so much for "not random"

[aridash]

its often debated about the involvment of randomness, or gambling, in the Entropia loot system.

we have now two perfect examples of randomness used, ironically where they arent even needed.

first we had the tier upgrade system. originally it was pure gambling, you put your items in the machine, threw a dice and hoped to get both back. having overhauled the process they still insist on having gambling element: 13% chance of salvage. why? its simply unnecessary to return any salvage, but there it is a probability or return material value.

secondly we have the shared loot. the clarification thread clearly states "The probability of obtaining..." twice, for each of item share and stack share. the normal team loots dont say this, so one concludes they've added a random element to the shared loot, one that was totally unnecessary. it could simply have been dmg decides, not dmg decides probability of.

unless, the normal loot is already probability based and it is intrinsic to the underlying systems, with this not mentioned in the normally team loot text. i leave the reader to draw their own conclusion there.

so, next time theres a debate if the system is random or gambling round these parts, just consider these blatant examples that prove it is.

 

[jod]

I'm starting to wonder if their clarification of shared loot has been poorly translated,as in do they mean probability of winning the item from the loot or probability in seeing an item in the loot at all.

I've read it a few times and still cant make my mind up.

EDIT:Upon reading it again I'm leaning towards a lottery of winning the item in the loot/more damage=more tickets in the loot split lottery and not necessarily of seeing an item at all.

 

[DoubleWolf]

its often debated about the involvment of randomness, or gambling, in the Entropia loot system.

we have now two perfect examples of randomness used, ironically where they arent even needed.

so, next time theres a debate if the system is random or gambling round these parts, just consider these blatant examples that prove it is.

I think you may only be seeing things in black and white.

Yes, there are random elements at work here. Can't argue with that. But that doesn't necessarily mean the entire system is random, just because the developers know what random is and know how to implement it.

Though I do agree that the random part of the new loot sharing is totally unnecessary. Make it most damage wins. If there's items, most damage gets it. At least with the kill stealing accusations (which is what they are trying to address) you can now get a share of some stacks that pop up instead of absolutely nothing. I just don't agree that someone who only did a fraction of the damage should have a chance at getting the most valuable part of the loot. Seems rather unfair to the person that spent the most.

This kind of stuff is why I usually avoid team hunting. Items just mess everything up. If you're going with trusted people, you can split it up after it sells, but even then it usually gets split evenly, though someone may have done a MUCH larger chunk of the damage...

 

[Yquem]

Though I do agree that the random part of the new loot sharing is totally unnecessary. Make it most damage wins. If there's items, most damage gets it. At least with the kill stealing accusations (which is what they are trying to address) you can now get a share of some stacks that pop up instead of absolutely nothing. I just don't agree that someone who only did a fraction of the damage should have a chance at getting the most valuable part of the loot. Seems rather unfair to the person that spent the most.

like in here: The new - Shared loot

All that says it should be a lottery is some that like to KS to get one item without doing that much damage. So they go place one shoot in each mob and let other do the hard work.

 

[Hope WolfGang]

Eu is gambling, even if the makers claim it's not.. it is, maybe not for makers as they know how it all works, but as for a player and us knowing nothing and can only guess.. it is

 

[Xavier_Jr]

Eu is gambling, even if the makers claim it's not.. it is, maybe not for makers as they know how it all works, but as for a player and us knowing nothing and can only guess.. it is

Well, you are playing not intensively the game. After you reach 3 years inside the game and playing intensively, you can obtain a good idea about this. Believe me, today i see you can not.

 

[Hope WolfGang]

i have played this game since day 1, with some breaks in between, no one can understand the technicals of this game, and if you did you would be able to exploit it

 

[Xavier_Jr]

i have played this game since day 1, with some breaks in between, no one can understand the technicals of this game, and if you did you would be able to exploit it

To stay and to play are not sinonimous.

Someone once said that the only problem of democracy was that everyone had the same right to vote.

 

[Immortal]

The mathematical field of statisitics takes data that has a random pattern of generation and interprets it, and no one ever says "you are studying gambling".

