose the lockpick. In real life, nobody really knows the EXACT probability of anything happening- all we know is an approximation that is only as accurate and precise as the methods used to calculate it. Here, we DO know the exact probability (well, exact enough that it doesn't matter), so it is completely reasonable. While your results may vary wildly if you only use a small number keys or lockpicks, it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine what direction they will swing (profit or loss), and as the number of keys/lockpicks used increases, your results approach those predicted by probability theory, according to the law of large numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers).
I was not aware of the existence of possibility theory, it seems interesting. I don't understand how it would apply to this situation.
If you mean you are "against probability" the way I think you do, Einstein felt much the same way (he said something along the lines of "God does not play dice with the universe"). However, that was a long time ago, and quantum theory illustrates that the world we live in is fundamentally based in the concepts of probability. http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment are not-so-bad starting points if you care to explore the modern context, but that's unrelated to this specific case (still interesting though :P). —Aranth 18:00, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
As a note I believe Einstein made that comment specifically regarding quantum theory, not probability in general. As a physicist he would be well aware that probabilities abound in nature, but he felt that underpinning these were fundamental laws that produced a deterministic universe. As QM was understood in his time there appeared to be no determinism on the quantum scale, and as he was not happy about that at all it in turn led him to make that statement. RossMM 09:47, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Aranth, I'm not going to lie, you've exceeded my expectations with your noble response. I was definitely expecting a "fuck you" or something along those lines, lol. It's always a pleasure to hold an intelligent conversation over the net. -Leach

The day I get upset by something related to GuildWars is the day I go find a psychiatrist :P —Aranth 14:20, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Drop/Retention Correlation?[edit source]

Has anyone else noticed a correlation between the color of chest drops and whether or not you keep your key? I've opened 10 Luxon chests with lockpicks so far (I'm Fortunate, so I have 46% chance to keep). Thus far, on gold drops, I lose the key. On purple drops, I keep the key. Coincidence? Auntmousie 23:41, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

To be honest, it probably is coincidence. 10 chests really isn't enough to draw any meaningful conclusions. Keep tracking it though, maybe other people have noticed this as well. BigAstro 01:10, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Hmm, if the chests hadn't been fixed (ie, if multiple ppl still all get the same color from same chest), then this observation, if true, would've been extremely helpful to chest-running groups. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 05:46, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
I haven't noticed any correlation between drop quality and lock pick retention, so it looks like a coincidence.--Tmakinen 02:31, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
I've opened enough to see no discernible link between rarity and lock pick retention. File that one under coincidence. -Gildan Bladeborn 14:05, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Actually, i have just noted all of my drop from Jade Sea chests on normal mode with lockpicks with a 53% retention chance. So far have opened 50 chests, 17 gold drops with 17 keys broken and 33 purple drops with 33 retained. I believe that it is more than just a coincidence. -- Jim 12:24, 27 May 2008
It's a co-coincidence. — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 11:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Garbage Drops[edit source]

When lockpicks were first made available, I purchased about 50 of them. Through the course of grinding for titles, I've gained nothing significant from chests. Yes, I know it's all a matter of chance, but is it really worth 1,500 gold to get purple, req. 13 focuses out of end-game, Hard Mode chests? I see no significant, much less noticeable, difference between the abovementioned chests and regular 600 gold chests. Now that I'm out of lockpicks, I don't see any reason to purchase more of them. In fact, I regularly see people selling them for 1.3 - 1.4K. Does anyone else agree that something needs to change?--Ninjatek 23:34, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

True but think of it, lockpicks can earn you 5 titles:Lucky, Unlucky, Skill Hunter, Treasure Hunter and Wisdom title :). The price is so high because there is a chance to retain them. If you will be lucky, 1,5k can turn info 1,5kk from some rare drop :). Personally I like the lockpick idea :).--Metatail 05:40, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

You've got bad luck! I have retained 3 lockpicks at 13%, and I've only gotten 6 purples thus far!

