Where does the 90% number come from?

[Keta]

I've been doing some research, and have found numerous quotes from Mindark which state that their revenue is derived entirely from decay, and that everything else (ammo, probes, auction fees, etc) is cycled back into the economy - and also that not *all* decay is taken by them as revenue, which makes sense, as one would expect most of they decay from melee weapons and amps to be cycled back into the economy as well. Furthermore, each of the three main professions (Hunting, Mining and Crafting) has its own loot pool, separate from the other two, so probes spent go into the mining loot pool while ammo spent goes into the hunting pool, etc.

So, presuming that the loot pool is in equilibrium and as much is coming back out on average as is being put into it, each probe I drop should on average return the value of that probe, while the decay of my finder and extractor go to MA. This means, if I am mining EnMatter, for instance (using the TT finder and excavator, without amps), I would spend 50 pec on probes, 1 pec on finder decay, and from what I can tell, roughly 1 pec on extractor decay per 50 pec I get back, which works out to ~96% efficiency. So what am I missing here? Is there 6% I'm somehow not accounting for, or is the expected TT return not actually 90%? Where does the 90% number come from?

One might argue that the assumption that the loot pool is in equilibrium is invalid, but I doubt that very much - if such an equilibrium didn't exist in the first place, then MA wouldn't be able to (truthfully) claim that all ammo/probes etc are cycled back into the economy. And as long as such an equilibrium exists, then barring dramatic shifts in the game's economy, it would always be at or very close to that equilibrium, as it would always self-correct toward it.

Another, somewhat related question: if entropedia is to be believed, decay on the finder is the same for both ore and enmatter mining (and doubled if you do both), meaning your decay as a percentage of the value of probes you are dropping is lower for ore mining than it is for enmatter mining, and thus your efficiency would be higher. Is this true?

 

[Mordrell]

My own personal results have always shown 95% or better returns on tt over long periods when using maxed equipment. I keep seeing the same results on mining and hunting in the long run only place I dont get this is in crafting and that's because my skills are to low to fully utilise most of my bp's at max efficiency.

 

[Art Jennifer]

You have not done enough research if you need to ask this question.

All long term longs show 80+ return rate.

 

[Konve]

I've been doing some research, and have found numerous quotes from Mindark which state that their revenue is derived entirely from decay, and that everything else (ammo, probes, auction fees, etc) is cycled back into the economy - and also that not *all* decay is taken by them as revenue, which makes sense, as one would expect most of they decay from melee weapons and amps to be cycled back into the economy as well. Furthermore, each of the three main professions (Hunting, Mining and Crafting) has its own loot pool, separate from the other two, so probes spent go into the mining loot pool while ammo spent goes into the hunting pool, etc.

So, presuming that the loot pool is in equilibrium and as much is coming back out on average as is being put into it, each probe I drop should on average return the value of that probe, while the decay of my finder and extractor go to MA. This means, if I am mining EnMatter, for instance (using the TT finder and excavator, without amps), I would spend 50 pec on probes, 1 pec on finder decay, and from what I can tell, roughly 1 pec on extractor decay per 50 pec I get back, which works out to ~96% efficiency. So what am I missing here? Is there 6% I'm somehow not accounting for, or is the expected TT return not actually 90%? Where does the 90% number come from?

One might argue that the assumption that the loot pool is in equilibrium is invalid, but I doubt that very much - if such an equilibrium didn't exist in the first place, then MA wouldn't be able to (truthfully) claim that all ammo/probes etc are cycled back into the economy. And as long as such an equilibrium exists, then barring dramatic shifts in the game's economy, it would always be at or very close to that equilibrium, as it would always self-correct toward it.

Another, somewhat related question: if entropedia is to be believed, decay on the finder is the same for both ore and enmatter mining (and doubled if you do both), meaning your decay as a percentage of the value of probes you are dropping is lower for ore mining than it is for enmatter mining, and thus your efficiency would be higher. Is this true?

