Wss/hog geae

Eli said:

So basically you're saying you don't agree but you have no grounds to say it you just disagree. Not sure what the purpose is.

Click to expand...

No I said I disagree but keeping my results to myself, I cant prove shit here anyway can I??

krogfan said:

No I said I disagree but keeping my results to myself, I cant prove shit here anyway can I??

Click to expand...

Let's be fair.. if you claimed the water was blue, there would be 25 pages following that called you a science denier and full of people claiming that the water was orange, purple, and anything except blue.

livius said:

OR they just try to intimidate MA

Click to expand...

That would be precisely the most stupid gesture which ever happened in the history of PE/EU.

And somehow related, I see people talking about how high rollers pay the bills of MA and PPs via decay. Sorry, this is utter bullshit. MA and PPs have precisely and exclusively one way of living: deposit-withdrawals. Anything else is delusional. One has to be balls to ears deep into EU to believe that you can collect the decay via repair terminals and pay with that the electricity bills and salaries.

I still didn't finished to digest Piotr's "threat": let's see how MA will deal without his turnover of somethingsomething (300k iirc) Dude. Seriously?

There would be NOTHING better for MA than everyone higher than say lvl 50 quitting tomorrow. Every piece of item related to that lvl would implode like a soap balloon, all things required (ingredients etc) would be rebalanced to lower mobs in circa 48h and that's it. Scaling down would be the easiest thing ever, scaling up without proper increase of population is what it's actually difficult.

Kerham said:

That would be precisely the most stupid gesture which ever happened in the history of PE/EU.

And somehow related, I see people talking about how high rollers pay the bills of MA and PPs via decay. Sorry, this is utter bullshit. MA and PPs have precisely and exclusively one way of living: deposit-withdrawals. Anything else is delusional. One has to be balls to ears deep into EU to believe that you can collect the decay via repair terminals and pay with that the electricity bills and salaries.

I still didn't finished to digest Piotr's "threat": let's see how MA will deal without his turnover of somethingsomething (300k iirc) Dude. Seriously?

There would be NOTHING better for MA than everyone higher than say lvl 50 quitting tomorrow. Every piece of item related to that lvl would implode like a soap balloon, all things required (ingredients etc) would be rebalanced to lower mobs in circa 48h and that's it. Scaling down would be the easiest thing ever, scaling up without proper increase of population is what it's actually difficult.

Click to expand...

Well, sadly you would be wrong per the planet partner's prospectus. You would be right only if you assert that Mindark is committing fraud.

The following sentence is not how decay is calculated.

Kerham said:

And somehow related, I see people talking about how high rollers pay the bills of MA and PPs via decay. Sorry, this is utter bullshit.

Click to expand...

MA doesn't account for deposits as income until they are cycled and paid (e.g. lost in the form of decay). Prior to this they are listed as liabilities. The more players play, the more money MA make and therefor losing the highest rollers would be very detrimental for MA (in more ways than one)

Kerham said:

I still didn't finished to digest Piotr's "threat": let's see how MA will deal without his turnover of somethingsomething (300k iirc) Dude. Seriously?

Click to expand...

A 300k monthly cycle with approximately 16% of it being weapon related decay; 48000 ped. Most popular Casino games online has an RTP of between 93.5 and 98%, Now since we don´t know what cut MA takes out of the decay(At least I don´t), lets just assume, for arguments sake, it´s right in the middle. 95,75% (Seeing how decay is only a small portion of the cost to play however, the RTP on decay can be a lot lower than that but nvm)

That means that Piotrs 300k monthly cycle stopping would mean a 2040 PED reduction of income for MA, every month. This might not be the end of the world at all for MA but out of little acorns grow huge oaks.

Jhereg said:

Then provide the data and prove me wrong, or tell me what is wrong with my analysis, without simply saying I have not cycled enough PEDs.

Click to expand...

Data too small for me too but looks like this summed up crudely and i did 14 amps without trackning that ive summed up as breakeven.
Migration 2017
Dpp <3.6 110 000 cycled, 102,5% 2800 ped TT profit, with mu 17800.
Dpp >3.7 47000 cycle, 107% 3352 ped TT profit, with mu 6800
Reguarding out of the ordinary hofs i have only one at the full dps runs.
Looking at tracker iam running 15ped/global behind the avarage and vs the guys ive tested that have been running young too.