The point I'm trying to get across has nothing to do with titles. I'm suggesting that end-game, high level, hard mode, lockpick-only chests should, through some mechanism other than "luck," yield better items over prolonged use. The whole point in investing money in expensive keys (~1,500 gold, as opposed to 600 gold) is to have a chance to get the rarest, best items in the game. At this point, lockpicked chests seem to regularly yield the same items as their key-requiring counterparts in Normal Mode. So if I want to run chests and try to get rare items, it seems like I can have just as much success in Normal Mode as I can in Hard Mode - and that doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it's counterintuitive. All high end chests can potentially increase your Treasure Hunter and Wisdom titles. And, you can find elite tomes from bosses just as easily, if not easier, as you can from chests. So really, the 5-title argument written above by Metatail is invalid, because only the Lucky and Unlucky title tracks are unique to Lockpicked chests. However, spending a ton of monkey on lockpicks and keys shouldn't be about yet another title track - it should be about getting great items; that's what people expect when they open a chest.--Ninjatek 08:24, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I see the point of lockpicks as being giving you a chance to save inventory space, by not having to carry all the different types of keys around. Before lockpicks were even introduced, your point can be established with the Obsidian Keys et all (cost more than twice the 600g keys, but can still give crap drops). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 08:49, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, you're right. They do save inventory space. But management of storage space isn't necessarily dependent on owning lockpicks, especially with the new update giving an additional tab for each campaign owned. Storage and inventory management is largely based on user preferences, and still isn't relevant to the issue I've been stressing - which is drop quality. We can all agree that it's convenient to carry stacked lockpicks instead of 7 key types, and it's neato that they may or may not break, and that some Lucky/Unlucky titles points are a nice bonus. But is this all we should expect from lockpicks and high-end, Hard Mode chests? Surely not. It is my opinion when I say that I think we all want better drop quality, and we're not getting it - and that's why people are selling their lockpicks.--Ninjatek 09:04, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
Since you are running chest in high lvl area, there is not a significan change in monters lvl, so drop doesn't change much. Since I like a lot of the low lvl area skin but they rarely came in max lvl, the lock pick change all of that. All those low lvl skin now come in max dmg or max mod and I like that. And an other thing, if keys always give you max dmg, perfect stats on a cool skin weapon, nobody would buy it from you since they could easily get them by themself. So you will have to sell all your gold item to merchant who pays 1/4 of the price of the key for any gold weapons.—├ Aratak 09:17, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I am not suggesting that lockpicked chests always yield godly, req8 items with max stats. I didn't say that, and I'm definitely, definitely against that. It would ruin the game overnight. What I am suggesting is that we seriously consider the answer to this question: "Should high-end lockpicked chests drop the same stuff as 600g chests in Normal Mode?" If the answer is "yes," then why buy lockpicks at all? If the answer is "no," as I suspect it is, then there's room for discussion.--Ninjatek 09:29, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't get what you mean by same stuff. Chest always drop what the monster around them can drop. Since its the same area with the same monsters, the chest will drop the same think. Since hard mode don't raise the monsters' lvl that much in those high end area, the drop quality won't change that much too. You don't see much change because from lvl 22 to lvl 28 the drop rate don't change that much but I'm sure if you check on a hundred drop you may get 3 to 5% more gold item (only an exemple). Statisticly lock pick are still a better choice in normal mode from 450 g chest and up. So even if you run 600g chest, lock pick is a better choice too.(with at least on title wich I'm sure you have since you run chest)—├ Aratak 10:48, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
What Ninjatek means is, if Hard Mode chests (which require 1.5k lockpicks) are dropping items that are comparable to items that drop from chests in Normal Mode (which require keys that cost about half of that) and the chests in Normal mode have a higher chance to retain the lockpick, why would you EVER chestrun Hard Mode over Normal Mode? I happen to agree with him that Hard Mode chests should yield better drops than normal mode. ----GD Shield Guardian.jpg 11:23, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I get that but the change in the monsters' lvl is too small to see a big change. You may not see it but the % of gold drop must be higher. Since the lvl are 6 or 8 lvl more ( from memory I'm not sure how much they change) the stats for gold drop don't change much too. I'm arguing about the fact that drop rate are not affected by hard mode but by the lvl of the mobs. And people selling them could have control of a town in Faction and make profit from the discount they get. It the same thing that happen for the deep and waren keys.—├ Aratak 11:38, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I was wondering how long it would be until someone pointed out discount merchants... anyway, anecdote time! My very first hard mode chest drop one of the worst purples I've seen since they tweaked the rare item drop system... while the chests in Hard Mode might not be amazing, there's a reasonable chance you'll get a drop of one of the hard mode-specific drops on your way there.—Aranth 14:04, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
Aratak - I understand what you're saying, and it makes total sense, but I still don't think that a small, assumed, and mostly immeasurable percentage increase of yellows is enough to justify using tons of lockpicks. User GD got it right - I don't see any reason to run chests in Hard Mode with lockpicks; the payout just doesn't seem to be there. The percentage game is a tough game to play. Consider this: if I lockpick 100 chests, and you lockpick 100 chests, we could have polar opposite results - and neither of our results would be very indicative of what should come out of a lockpicked chest. However, that kind of experimentation isn't even necessary in the first place because, as most anyone can attest to, the lockpick drops appear to be the same as the 600 gold normal drops. My argument is this: To justify purchasing and using lockpicks, the chest drops should be noticeably better (not just maybe better by 1 or 2%). So again - why even bother buying lockpicks if they aren't going to churn out better drops?--Ninjatek 17:34, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
People do FoW chest runs even when Obsidian Keys costed 1500Gold back then. I believe the chest drops in hard mode do not suck more than the chest drops in FoW normal mode before the nerf. So you are complaining about a problem that already existed in the game for several months before the introduction of the lockpicks. Not to say you aren't entitled to your complaints, but just want to point out that venting about lockpicks is misdirected. Why even bother buying Obsidian Keys if they aren't going to churn out better drops?-User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 18:56, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Two words: Gold sink. --Rainith 18:46, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Chest running were rarely profitable to began with. Clear a zone and use keys even it out because of all the drops and gold you get from monsters. Even if the keys cost 600g I don't think its a good way to make money. It's a big gamble.—├ Aratak 21:03, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I personally love them as they're highly convenient and let me improve the "AFK" titles without essentially wasting my money on party favors (And of course I'm not going AFK). But then, money isn't the primary concern for me as I end up giving away 80% of the chest drops (5% I might use, and 15% are too crappy to bother saving). Unless you play the trade game (Selling things? Aiee!) the only reliable way to get your money out of a key is to sell it. Chests for me are just potential sources of items that are at least going to be decent, if not actually useful. If you're looking at these as a steady source of income then I have to ask why you need the money. People who actually NEED money can't afford to purchase lock picks in the first place. -Gildan Bladeborn 14:26, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