There's nothing wrong with your logic. If your basic facts were right - you'd (probably) be right. But there are a few points to be made;

(And though I state these as facts, I bet you can find a handful of loonies to disagree with me. )

1) MA does not make money from decay. MA makes it's money from net deposits (deposits minus withdraws).
2) The only way that MA makes money from decay, is in the sense that decay is a one-way transaction that in the end means you have to deposit more.
3) There is no loot pool. No evidence has ever suggested it. Someone invented it long ago and the idea has stuck.
4) Loot is distributed in a return per PED spent manner, with a statistical probability to hit different multipliers. For example if it costs you 1.04 PED to look for minerals (probes + "decay"), then the system will roll a dice for your multiplier and reward you accordingly - it might say you get 0 times your input and it might say you'll get 1000 times your input. Over time the dice is fixed so that your loot resembles a statistical distribution. You could have a look at this thread I made yesterday, it's in dire need of some attention anyway: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?233214-MaxLoot-formula&p=3009962
5) I'm pretty sure I had a 5th point, but I forgot what it was.

 

[Dennis blighter]

Hunting long term effeciently will yeild around 95% or more.
Mining long term yeilds around 90-98% return(best to NOT mine in high MU areas- overly mined areas drastically reduce my average return by about 20-30%)
And for crafting, things i have crafted i have never been "maxed" on however my normal return is in the 80's%

However, if you think about it, all that is normal return. If you want the return for the whole game... You would need everyones cost and return.. And you must include all ATH's. Ubers ect.


Personally, i beleive each tool has its "decay" factor, where when u use that tool, the "decay" taken is their profit immediately, of course they set the system up for that. This being said, lets say a hunter has a weapon that decays a total of 20 pec per shot, their profit is then a small fraction of that, which im guessing is around .5% of actual decay.

Easily put, if this game gave 90% returns, you simply cant play the game, im talking game wide.
Im guessing the entire games return rate is around 98-99%, eco effected.

This is my opinion however for how i feel and how i see it.

 

[Svarog]

Any slot machines display 90%+ in the long run

 

[xian]

Any slot machines display 90%+ in the long run

You forgot entropia is not considered gambling due to skills, please allow me to fix your link

 

[ChairmanEdgewise]

You have not done enough research if you need to ask this question.

All long term longs show 80+ return rate.

All long term?


You clearly have not done enoigh research


"All long term" as you said would mean unmaxed equipment, using overprotection and overkill won't get you near 80% return.


Just making that clear for whoever reads your post and think you actually know what you are talking about.

 

[Keta]

1) MA does not make money from decay. MA makes it's money from net deposits (deposits minus withdraws).
2) The only way that MA makes money from decay, is in the sense that decay is a one-way transaction that in the end means you have to deposit more.

If you want to be pedantic, then decay is the only way in which money is removed from the EU economy - which decreases MA's liability, thereby increasing their equity - deposits may give them revenue but since they also increase MA's liability by the same amount, they do not increase equity and hence do not generate net income, whereas decay does do so

3) There is no loot pool. No evidence has ever suggested it. Someone invented it long ago and the idea has stuck.

There is no *personal* loot pool, but MA has confirmed that all non-decay expenditures in a given profession are ultimately cycled back into the economy of that profession. Whether or not you call that process a loot pool is academic. The point remains that if 1 PED in ammo is spent hunting, that 1 PED will ultimately be returned to a hunter somewhere in the game, and similarly for every PED that is spent on probes dropped into the ground 1 PED will be returned to a miner at some point somewhere in the game (if MindArk's statements are to be believed, anyway)

4) Loot is distributed in a return per PED spent manner, with a statistical probability to hit different multipliers. For example if it costs you 1.04 PED to look for minerals (probes + "decay"), then the system will roll a dice for your multiplier and reward you accordingly - it might say you get 0 times your input and it might say you'll get 1000 times your input. Over time the dice is fixed so that your loot resembles a statistical distribution. You could have a look at this thread I made yesterday, it's in dire need of some attention anyway: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?233214-MaxLoot-formula&p=3009962

The post you've made is interesting in that it gives an upper limit on ATHs, but it says absolutely nothing about efficiency or average return. MA *has* explicitly stated several times that all ammo is cycled back into the loot pool while (some portion of) decay is not. So if of that 1.04 PED, 1 PED is from probes and 0.04 PED is from decay, then your average return *should* be at least 1 PED, or just over 96%, if MA is to be believed. The multiplier which you discuss in your post would be on the 1 PED of probes spent, not the overall 1.04 PED spent, since that 0.04 extra PED goes into MA's pocket (in the form of reduced liability as I discussed earlier).