IN EU, statisiticians and gamblers can look at the same opportunity and label it how they wish.

When you play pen and paper D&D, you roll dice constantly. When you play almost any virtual rpg nowadays, you rely on a random number generator. Try posting this same thread in another game forum, and guage the response. I doubt it would be accepted favourably by anyone with an education in such aspects, and can tell you what different meanings of randomness and variance are, and how each function is bound within given limits.

Games without randomness are boring.

 

[Ty Williams]

The mathematical field of statisitics takes data that has a random pattern of generation and interprets it, and no one ever says "you are studying gambling".

IN EU, statisiticians and gamblers can look at the same opportunity and label it how they wish.

When you play pen and paper D&D, you roll dice constantly. When you play almost any virtual rpg nowadays, you rely on a random number generator. Try posting this same thread in another game forum, and guage the response. I doubt it would be accepted favourably by anyone with an education in such aspects, and can tell you what different meanings of randomness and variance are, and how each function is bound within given limits.

Games without randomness are boring.

Good Point
So At the end of the day, How Good Is Your (or the individuals) Randomness? If..We Have "Skill Points".

 

[Hanne|SDS]

secondly we have the shared loot. the clarification thread clearly states "The probability of obtaining..." twice, for each of item share and stack share. the normal team loots dont say this, so one concludes they've added a random element to the shared loot, one that was totally unnecessary. it could simply have been dmg decides, not dmg decides probability of.

Actually, no. There's no new element to the shared loot, Shared loot is the same as the team setting Damage: Stack Share.
This is how the team setting Dmg: Stack Share worked earlier as well. The reason I inquired for MindArk to release this information is because, while the text in the current team UI isn't incorrect, it's not detailed enough an description either.

Anyway,
How it works:

Player A does 60 % Damage on the mob,
Player B does 30 % Damage on the mob,
Player C does 10 % Damage on the mob:
Stackables are shared according to the % damage inflicted. Items are shared where the probability are 60% that Player A gets an item, Probability is 30% for Player B and 10% for Player C.

The probability is the same for all items in the loot. So for the next item, Player A still have 60% chance, Player B 30% and Player C 10%.

So its based on the probability relating to the damage inflicted.

 

[Yquem]

Actually, no. There's no new element to the shared loot, Shared loot is the same as the team setting Damage: Stack Share.
This is how the team setting Dmg: Stack Share worked earlier as well. The reason I inquired for MindArk to release this information is because, while the text in the current team UI isn't incorrect, it's not detailed enough an description either.

Anyway,
How it works:

Player A does 60 % Damage on the mob,
Player B does 30 % Damage on the mob,
Player C does 10 % Damage on the mob:
Stackables are shared according to the % damage inflicted. Items are shared where the probability are 60% that Player A gets an item, Probability is 30% for Player B and 10% for Player C.

The probability is the same for all items in the loot. So for the next item, Player A still have 60% chance, Player B 30% and Player C 10%.

So its based on the probability relating to the damage inflicted.

Fine - then remove items from shared looted mobs - and all are happy

 

[wizzszz]

Fine - then remove items from shared looted mobs - and all are happy

That renders any possible reason to hunt such a mob void:
What's the point in hunting something when you know all it drops is oils and other TT fodder...?

 

[Yquem]

That renders any possible reason to hunt such a mob void:
What's the point in hunting something when you know all it drops is oils and other TT fodder...?

Yep i know thats why i wrote what i did in The new - Shared loot

 

[Etopia]

Stackables are shared according to the % damage inflicted. Items are shared where the probability are 60% that Player A gets an item, Probability is 30% for Player B and 10% for Player C.

The probability is the same for all items in the loot. So for the next item, Player A still have 60% chance, Player B 30% and Player C 10%.

So its based on the probability relating to the damage inflicted.

Why not start the system with the most valuable item , and if there is more than 1 item , the one who get an item allready will not get next one...

So first item miost valuable
A = 60%
B = 30%
c = 10%

if A win item , for second item :
B= 75%
C= 25%

 

[Yquem]

Why not start the system with the most valuable item , and if there is more than 1 item , the one who get an item allready will not get next one...