The reason to use Lockpicks on hard mode is quality item drops. You might get req. 9 Longsword with 12% damage while hexed, which goes straight to merchant on normal mode, but hard mode you'd get inscription slot, which greatly increases item value. Of course if you're selling everything to merchant, then it's no use to run hardmode chests. Also if you have high level Treasure Hunter and Lucky titles you might actually end up getting more money from normal mode chests than spending on Lockpicks. --Mira 04:01, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Inscription slots are still limited to Nightfall, HoH Chests and Factions elite mission chests. They have no correlation with the difficulty. — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 06:24, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Despite all the talk of these garbage drops I've found myself actually making a profit from lockpicks. I started recording the amount of gold I was making from selling the drops from said chests (mostly to the merchants but Perfect mods and Elite Tomes go on sale), since then I've made an average of 1560g per lockpick (60g profit). Not much of a profit unless you buy them at 1200g (360g profit) and even then its not much. The amount of gold I've gained whilst in hard mode finding these chests has amounted to another ~1400g per lockpick. That makes it around 1800g profit per lockpick. 100 Chests later and thats 180k, in my opinion at least thats not too bad, especially for people whom are poor. Also bear in mind that I've had no skins (yet) that will sell for more than 10k, if/when I do that'll probably bump up the average somewhat -arual 14:43, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Drop rate[edit source]