 

[Keta]

1) MA does not make money from decay. MA makes it's money from net deposits (deposits minus withdraws).
2) The only way that MA makes money from decay, is in the sense that decay is a one-way transaction that in the end means you have to deposit more.

If you want to be pedantic, then decay is the only way in which money is removed from the EU economy - which decreases MA's liability, thereby increasing their equity - deposits may give them revenue but since they also increase MA's liability by the same amount, they do not increase equity and hence do not generate net income, whereas decay does do so

3) There is no loot pool. No evidence has ever suggested it. Someone invented it long ago and the idea has stuck.

There is no *personal* loot pool, but MA has confirmed that all non-decay expenditures in a given profession are ultimately cycled back into the economy of that profession. Whether or not you call that process a loot pool is academic. The point remains that if 1 PED in ammo is spent hunting, that 1 PED will ultimately be returned to a hunter somewhere in the game, and similarly for every PED that is spent on probes dropped into the ground 1 PED will be returned to a miner at some point somewhere in the game (if MindArk's statements are to be believed, anyway)

4) Loot is distributed in a return per PED spent manner, with a statistical probability to hit different multipliers. For example if it costs you 1.04 PED to look for minerals (probes + "decay"), then the system will roll a dice for your multiplier and reward you accordingly - it might say you get 0 times your input and it might say you'll get 1000 times your input. Over time the dice is fixed so that your loot resembles a statistical distribution. You could have a look at this thread I made yesterday, it's in dire need of some attention anyway:

The post you've made is interesting in that it gives an upper limit on ATHs, but it says absolutely nothing about efficiency or average return. MA *has* explicitly stated several times that all ammo is cycled back into the loot pool while (some portion of) decay is not. So if of that 1.04 PED, 1 PED is from probes and 0.04 PED is from decay, then your average return *should* be at least 1 PED, or just over 96%, if MA is to be believed. The multiplier which you discuss in your post would be on the 1 PED of probes spent, not the overall 1.04 PED spent, since that 0.04 extra PED goes into MA's pocket (in the form of reduced liability as I discussed earlier).

 

[minim]

My own personal results have always shown 95% or better returns on tt over long periods when using maxed equipment. I keep seeing the same results on mining and hunting in the long run only place I dont get this is in crafting and that's because my skills are to low to fully utilise most of my bp's at max efficiency.

Same here. And the same goes for many others I know that track all their spending's.

 

[FallenAngel]

you might want to look at this thread, a comparison of mining loot between now and 2008, statistical analysis by falkao:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?230470-mining-data-2012

this table shows the different loot classes and the TT return expected if you receive the average amount of these loot classes, for more information you could search for falkao's analysis from 2008.

 

[Konve]

If you want to be pedantic, then decay is the only way in which money is removed from the EU economy - which decreases MA's liability, thereby increasing their equity - deposits may give them revenue but since they also increase MA's liability by the same amount, they do not increase equity and hence do not generate net income, whereas decay does do so

Actually there are other ways, the ones I can think of are; selling real estate, services (such as adding real estate extras and un-TTing items) and real world items.

And, actually, net deposits do equal income to MA, but they do not increase their liability as such (they are booked as contingent liabilities - they do not increase or decrease MA's number for "Total equity and liabilities").