So first item miost valuable
A = 60%
B = 30%
c = 10%

if A win item , for second item :
B= 75%
C= 25%

Problem is that item split is done from TT and not MU - but else yes just do it from MU+TT value

 

[StrongMinded]

Problem is that item split is done from TT and not MU - but else yes just do it from MU+TT value

Talk about loot lag. I might me misinterpreting you but what would decide MU?? The servers would be overloaded with calculations... The only thing they can do it on is the TT value of stackables/items. The problem we all are talking about is that we count MU on everything. A 10ped ESI = 10 Ped animal oil but not if you add MU on said items.

 

[fluske]

Well, you are playing not intensively the game. After you reach 3 years inside the game and playing intensively, you can obtain a good idea about this. Believe me, today i see you can not.

ive been ingame 5 years,im close to unlocking killstrike naturally and without depositing..and i also say its pure gambling....the "personal lootpooltheory" is complete bs in my opinion

 

[Yquem]

Talk about loot lag. I might me misinterpreting you but what would decide MU?? The servers would be overloaded with calculations... The only thing they can do it on is the TT value of stackables/items. The problem we all are talking about is that we count MU on everything. A 10ped ESI = 10 Ped animal oil but not if you add MU on said items.

True - but this is the problem with Shared loot. Items will go very random and only from the TT point of view. In a team it dosnt matter who get the good item with high markup - but in shared loot that whats its all about. And as it is now it isnt good enough.

 

[StrongMinded]

True - but this is the problem with Shared loot. Items will go very random and only from the TT point of view. In a team it dosnt matter who get the good item with high markup - but in shared loot that whats its all about. And as it is now it isnt good enough.

I totally agree. My suggestion is to not use share loot on the Elites because they aren´t uber mobs compared to alot of others. Use share loot on the "Special" event mobs only.

No share loot on the Elites and people can make teams as they wish and decide whatever rules they want, written/unwritten.

 

[mastermesh]

Problem is that item split is done from TT and not MU - but else yes just do it from MU+TT value

Problem is that MU is based on participant perception and action/manipulation in the auction. Something that is new, as in only been around a vu or two, that is actually fairly useless can be made to have enormous amounts of MU. If some trader that knew that item x, y, and z loots from event mobs, and they want to increase their chances of looting z, but plan to just tag a mob and not do the most damage on a regular basis, they could play the market and cause the MU on x and y to skyrocket days before the event started, knowing their chances on looting z would increase, etc.

 

[SpikeBlack]

I just don't agree that someone who only did a fraction of the damage should have a chance at getting the most valuable part of the loot. Seems rather unfair to the person that spent the most.

Thats no different to an RX event. Someone does 99.9% of the damage, someone else rocks up with an opalo shoots once and gets the prize. It didn't stop some people wetting themselves with excitement when one was organised.

 

[Doer]

Talk about loot lag. I might me misinterpreting you but what would decide MU?? The servers would be overloaded with calculations... The only thing they can do it on is the TT value of stackables/items. The problem we all are talking about is that we count MU on everything. A 10ped ESI = 10 Ped animal oil but not if you add MU on said items.

You forgot that the system is already using some probability to determine which items drop in the first place. Items could be awarded in order of rarity without further lookup. Note that such a system does not guarantee most valuable item goes to most damage because rarity is not completely synonymous with MV, but it's an improvement.

 

[Xavier_Jr]

ive been ingame 5 years,im close to unlocking killstrike naturally and without depositing..and i also say its pure gambling....the "personal lootpooltheory" is complete bs in my opinion

Sure, in your opinion. One of the best things about this game is, that you dont need to understand to play. You are the proof.

 

[aridash]

Actually, no. There's no new element to the shared loot, Shared loot is the same as the team setting Damage: Stack Share.
This is how the team setting Dmg: Stack Share worked earlier as well. The reason I inquired for MindArk to release this information is because, while the text in the current team UI isn't incorrect, it's not detailed enough an description either.

fine, if you say so, and its interesting feedback. this highlights that we have been misinformed over the team distribution. its not "detail" that there is a probability involved, that is something that should be explicit so there is no misunderstanding. the team description infers and is widely accepted to mean the share is directly related damage, not that it means the distribution dice is loaded based on damage. how does Item Share differ and how many people would choose one rule over the other if they know the full implications?