Approx 1 in every 500 monsters will drop a lockpick, in my experience (various solos). — Skuld 11:24, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I think there are some places they dont drop at all like ministers chos estate--Diddy Bow 11:41, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
They drop everywhere as long as you're in hard mode. I've gotten ones in both Plains of Jarin and Sunqua Valley. Seb2net 13:42, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Pff. Go farm Sunqua Vale in HM. 3 runs (about 30 enemies per run) and I got 4 lockpicks. I was smart enough to sell them all and get some gorgeous white dye for my 15k Canthan for assassin (female)

lvl20 char[edit source]

"For a player that has reached level 20, lockpicks survive 10%...43% of openings." uhm, if the char isn't lvl 20, he can#t play in hm, and finally can#t open locked chests, only "normal" ones, e.g. a 600g-key shiverpeak chest, an the retainung percentage of such a chest is higher than 10...43%. -- Elixir Of Valor.jpg Zerpha The Improver 15:54, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes you can. 75.162.249.202 16:32, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Far Shiverpicks locked chests[edit source]

Erm, i open gwen prerelease chests with lockpicks and have 42% chance to reatin them... WHY? im charmed 1, 0 treasure and wisdom titles :S --Agracul icon.gif Agracul 08:49, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Is this Hm or normal mode?--Diddy Bow 08:50, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
It seems Normal Mode Locked Chests have a base chance of 40% to keep the lockpick. I've managed to open 3 in a row and still keep the pick thanks to my Charmed title and a bit of luck. – 218.215.195.103 15:31, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

WILDEST.THEORY.EVER[edit source]

Ok,bought 30 locpicks,to farm luck title.I have treasure hunter title rank 1.I started **chest farming** at shing jea island.Opened 9 chests,all broke(as i remembere over 70% retain ration.) Then went into plain of jarin.Opened 6 chests all broke. Went to old ascalon,opened 2 chest,as you guess all broke. All done in Normal mode.All were purples.

Went farm SS-points outside dzoganur bastion,and there was Vabbi Chest.Retain ration was 49% as i remembered.Got golden Broadhead spear,and retained lockpick.Opened second chest got purple shield,lockpick broke.After 4 chest more i had:3 golden items,3retained lockpick.AND 1 PURPLE hammer AND 1 BROKED LOCKPICK. Chests were opened in Normal mode.

Those who read that understand my theory.If you get golden item from chest,your lockpick retains, and if you get purple,it brokes. This theory works only IN Normal mode.

I thought you were right about gold:retention :: purple:break, but today I retained with a purple and a gold, so it is indeed random if there was still any doubt, haha The Black Leach 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope that someone checks this,and says his/her own mind. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kabroz the necro (contribs) .