There is no *personal* loot pool, but MA has confirmed that all non-decay expenditures in a given profession are ultimately cycled back into the economy of that profession. Whether or not you call that process a loot pool is academic. The point remains that if 1 PED in ammo is spent hunting, that 1 PED will ultimately be returned to a hunter somewhere in the game, and similarly for every PED that is spent on probes dropped into the ground 1 PED will be returned to a miner at some point somewhere in the game (if MindArk's statements are to be believed, anyway)

Sorry, where was this confirmed?


The thread was just to clarify what I meant about multipliers. There are many threads about efficiency, however. You just need to find them.

 

[danimal01]

I don't know where all of these numbers are pulled from but if you look at the new crafting terminal a maxed qr bp as well as maxed level to use the bp display a 95% success rate on click. This leads me to believe that the returns per click are average of 95%. Now with all those clicks from that one particular "run" added together, those might equal to 80% - 90% like most people are claiming; however, the return on one click is 95%.

~Danimal

 

[Konve]

I don't know where all of these numbers are pulled from but if you look at the new crafting terminal a maxed qr bp as well as maxed level to use the bp display a 95% success rate on click. This leads me to believe that the returns per click are average of 95%. Now with all those clicks from that one particular "run" added together, those might equal to 80% - 90% like most people are claiming; however, the return on one click is 95%.

~Danimal

Those 95 % (or 94 % as it still says on the BP - just like before the VU) is not equal to your expected long run tt return.

It's a lot more probable that it means (number of success + near success)/(total amount of attempts)=0.95 (average). 5 % chance to fail is a better way to saying it.

 

[Joat]

3) There is no loot pool. No evidence has ever suggested it. Someone invented it long ago and the idea has stuck.

Depends on what we see as Loot pool.
Looking at Dev notes #2 they write this:

Personal Lootpools - Many of the theories which suggest - inaccurately - that efficiency is unimportant will often employ the concept of a “personal lootpool”, claiming that the “system” will eventually provide a sort of compensation to avatars who have been operating in an inefficient manner. Such theories are very much misguided. There is no such thing as a “personal lootpool” for individual avatars, and there is no system in place which tracks each avatar’s returns over time, or which provides compensation to individual avatars. As a result, long-term results in Entropia Universe are directly related to the choices made by each participant, and those who approach their chosen profession in an efficient manner will find more success than those who do not. Overall this is a very positive thing and an important part of the Entropia virtual universe concept, as it allows those participants who spend the time and effort to approach their activities within Entropia Universe in a smart way to improve their chances of becoming successful, just like in the real world.

If we then look at Dev notes #1 (the bolded part):

Independent Lootpools - One concern that we see very often on community forums, especially when a big All Time High is achieved, is that one profession is unfairly “financing” a huge loot in another profession. This misconception often results in one group of participants (i.e. hunters) becoming upset or frustrated that their activity is being used to fund the rewards given to another group of participants (i.e. miners). To hopefully dispel this misconception, we would like to inform participants that the loot pools for each main profession (hunting, mining and manufacturing) are completely independent of one another, and that a large loot in one profession has absolutely no impact on potential loots in any of the other professions.

We now see that there are Loot pools, but they aren't personal.

 

[Keta]

We now see that there are Loot pools, but they aren't personal.

This, thank you

 

[Konve]

Depends on what we see as Loot pool.
Looking at Dev notes #2 they write this:

Personal Lootpools - Many of the theories which suggest - inaccurately - that efficiency is unimportant will often employ the concept of a “personal lootpool”, claiming that the “system” will eventually provide a sort of compensation to avatars who have been operating in an inefficient manner. Such theories are very much misguided. There is no such thing as a “personal lootpool” for individual avatars, and there is no system in place which tracks each avatar’s returns over time, or which provides compensation to individual avatars. As a result, long-term results in Entropia Universe are directly related to the choices made by each participant, and those who approach their chosen profession in an efficient manner will find more success than those who do not. Overall this is a very positive thing and an important part of the Entropia virtual universe concept, as it allows those participants who spend the time and effort to approach their activities within Entropia Universe in a smart way to improve their chances of becoming successful, just like in the real world.