Now show me your 100k with buffs and your 100k without to put your data to the test, thats a start.min
Yet nothing can be concluded from this cos its waaaay to low cycle (15k mobs with the teamkills)
15k= too low sample, maybe gives a hint what to look into for next 100k mobs.
500 mobs. = void data, unuseable. Can basicly prove that you get better loot shooting in your underware then dressed.

I wonder where mr.Joda disappear since his last global is Kerberos Mature 26 PED Thu, 29 Jun 2017 07:40:14
like mounth ago . Yep - kerberos mature

Kerham said:

That would be precisely the most stupid gesture which ever happened in the history of PE/EU.

And somehow related, I see people talking about how high rollers pay the bills of MA and PPs via decay. Sorry, this is utter bullshit. MA and PPs have precisely and exclusively one way of living: deposit-withdrawals. Anything else is delusional. One has to be balls to ears deep into EU to believe that you can collect the decay via repair terminals and pay with that the electricity bills and salaries.

I still didn't finished to digest Piotr's "threat": let's see how MA will deal without his turnover of somethingsomething (300k iirc) Dude. Seriously?

There would be NOTHING better for MA than everyone higher than say lvl 50 quitting tomorrow. Every piece of item related to that lvl would implode like a soap balloon, all things required (ingredients etc) would be rebalanced to lower mobs in circa 48h and that's it. Scaling down would be the easiest thing ever, scaling up without proper increase of population is what it's actually difficult.

Click to expand...

I think you are wrong , you want to say that a high end roller that is making @ or more than 1 k ped decay per day , all this decay is going back into the loot pool ? And if nobody is depositing what will happen MA will go bankrupt?
We all know the history of the raging quit threads and after that boom MA gift with big hof. Now I feel a different thing , they just want to force MA to do a change to bring something of the loot 1.0 back , something that can bring them more success, or maybe I'm wrong.they are all addicted, but not stupid , they won't quit they will try to adapt or to change the system and so the addiction will continue.

krogfan said:

I respectfully agree to disagree, theorycrafting is a hobby of mine but Id bet alot of peds saying youre partially wrong.

Click to expand...

And I say you are wrong about S.A.M. being wrong. I have no time to prove this though, I am busy shooting snablesnots. My data is my own and you can't see it. But you are soo wrong. period. You know.

atomicstorm said:

Well, sadly you would be wrong per the planet partner's prospectus. You would be right only if you assert that Mindark is committing fraud.

The following sentence is not how decay is calculated.

Click to expand...

There is not one bit fraud there. Liquid ped can be withdrawn. Decay (more precisely, future decay, ped stuck in tt of items) cannot. That is all to it. I don't get why you're talking about fraud.

livius said:

I think you are wrong , you want to say that a high end roller that is making @ or more than 1 k ped decay per day , all this decay is going back into the loot pool ? And if nobody is depositing what will happen MA will go bankrupt?

Click to expand...

You do realize that the high end rollers we're talking about here, in terms of day to day operations, are non-depositors, right? And that the tt profits (if they do tt+) or the MU profits come from somewhere and that somewhere is not MA's own pockets, is the pockets of depositors. Someone hunting some highend mob which is maybe the only source of, say, L1100 (L) is helping the economy by putting L1100 (L) into circulation, but from a financial point of view, if his direct tt balance with the system is +, that player provides 0 for MA. Actually, provides a minus.

Lootpool, decay etc are just some terms. They are means for MindArk, as a company, to manage and assess the flow of cash.

But ultimately someone who deposited 10k$ and is withdrawing 15k$ is in the longterm a loss of 5k$ for MA. What that person brings on the table is that is himself a pressure plate for other depositors.

Same as was the case of sweaters when sweat was expensive. Or the role of UL SIB with huge TT. Or the role of nowadays UA. And I am glad that MA took these steps, from a brute force approach (forcing players to have peds stuck into high TTs) to a marketing approach (motivating players to do so via cheaper entertainment/unit of time).

Yes, if nobody deposits obviously MA would go bankrupt. In a science-fiction world where the only persons left playing are messi and the rest of (former) WSS while doing tt+, MA could not live off their decay. I hope this extreme unrealistical simplification helps fixing the notions better.

And to make things clear here: I am not attacking anyone. I am attacking the silliness of this "threat with sale & quit". Go, don't let the door hit you.

livius said:

IWe all know the history of the raging quit threads and after that boom MA gift with big hof.

Click to expand...