Spending 1500g on a lockpick to use on Plains of jarin in normal mode..? The lockpick broke because you deserved it! :P The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.235.3 (contribs) .
First:Lockpicks are currently only source to gain lucky points.Second:i bought 1,200gp ea from discount merchant. And i'm not sad that lockpick broke,i just want to know is it so that if yoyu get golden item your LP retains too The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kabroz the necro (contribs) .
In my experience its the other way entirely, it only retains off purples. Thus, its clear that its actually just a random generator. Lord of all tyria 10:39, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
30 lockpicks don't yield statistically significant data my friend. I've opened 700 odd chests with lockpicks and can testify that there's absolutely NO correlation with item rarity and whether you retain your lockpick. I break lockpicks just as often on purple items as I do on golds and retain them both equally, though for obvious reasons gold drops from chests tend to be a bit less frequent then purples. What you get and if it breaks are 2 unrelated variables. -Gildan Bladeborn 11:11, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
Not to mention, from a programming perspective that makes no sense. Its very simple to make it randomly break with a dependency on an individual's retention rate. It's just extra work to take into account normal and hard mode, item rarity, etc. —JediRogue 11:59, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
I can understand the person using lockpicks in Plains of Jarin. Seemed like a good idea to me too. Open lots of chests using fewer lockpicks and get the 250 lucky points for each one. Of course it doesn't seem to work like that. I have lucky (2), unlucky (2), Wisdom (2) and treasure hunter (2) giving me a 74% chance to retain lockpicks from those istan chests, yet my retention rate is abysmal and I seem to lose far more than I keep. I suspect there's a hidden value as with rare material traders (Diamond cost is currently reported at 250g but request a quote and the price mysteriously rises to 500g). (rant on) Lucky & unlucky SHOULD affect gameplay. Higher luck should give you better drops and increase your chance of landing a critical hit or something. After all what is luck? Is it a higher chance that something good will happen for you or is it just a meaningless title intended as a gold sink? (end rant with the realisation that I already know the answer) Cyberhythm 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just information, from my point of view...30 samples are acceptable for Student-T Stats Analysis. And, yes, extra coding would need to be added to take into account variables like Mode, Rarity, etc. However, not much extra coding. Using a LR/BR instruction combination would only require adding one instruction per variable, and replicating existing sub-routines with the Probability Values adjusted accordingly. Processor overhead would be insignificant as the "branch" variables would be set upon entering the Map, a one-time thing (excluding Title uplevels while in the map).

I don't think that retention has ANYTHING to do with the item. Remember, chests have been around for a while with the key system. There wasn't any way for people to make silly correlations with a key and item quality though, so we tend to forget there's already a system in place for generating item rarity. Tying item rarity into the calculation for lockpick retention makes no sense at all, it would be a separate calculation that only runs if somebody uses a lockpick instead of a key, and I'd wager it gets ran before the drop quality system even kicks in. Since chests list your percentage chance to retain a lockpick, the simplest and most logical system would simply be a weighted roll on a table of 100. With a 10% retention rate, 91-100 would result in you keeping it, 1-90 breaks it (doesn't really matter which end of the table you use). So with a 53% retention rate there are still 47 possible ways to fail a roll, and since the roll itself is random there's always the possibility it hits the right portion of the table 10 times in a row, or comes up with a losing number 10 times in a row. Averaged out over 100 trials though the results would probably look very similar to the stated percentage chance of retention. I didn't design the system of course, so it could be something entirely different, but personal experience shows no reason to consider additional factors since I've already disproved the theories that started these discussions. Why make things more complicated if you don't need to? -Gildan Bladeborn 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The only relation between item rarity and lockpick retention I've noticed is related to the inherent stats of the chest, ie. high-end chests are more likely to drop gold items but your more likely to lose your lockpick. As for using different probability distributions to analyse the data I'd just say the more tests/results the merrier - what is acceptable is not always useful (and visa versa of course). -arual 15:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It's remarkably easy to see patterns where none exist if you're looking at a highly limited subset of the data. I think the cut off point for an experiment with lockpicks should probably be a 100 minimum. Of course, I don't think there's a correlation to test, but it's not my time being wasted. -Gildan Bladeborn 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In programming i used to get yelled at for using like 100 if--then statements instead of a case statement. If this Then If this Then End If End If ...something like that.... I used to get yelled at.... but there are classes that can automatically select one outcome from a list such as case. The Black Leach 10:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Discounted lockpicks[edit source]

...do not have a lower inherent retention rate. just went to test. I bought one at 1k200, one at full price, did not mix them. retention rate was 70% on both. Jaimes Laig Romarto 20:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Zaishen Chests[edit source]

