Oleg
Mutated
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Posts
- 19,406
- Location
- Leeds, UK
- Avatar Name
- Oleg Oleg McMullery
erm, nope.
One of the reasons for taking extreme examples is so that people can more easily see underlying mechanics, which sometimes throws things off whack too, depending on where curves cross over etc. My example does show that things are different, but places the wrong emphasis on inefficiency, as opposed to super high efficiency.
In my example of 90:10 on what used to have been nominally a 20 ped mob, say, and both players doing half damage, on old loot the two players would have received 10 peds each back.
Now, without MA's rake it would be 50 peds back each. See what is happening there?
In more realistic conditions it is not that severe of course, but the effect IS there in shared 2.0 that was NOT there in shared 1.x! Things have NOT stayed the same. How well do things have to be explained here? I admit that a more realistic example would be to have the super-efficient player incur much lower costs than normal to reduce the loot returns by MA, but still in favour of the better player. In my example it looks like MA is paying out more than before to the useless player, but that is part of an attempt to show that the lines HAVE changed. The actual scenario is more like MA paying out less than 20 peds in a (more) skewed way now... (I agree with the original skewing as part of skills benefits).
Still, the Monty Hall problem even had mathematicians arguing with each other, so not getting it is not something to be ashamed about.... However, are you really trying to understand how things might not be the same, or do you just firmly believe they are?
I know that they are. Your post makes no sense at all.