For each example which validates your point there would be 10 which don't. These are legends perpetuated from when there were 300 players and they were almost always in contact with devs, being betatesters. With the goods and bads of this perspective.

Ferial said:

MA doesn't account for deposits as income until they are cycled and paid (e.g. lost in the form of decay). Prior to this they are listed as liabilities

Click to expand...

it is 100% impossible what you're saying. "Income" is since the money enters the company accounts, it would be illegal otherwise.

For the rest of your post, as long as that person is making tt+, his decay is irrelevant. The quoted person, from the top off my had, was in profit @20k$ from an initial investment of 10k$ (I might be off with the numbers, but pretty much this was the proportion). If you believe that from +10k to -30k (when will withdraw) that case provided day to day income via decay, I dunno what to say about this math.

carle said:

Data too small for me too but looks like this summed up crudely and i did 14 amps without trackning that ive summed up as breakeven.
Migration 2017
Dpp <3.6 110 000 cycled, 102,5% 2800 ped TT profit, with mu 17800.
Dpp >3.7 47000 cycle, 107% 3352 ped TT profit, with mu 6800
Reguarding out of the ordinary hofs i have only one at the full dps runs.
Looking at tracker iam running 15ped/global behind the avarage and vs the guys ive tested that have been running young too.

Now show me your 100k with buffs and your 100k without to put your data to the test, thats a start.min
Yet nothing can be concluded from this cos its waaaay to low cycle (15k mobs with the teamkills)
15k= too low sample, maybe gives a hint what to look into for next 100k mobs.
500 mobs. = void data, unuseable. Can basicly prove that you get better loot shooting in your underware then dressed.

Click to expand...

My argument was never about tt return, but the relative effect of being buffed and not being buffed.

So as a scientist, I have several questions.

1) What was gear and buffs in either case? Dates the cycling was done?
2) Are you able to remove your top 5-10% loots and look at the data then on average? I totally agree with you that several 100k might need to be cycled (that's probably not even enough) if you include all globals/hofs, but I suspect if you remove the top 5-10% of outliers, you can get a good sense with much less cycled, as I did.

I've detailed in this reply to my post why 500 samples is enough if you remove outliers. I still believe my analysis is appropriate, but let me know exactly what you think is wrong with it. My analysis specifically speaks to this notion that somehow without cycling 100k's of peds you are not able to make any conclusions, which I believe is incorrect.

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...-in-Loot-2-0&p=3593811&viewfull=1#post3593811

3) Why do you think dpp still matters? MA has said that efficiency is the parameter that loot is now judged on, instead of DPP. So I would argue this means dpp does not have an effect on loot, only the efficiency parameter (+ some other minor factors). My data supports this theory, as my loots reflected an increase in dps due to buffs, while keeping efficiency parameter the same.
4) I know the avatar to avatar variance must be large, since Hulk's cycled about the same amount, with similar gear, but has a 95.5% return rate. (https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?298915-Cerb-Hulk-Beris-Hunting-log)

In the interest of sharing data:

I'm currently running Improved Ares, Athenic Augmented, and a combination of Arcspark with Improved VI and Adj Maddox + 2x Bullseye 8 and 1 x Longreach 4. Adj resto as main heal and mod 2350 as emergency fap.

Current return for July is 97.8% tt (38077/38926) on a large mix of mobs, since I'm not testing anymore at the moment.

Zho

Jhereg said:

3) Why do you think dpp still matters? MA has said that efficiency is the parameter that loot is now judged on, instead of DPP. So I would argue this means dpp does not have an effect on loot, only the efficiency parameter (+ some other minor factors). My data supports this theory, as my loots reflected an increase in dps due to buffs, while keeping efficiency parameter the same.

Click to expand...

"Damage/pec" and "Efficiency" are just two ways of representing the same thing. Worst case scenario they have huge codependency.

i.e. Celsius or Fahrenheit show different numbers, they still measure the same thing.

Angel O2 Mercer said:

"Damage/pec" and "Efficiency" are just two ways of representing the same thing. Worst case scenario they have huge codependency.

i.e. Celsius or Fahrenheit show different numbers, they still measure the same thing.

Click to expand...

I do not believe this is true. Here's my take

Let's say we have two guns with the same efficiency, but widely different costs.

E.g. two guns, both have 65% efficiency, both do 100 damage per use, but one costs 30 pecs, the other costs 15 pecs.