Essentially a HM chest for PvPers. I don't know how fast PvP chest farming can be done, but it seems like it could significantly increase the amount of golds/tomes/etc in the game, and therefore would decrease the value of those items. Since at least 50% of this discussion page is about whether a lockpick at 1500g is even worth it, isn't this just going to make it worse? :P -- Peej 14:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Retention Chance too low?[edit source]

moved from Talk:Guild_Wars_login_announcements

Triple lockpicks

Yo, anet. How about a double chance to retain instead of a triple chance to fail? Seriously, my retention is at 34%, but of my last 20 picks, I saved one (yay, a purple, with the one single bonus of "highly salvagable". w00t. NOT.). Fix the retain, don't triple the drop. 3x crap is still, well, just a bunch of crap. --GW-Blackdog 06:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

They are meant to break... O_o There's a reason you can ALSO get the lucky/unlucky titles with the Ring games and the treasure title with other (cheaper) keys. And if you're getting crap, well, it's got nothing to do with the retention, it's the drop quality. ^_^ Look for better chests. EOTN or DOA normal-mode are the best places to still get decent drops with the lowest break chance. Or you can always go to Old Ascalon and have like an 85%+ retention rate, but sacrifice drops entirely... RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.jpg 06:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I figured someone else would have said something or I would have replied earlier. I'm familiar with lockpicks; the 34% is my hard mode chance to retain (you don't get 34% casually). I paid attention for 20 picks in a row, and I retained once- so I was actually getting 5%. 34% should have been about 6 retained. I just tested again in the southern shiverpeaks normal mode, where I have about a 60% retention, and I retained 1 out of 7. Everyone I've talked to who is more than a casual player is seeing the same thing. I'm not talking about heavy farm areas like the troll cave, raptor area or CoF, I'm talking about out of the way places I only visit during cartography and/or vanquishing. The fact that the drops themselves are poor is just insult to injury. --GW-Blackdog 00:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
That is how chances work. With 60% retention you could retain 6 out of 10, but yet again you could also retain none or all of them. Alleycat! 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The 2 checks above would indicate very high standard deviation, with surprisingly consistent results outside (well below) the normal bounds. One would think that if this could be explained by standard deviation that there would be results well above the normal bounds fairly frequently, yet I cannot recall the last time I saw more than 2 retentions in a row. And I do pay attention. --GW-Blackdog 01:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
You can not simply calculate a standard deviation with just 20 samples. In other words: it wont be a good indicator (Law of large numbers) 02:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to calculate a standard deviation. I started looking after seeing the same trend over the course of about 1500 picks. I've gotten feedback from about a dozen or so folks in game who are getting the same results (not "yeah, it feels like", but actually going out and logging the results). The only folks I see who are getting their retention are folks who either rarely play (one or two nights a week or weekend only) or are using new characters. But, okay. I guess other folks aren't seeing a problem. --GW-Blackdog 04:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
1500 samples would be indeed a good estimater. Are you thinking that ANet implemented a mechanism that dimished the retention rate when heavy chest farming? Sounds rather strange because the pop-ups are claming that a fixed percentage will retain, but it could be possible. Alleycat! 15:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's doing anything on purpose. But the 1500 isn't a good sample since it includes a "guestimated" 100 pick drops. It got noticed when I ran out of picks but had a much lower than expected increase in TH. That could be explained other ways (opening chest in low level area, gave some away/sold, etc), but I doubt it. --GW-Blackdog 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually, for a sample size of 20 and a success rate of 30%, to see only one success (or none) has a chance of 0.76%. In other words, you can be 99% sure that Blackdog's real retention rate is not 34%. Now BlackDog may be the one out of 100 users to report this (a self-selected sample), so if you are interested, please keep tabs on your next 20 lockpicks and report your formula probability and observed retention here.