If we then look at Dev notes #1 (the bolded part):

Independent Lootpools - One concern that we see very often on community forums, especially when a big All Time High is achieved, is that one profession is unfairly “financing” a huge loot in another profession. This misconception often results in one group of participants (i.e. hunters) becoming upset or frustrated that their activity is being used to fund the rewards given to another group of participants (i.e. miners). To hopefully dispel this misconception, we would like to inform participants that the loot pools for each main profession (hunting, mining and manufacturing) are completely independent of one another, and that a large loot in one profession has absolutely no impact on potential loots in any of the other professions.

We now see that there are Loot pools, but they aren't personal.

Go ahead and mark me for a crazy man, but whoever wrote those dev notes don't know their own business. They're wrong.

The first note (well, the one on top, note #2) discusses "personal loot pools" in a manner to describe that you can not trust in the system to "reward" you for periods of bad loot; Dmg/PEC matters and all that. It's a good note in that it confirms that you can't be an idiot and expect to get paid for it, and then there's some honourable message at the end to tell everyone to keep playing because it's so great and all that. Bottom line is - your loot is not a function of your past loot.

The second note (note #1) is where it really gets.. interesting. I think it's clear that the purpose of this note is to ease the minds of those described. The problem is that it speaks of loot pools as something from which to draw or drain loot. Like one big number that ticks down if you loot a creature and ticks up if you spend ammo. It just doesn't work like that.

Loot has (for simplicity - does not apply if MA has gone out of their way to create a stupid system, and MA are not stupid ) to be based on a probability function. Now note #1 might say that there are different loot pools. What they mean, I am sure, is that the input for the variables in the function are different for the different professions. Because there is no such thing as "random", computers need to create patterns which appear to be random. One random pattern for each profession means the same function/system can be used everywhere, but the "loot pools" are indifferent to one another (and the "individual loots" inside each "pool" appear to be indifferent to one another in turn).


Edit: Regarding mastermesh's post below this one - Entropia does not have jackpots. Even if it feels like you hit one when you get a HoF. Entropia has big loots with a very small probability of appearing. You could, in theory, get five ATHs in a row on five mobs. But the odds for it are so low that it's safe to say it'll never happen in Entropia as we know it.

 

[mastermesh]

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

A progressive jackpot is a jackpot (highest payoff) for a gaming machine (usually a slot machine or video poker machine) where the value of the jackpot increases a small amount for every game played. Normally multiple machines are "linked" together to form one large progressive jackpot that grows more quickly because multiple players are contributing to the jackpot at the same time.

http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/...p-the-purse-on-progressive-jackpot-slots-6107

Found money? Yes, but who lost it? A philosophical riddle that recalls the rhyme of the metaphysical muse, Sumner A Ingmark:

Big jackpots paid by slots progressive,
Impose on losers costs excessive.

 

[Keta]

The second note (note #1) is where it really gets.. interesting. I think it's clear that the purpose of this note is to ease the minds of those described. The problem is that it speaks of loot pools as something from which to draw or drain loot. Like one big number that ticks down if you loot a creature and ticks up if you spend ammo. It just doesn't work like that.

Loot has (for simplicity - does not apply if MA has gone out of their way to create a stupid system, and MA are not stupid ) to be based on a probability function. Now note #1 might say that there are different loot pools. What they mean, I am sure, is that the input for the variables in the function are different for the different professions. Because there is no such thing as "random", computers need to create patterns which appear to be random. One random pattern for each profession means the same function/system can be used everywhere, but the "loot pools" are indifferent to one another (and the "individual loots" inside each "pool" appear to be indifferent to one another in turn).


Edit: Regarding mastermesh's post below this one - Entropia does not have jackpots. Even if it feels like you hit one when you get a HoF. Entropia has big loots with a very small probability of appearing. You could, in theory, get five ATHs in a row on five mobs. But the odds for it are so low that it's safe to say it'll never happen in Entropia as we know it.