Anyway,
How it works:
...
The probability is the same for all items in the loot. So for the next item, Player A still have 60% chance, Player B 30% and Player C 10%.

So its based on the probability relating to the damage inflicted.

i understand how it works and the implications. In practice this means player C has a 10% chance of getting all the loot if it is say a large TT armour harness. or even more than one item, with player A receiving none. this is clearly unfair: how it *should* work is that player A *always* gets the largest item, player B *always* gets the 2nd... etc. In fact i'd go further an say player A should get 60% of items by TT, so the first n largest if they add up to nearly or greater than 60%. Chance and probability should not enter into.

its a shame, because at first glance as a way to deal with killstealing and large mobs, group share is a great idea, but let down badly by the implementation.

 

[Jimmy B]

so, next time theres a debate if the system is random or gambling round these parts, just consider these blatant examples that prove it is.

I'd fall off my chair in shock (or would have, since Hanne's post confirms there is anyway) if I discovered there is no random element to the various loot mechanisms in EU.

From all that I've seen read on this here (or on EF rather) when MA use the term "not gambling" I think they tend to mean "not a lottery". So EU, like poker, involves luck but also judgement and hence is "not gambling". Whilst the national lottery, like roulette, involves luck but no judgement and hence is "gambling". Everyone will argue over the definitions, but there is certainly a clear difference between the two.

 

[XeroX2]

i have played this game since day 1, with some breaks in between, no one can understand the technicals of this game, and if you did you would be able to exploit it

lol? Well yeah they have been doing that like all the time... nothing new about that.

To get to the topic of the thread I would like to add that our brain is extremely bad in seing "randomness".
It allways mixes wrong patterns into things which are actually random... so only the guys who code the system know which parts of it SIMULATE randomness. Note: They are NOT really random... but they give the impression to be random whilst other parts of the system don't.

 

[DoubleWolf]

From all that I've seen read on this here (or on EF rather) when MA use the term "not gambling" I think they tend to mean "not a lottery". So EU, like poker, involves luck but also judgement and hence is "not gambling". Whilst the national lottery, like roulette, involves luck but no judgement and hence is "gambling". Everyone will argue over the definitions, but there is certainly a clear difference between the two.

Even though many consider poker a game of skill, I think you would have a difficult time finding many people that wouldn't also classify it as gambling. I certainly think it can be both.

But it's true that this game is very much like poker. Using correct judgment and strategy, it is possible to come out ahead. It is also possible to go "all in" on every hand and hope to win the pot. It can be played wisely, and with the right skill set and strategy, you can be successful. Or you can simply gamble with your money and leave it all to chance.

 

[Xavier_Jr]

Even though many consider poker a game of skill, I think you would have a difficult time finding many people that wouldn't also classify it as gambling. I certainly think it can be both.

But it's true that this game is very much like poker. Using correct judgment and strategy, it is possible to come out ahead. It is also possible to go "all in" on every hand and hope to win the pot. It can be played wisely, and with the right skill set and strategy, you can be successful. Or you can simply gamble with your money and leave it all to chance.

Yes. But can exists players who have never deposited one dollar, but a shot of lucky give him an uberloot, after that, they circling many peds (because is not important the deposits if not the expenses), and without using a great strategy different to play intensively, they can reached high levels in the game too. For them, the game will always be a great gaming depending of the lucky factor.

 

[fluske]

Sure, in your opinion. One of the best things about this game is, that you dont need to understand to play. You are the proof.

lol..sure,i dont understand,you try to make an profit of around 400k peds with an small 1 time deposit only about 5/6 years ago..and check my tracker to see how many uber sive had..like none(only real uber was about 2/3 years ago when i looted first ul cb24)

i can profit cause i understand this game....whats your skilllevel again ?