From my "feel", it seems to me that lockpicks retain better after I've killed some foes/bosses in the area, but I haven't kept any numbers. --◄mendel► 06:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the more you use lockpicks, the lower your actual chance of retention and/or quality of drops, sort of like how Treasure works. I haven't used one in ages, but I know that if I always carried keys/lockpicks with me and used then whenever I could, I would consistently get crap like grapes and req13 golds. But if I am "feeling lucky" and randomly gamble on a Locked Chest, I usually get something nice. This has no statistical backing whatsoever of course. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 07:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
That could be true... I've done some CoF runs on HM in the past, and always opened the Locked Chests. They started out with a full set of golds every run, but my last few runs were all grapes, and it were over 10 chests. I haven't look at retention rate, though, since I want r1 Unlucky (muuuuch closer than r1 Lucky) :P --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 08:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Could we start a new page to track our lockpick retention vs. the supposed percent? Over the weekend, I kept track of my lockpick success. I supposedly have a 22% retention rate. However, out of 20 lock picks used, all 20 broke. The chests I tried to open were in Elona (Kourna region) while Vanquishing. I opened the chests as I found them, so some had a small kill count while others had a high kill count for the zone. While not impossible, my results seem statistically low given my supposed retention rate. -- User:Kalendraf
That's funny... maybe it's just with enhanced drop rates? I've still got 10% and mine is all over the place... sometimes I'll only keep 1 or none out of 5, and sometimes I'll get two or three retains in a row. I believe there was one dungeon where I reversed my ordinary break:retain ration of 4:1 or so, so it should all average out (haven't done any real calculations, though). This might also go under the theory of retention rate dropping with use, because I only really open chests when I'm doing a dungeon or something. Qing Guang 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
For twenty lockpicks and a retention chance of 22%, the chance to retain no lockpicks at all is less than 1%. --◄mendel► 17:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Oh nvm, looked at page again; didn't know that the retain rate on GW:EN Locked Chests was different than on HM ones. Qing Guang 01:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What if the proposed retention formula and percentages are wrong and it's not an additive bonus, but rather some kind of multiplicative bonus like this:
Lockpick retention percent = ((Character level / 2) * (1 + (lucky rank * .02) + (treasure rank * .03))) + possible Normal mode retention bonus
For example, a 20th lvl character with lucky 3, treasure 2 would have 10 * (1 + .06 + .06) = 11.2% in hard mode.
That seems closer to the percent I'm actually seeing. If so, that could be a bug in ANet's code, or if intended, then the wiki table would need to be updated. Obviously without more detailed data tracking that is just a guess for now. -- User:Kalendraf 18 November 2008

(reset indent) Okay, more data here. I seem to be out of the "bad" loop, at least for now. First off, stats. Past 100 chests opened=36 lockpicks broken. This is in Normal mode, with a retention rate of 62% (different account than mentioned above but previously seeing the same bad retention, TH=4, L=5; pure chest running The_Mirror_of_Lyss).

When I started chest running there, I had horrible retention (under 20%) but I wanted to get TH R5, so I decided I'd just do it and be done with it. About 5 runs in, I started seeing retentions go up drastically, so I started watching, and figured 100 is a reasonable number to post a note. Previously, I was doing 2 things differently: 1) usually hard mode. 2) usually while farming and/or vanquishing (more often than not farming). I have not really farmed or vanquished on that account since I started chest running. So, pure chest running may be the way to go to "unnerf" pick retention, or maybe I had an ungodly long bad luck streak (I don't buy that one, but it's there), or a bug fix was slipped in, or.. who knows. I will post notes if I find anything significant. --GW-Blackdog 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[Added in 06/09/09] Someone is farming chests? My retention lockpick is absolutey ridiculous for almost 2 months. Although it says I have 65% chance of keep my lockpick, my retention is lower than 50% - I have used more than 500 lockpicks to assert that. Is there some kind of hidden code in the game? I am very very upset with Anet, I think they lower the retention just to keep you playing. I am almost giving up the game.