You seem to be under the impression that it's not possible to have a loot pool while also having a (pseudo-)random element to the loot. In fact it's quite easy to have both - for example (I'm not saying this is the way it works, just an example of how such a system *could* work), it could be that every time you loot a mob a random number is generated based on a combination of the mob's HP and some distribution function, which is then multiplied by the total amount of loot in the pool at that particular time. So say the loot pool has 10,000,000 PED in it and you kill a snable young and you roll a 0.00000001, then you'll get 0.10 PED of loot, but if you had rolled a 0.000001 you would have gotten 10 PED, and if the loot pool had instead had 20,000,000 PED you would have gotten 0.20 PED of loot. Voila, loot pool + pseudo-random returns.

And given that MA has explicitly stated that there are indeed loot pools, I think it's a fair assumption that they do indeed exist, unless you can show some solid evidence to the contrary.

Edit: Regarding mastermesh's post below this one - Entropia does not have jackpots. Even if it feels like you hit one when you get a HoF. Entropia has big loots with a very small probability of appearing. You could, in theory, get five ATHs in a row on five mobs. But the odds for it are so low that it's safe to say it'll never happen in Entropia as we know it.

And with a loot pool, all that changes is that when the loot pool is larger, those "big loots" become even larger, and when it is smaller they become smaller, though as I mentioned before, barring drastic changes to the economy, the loot pool is unlikely to ever deviate a significant amount from equilibrium. What also changes is that people being "un-eco" don't necessarily just contribute more to MA, but also contribute to everyone else in the game who is being eco, as they are contributing a larger share to the loot pool relative to how much they are taking out.

 

[Keta]

Just as a note: After adding up about 2M PED Cycled from logs (only ones which specifically give TT values) in this forum over the last year, average TT returns seem to be converge to about 93%, though keep in mind this does *not* account for any taxes that might have been incurred, and is over many logs consisting of both amped and unamped runs (and many different types of amps at that). Given that many of these runs were likely in taxed areas, it seems the pre-tax TT return is indeed likely to be much closer to 96% than to 90%

 

[Joat]

Go ahead and mark me for a crazy man, but whoever wrote those dev notes don't know their own business. They're wrong.

The first note (well, the one on top, note #2) discusses "personal loot pools" in a manner to describe that you can not trust in the system to "reward" you for periods of bad loot; Dmg/PEC matters and all that. It's a good note in that it confirms that you can't be an idiot and expect to get paid for it, and then there's some honourable message at the end to tell everyone to keep playing because it's so great and all that. Bottom line is - your loot is not a function of your past loot.

The second note (note #1) is where it really gets.. interesting. I think it's clear that the purpose of this note is to ease the minds of those described. The problem is that it speaks of loot pools as something from which to draw or drain loot. Like one big number that ticks down if you loot a creature and ticks up if you spend ammo. It just doesn't work like that.

Loot has (for simplicity - does not apply if MA has gone out of their way to create a stupid system, and MA are not stupid ) to be based on a probability function. Now note #1 might say that there are different loot pools. What they mean, I am sure, is that the input for the variables in the function are different for the different professions. Because there is no such thing as "random", computers need to create patterns which appear to be random. One random pattern for each profession means the same function/system can be used everywhere, but the "loot pools" are indifferent to one another (and the "individual loots" inside each "pool" appear to be indifferent to one another in turn).


Edit: Regarding mastermesh's post below this one - Entropia does not have jackpots. Even if it feels like you hit one when you get a HoF. Entropia has big loots with a very small probability of appearing. You could, in theory, get five ATHs in a row on five mobs. But the odds for it are so low that it's safe to say it'll never happen in Entropia as we know it.

As I wrote in the other post, everyones p.o.v of a Loot pool is different imo.
For me, a loot pool is basicly the value that all spent values are gathered up in.
Your example of how loot is payed doesn't make loot pool impossible, thats just
the way loot is created and payed out.

My thoughts of how loot is created and is payed out is a bit different, but that
is just a theory among many.

Personal loot pool for me is a system that is personal, with no influence from others
other than from a boost system.

