Konve
Marauder
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2005
- Posts
- 6,068
- Avatar Name
- David Konve Williams
Combibo already does
But the regeneration is less significant on smaller mobs.
As far as I know, the regen rate is exactly the same on combibo as, say, atrox.
Combibo already does
But the regeneration is less significant on smaller mobs.
As far as I know, the regen rate is exactly the same on combibo as, say, atrox.
True where are the Combibo stalkers gone?
(owned by another player, also banned).
As far as I know, the regen rate is exactly the same on combibo as, say, atrox.
No, re-read my post.
'part of the decay' is exactly the point. We know it can't be all decay as otherwise melee weapons would really screw up the economy. So the proportion of decay taken from say a Valor must presumably be different to the proportion taken from a P5a.
Thus presumably those proportions can be adjusted.
Jimmy B said:MA can just reduce loot if they want to increase their 'cut'.
OK but how should I interpret this? And how does it fit to MA take part of the decay as their 'cut' and rest is recyceled?
I know they do not take all decay but they cant take more than all and therfore all the low decaying noSIB weapon(below 1 pec Decay a shot not talking aout ) with very small decay are bad for the flexibility of MA to determin their income. So new L weaons with 2, 4 or even more Pec decay per shot let them more flexible determion how much they earn.
Inceased health regen means more shots per mob to kill = more decay on weapon/amp = more income to ma
Inceased health regen means more time mob can hit you = more decay on Armor and Fap = more income to ma
Nonsense. Kill one mob with 20 shots, or kill two mobs with 20 shots. Decay on weapon/amp is the same in either circumstance.
Well again, if it just goes from 10 shots and 10 units of armor/fap decay per mob to 20 shots and 20 units of armor/fap decay per mob it makes no difference really. If it causes more armor/fap decay per shot then perhaps it makes some difference yes.
Personally though you're much surer of your view of the loot system than I am. For instance, I seem to get pretty terrible loot generally if I kill mobs in a manner such that I have no armor and fap decay. That should by your logic be the best way to hunt, but I'm far from certain it is.
Anyway, of course, you can argue everything MA does is to increase revenue. They're hardly going to do something that has the intention to decrease revenue. However, there's positive ways to increase revenue and not so positive ways. I would say part of the reasoning behind this change is that everyone likes getting globals and hofs, and this makes them more accessible to lower level players, perhaps motivating them and giving them the chance to enjoy some swirlies from time to time.
Not so long ago the non-uber portion of HoF table (ie. below top 10 or so) was vastly dominated by fairly tough mobs, aurli, kreltin, spiders, dasps, hogglo, etc. Now there's regularly mini-hofs for mobs like ambu, trox, feffs, allos, etc. And nearly everyone can hunt them.
And I cannot understand that it would make any sense to improve loot - too!
MA aren't saying overall loot is now better on Molisk. They're saying that if the regeneration means it costs you 10% more to kill a Molisk than previously then the loot received from it will be 10% more than previously. Or something like that.
This is correct. MA said:They're saying that if the regeneration means it costs you 10% more to kill a Molisk than previously then the loot received from it will be 10% more than previously. Or something like that.
Right, so what does this tell us?As in previous adjustments, the loot received from these creatures has been increased in proportion to the regeneration adjustment.
the improved regeneration isn't the same for all hunters - killing one of these in a single shot from a big weapon would completely negate regeneration! Thus, if the loot would be improved for a fixed value, the Uber with his big gun would enjoy better eco, because the regeneration wouldn't even hit him.
need to think about. Yet found some flaws in my argumentation.(don't agree with your following stuff about eco. eco would still be important, but with regards to your 'cost per damage' rather than 'cost per kill')