Unlucky Points[edit source]

Okay, testing around, it appears that Unlucky points is increased by 8 per level of treasure hunter, however I am unsure how many are added per rank of lucky, anyone know?.76.175.144.6

I tested that and I think it gives 2.5 unlucky points for each percent chance to retain the lockpick. For example if u have 73% chance to retain lockpick u get 182 unlucky points if it breaks (73*2.5 = 182.2) Markos 06:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I tested that now in HM so my percentage has changed, and now i am sure that it gives 2.5*%to_retain. Markos 06:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Theoretical Table[edit source]

I've revised the theoretical table, changing the lockpicks column for a column listing lockpicks required for the next tier, adjusting the cost to a 'cost of lockpicks for next tier', and adding a 'total cost from here to max' column. My reasoning for this is people will want to try comparing their current ranks in these titles (often not 0), to see about how much it would cost to get the next tier, and how much it would cost to max the title. I've also mentioned the discount merchants for this. If you plan to max the title and buy all your lockpicks at once, it only makes sense to get the discount rates (1.5 million gold is not chump change). Granted, the theoretical table would not let people get exact numbers, but approximations are nice too. (Hrm... I'm at R4 lucky. I only need about 5.5 mil in lockpicks to max....) Yamagawa 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For my previous explorations on this topic, i made this google spreadsheet. I think it should be correctly editable/viewable. --JonTheMon 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The table is not counting selling items from drops. From my experience (I have all mentioned titles) it costs about 3.5 millions to max treasue, lucky, unlucky if u are selling all the items to merchant (after 1000th chest I got bored to spend hours to sell items). I was doing the titles BEFORE the unlucky update (first it gave 25 unlucky points, now 182). I ended at 29k opened chests, because the unlucky title was MUCH (7 times) slower than now. When I was at 250k unlucky (exactly half the title) they changed it. Now I have opened 29400 chests. After the title change it took me another 6000 chests to get the unlucky maxed. Just what I want to say. I have 29300 chests now, and I have lucky, unlucky, theasure hunter, wisdom titles and it was no more than 4 millions (counting lockpicks for 1.2k and selling all items to merchant). Markos 06:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of this table is to be "theoretical", it's not meant to reflect any real situation and isn't supposed to take into account anything like selling the items to a merchant or buying discount lockpicks. It's supposed to illustrate the cumulative effects/costs of progressing through the titles, not to illustrate what you would need to "max the title from part way" (you would want a separate table for each of the titles in that case, anyway). Everyone's situation is going to be different - if you've done a lot of Nine Rings, you'll have a much higher Lucky title in relation to your Treasure Hunter title, and vice versa if you've instead done a lot of chest running - and in both cases, you wouldn't be able to match your specific situation to this table at all. I'm going to revert it back to its original purpose as a purely theoretical section. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 07:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's not meant to reflect any real situation, or to correlate to any real situation, then it is of no use whatsoever to most people and should be omitted. If it gives people a yardstick to work by, even a crude one, then anyone currently working on the title can glean a little something from it. The change I had made to the table still showed cumulative costs, but worked on a 'From point x to done, cost is y' view, rather than a 'from 0 to x, cost is y'. People are only at point 0 until they use their first lockpick or sit down at 9-rings. Once I have gained one lucky point, or opened one chest, a table that doesn't tell me how much further I have to travel is of no use to me. I'd say put it back to where we can directly infer something from it, or move it to the discussion page so it doesn't clutter the lockpick page. Yamagawa 19:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Retain Streak[edit source]

I know there's gonna be people who will get lucky streaks with their picks, just like the streaks you get on the 9 rings. I've been chest running Fronis Irontoe's Lair in NM and had 12 retentions in a row (mostly grapes and some golds), adding a tidy 3000 pts to Lucky title. Normally me and lockpicks aren't friends, but this is the best streak I've ever had with picks and locked chests. 120.29.33.4 16:51, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Ludicrous drop rate increase?[edit source]

Has anyone noticed a MASSIVE drop rate increase today? I've found about 12 today. June 20th. GADefence

Yeah, it hadn't occured to me, but playing only an hour or perhaps one and a half, I got 2 lockpick drops, and saw a couple of drops for other people.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 06:56, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Does loot scaling apply to lockpicks?[edit source]

Does loot scaling apply to lockpicks? None of the entries for lockpick or loot scaling either here or on the official wiki seems to be clear about this. --Triplehammer 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)