 

[Cail]

Guess some people have just logged that 90% within the years to be a good mean for returns, but some get 95%, even 100% in the long run, which means others have to lose, i myself have been on 70% returns on hunting in the long term, 60'ish% on crafting, 85% on mining.
All in a long run, guess i'm one of them milking cows so others can have the 100+% returns and their success stories.

 

[martinstids]

all casinos have 80-90% valueback... sooo...

 

[Deleted member 23278]

guess who's new avatar this is.... 90% will be wrong

 

[Crone]

Problem is that Crone is probably not going to hit average.

Crone assumes eveyr EU gambler has been to a casino. Let's try roulette a very fair game which in the netherlands gives the casino an "edge" of about 2.7% (unless you consistently play side bets, you'll get a bit better chance). Whenever Crone comes out of the casino either he has nothing left or made a profit. Somehow there's never anything in between profit or 100% loss. The casino is sure of a profit at the end of the day, not because of the few players that actually left as a winner, but because they count every player that entered the casino that day.

The same happens in EU. Either Crone makes a profit, or he has to deposit again. This actually supports Konve's line of thinking. (deposits -/- withdrawels)

That said...

Lootpools: since MindArk obviously states they keep a lootpool it would be more than logic for Crone to assume they actually have a loot pool. From this lootpool every player is being granted a portion whenever he gets loot. Crone also feels safe to say that MindArk first fills the lootpool and then empties it. A ticker like construction we see in casino slots as well.

Where do these numbers get in of Crone's personal return? Not in any of MindArks stories. Crone would like to remind you of roulette again. First thing you do is you pick a number and place your bet. Depending on the amount of numbers you cover with that bet you will be paid a multiplier. If you solely play numbers you will find out the multiplier always relates to 35/37 (plus your bet makes it 36/37). A similair system is most likely in place in EU for every kill you make.

Just a little reminder here:
Your probes go in the lootpool and you will get a return in the long run of the same value assuming you hit the "jackpot" at some point and not the person next to you. MindArk stated that they do not track the personal spendings. 100% probes is probably (since MindArk states that) paid out in loot but that doesn't mean you, it might be to Crone.

MindArk doesn't make their PED from Crone or Crone + you, but from every player that entered the universe.

Can a player influence his returns? Yes since this is a game of statics one can get closer to the average return by cycling a lot more PED. Is this what you want? That depends: if you're a lucky person do one hunt and quit, if you're unluck start hunting more.

 

[Konve]

The same happens in EU. Either Crone makes a profit, or he has to deposit again. This actually supports Konve's line of thinking. (deposits -/- withdrawels)

That said...

I'll gladly bicker for hours about loot pools being real or not. But on this I have to insist. It's not a theory that MA make their money from net deposits, it's a solid fact:

http://www.mindark.se/investor-relations/financial-reports/
(2011 report, all numbers are SEK)

Net sales 45,993,394 (1)
Other income 14,553,269 (2)
60,546,663

(1) Deposits etc 67,240,107
Reimbursements -21,246,713
45,993,394

(2) Consists mostly of the sale of CLDs, which they apparently booked differently.

 

[Joat]

I'll gladly bicker for hours about loot pools being real or not. But on this I have to insist. It's not a theory that MA make their money from net deposits, it's a solid fact:

http://www.mindark.se/investor-relations/financial-reports/
(2011 report, all numbers are SEK)



(1) Deposits etc 67,240,107
Reimbursements -21,246,713
45,993,394

(2) Consists mostly of the sale of CLDs, which they apparently booked differently.

I agree fully on this one.
I think people should look at the revenue stream from decay as a tool used to
"decrease ingame values to increase RL values" rather than their way to make income.
Their income comes from, as you wrote, all depos, and possible profit are from depos
minus all expenses.

One common mistake people do is to think the RL value is still around if the ingame
value is still left. It isn't. If they use 100% of the RL values from depos, and the ingame
value created from depos are still around, they don't have enough to cover that ingame
value if it were withdrawn. Nothing scary with this thou'.