In Loot 2.0, my understanding is, the first gun will return 30 pecs (the cost) multiplied by a parameter for the 65% efficiency (maybe something like 100%-(x*(y%-65%)) as an example, where x is some scaling factor, y is break even point for efficiency parameter that is set by MA. The formula is just an example, there's a chance it isn't even linear.

In the second case, it would be 15 pecs multiplied by the same parameter to represent the 65% efficiency.

This allows MA to introduce powerful guns with huge DPP but will not affect the loot system, as they have stated in their original developer notes. This is why I keep trying to say, (correction) loot depends on cost spent, and not improved by better DPP.

Angel O2 Mercer said:

"Damage/pec" and "Efficiency" are just two ways of representing the same thing. Worst case scenario they have huge codependency.

Click to expand...

Just that efficiency is not influenced by buffs. In other words, dpp still matters, within a threshold. The difference between them is that dpp is a dynamic measure given by the state of facts, while efficiency is a set, @static parameter.

So with your words, while Celsius and Fahrenheit measure the same thing, 0 Celsius and 0 Fahrenheit have fundamental different meanings.

Jhereg said:

I do not believe this is true. Here's my take

Let's say we have two guns with the same efficiency, but widely different costs.

E.g. two guns, both have 65% efficiency, both do 100 damage per use, but one costs 30 pecs, the other costs 15 pecs.

In Loot 2.0, my understanding is, the first gun will return 30 pecs (the cost) multiplied by a parameter for the 65% efficiency (maybe something like 100%-(x*(y%-65%)) as an example, where x is some scaling factor, y is break even point for efficiency parameter that is set by MA. The formula is just an example, there's a chance it isn't even linear.

In the second case, it would be 15 pecs multiplied by the same parameter to represent the 65% efficiency.

This allows MA to introduce powerful guns with huge DPP but will not affect the loot system, as they have stated in their original developer notes. This is why I keep trying to say, (correction) loot depends on cost spent, and not improved by better DPP.

Click to expand...

Every weapon so far the efficiency rating directly correlates to dpp.

Didn't read all but seems you missunderstood how the game works quite abit. The eff. Comes from dpp. The two guns u comparing are not possible. Then the other gun use alot more ammo.And the dpp is same
Seems you think eff. are made up numbers for every gun. Also if DPP doesn't matter, are buffs are useless

Jhereg said:

I do not believe this is true. Here's my take

Let's say we have two guns with the same efficiency, but widely different costs.

E.g. two guns, both have 65% efficiency, both do 100 damage per use, but one costs 30 pecs, the other costs 15 pecs.

In Loot 2.0, my understanding is, the first gun will return 30 pecs (the cost) multiplied by a parameter for the 65% efficiency (maybe something like 100%-(x*(y%-65%)) as an example, where x is some scaling factor, y is break even point for efficiency parameter that is set by MA. The formula is just an example, there's a chance it isn't even linear.

In the second case, it would be 15 pecs multiplied by the same parameter to represent the 65% efficiency.

This allows MA to introduce powerful guns with huge DPP but will not affect the loot system, as they have stated in their original developer notes. This is why I keep trying to say, (correction) loot depends on cost spent, and not improved by better DPP.

Click to expand...

Xen said:

Every weapon so far the efficiency rating directly correlates to dpp.

Click to expand...

With a few exceptions like sights and scopes ?

krogfan said:

With a few exceptions like sights and scopes ?

Click to expand...

I don't know what's going on with those but they are attachments, not weapons per se.

Jhereg said:

I do not believe this is true. Here's my take

Let's say we have two guns with the same efficiency, but widely different costs.

E.g. two guns, both have 65% efficiency, both do 100 damage per use, but one costs 30 pecs, the other costs 15 pecs.

In Loot 2.0, my understanding is, the first gun will return 30 pecs (the cost) multiplied by a parameter for the 65% efficiency (maybe something like 100%-(x*(y%-65%)) as an example, where x is some scaling factor, y is break even point for efficiency parameter that is set by MA. The formula is just an example, there's a chance it isn't even linear.

In the second case, it would be 15 pecs multiplied by the same parameter to represent the 65% efficiency.

This allows MA to introduce powerful guns with huge DPP but will not affect the loot system, as they have stated in their original developer notes. This is why I keep trying to say, (correction) loot depends on cost spent, and not improved by better DPP.

Click to expand...

This is my take mostly as well. Although it would be beneficial to hunt with better dpp when loot is suspect and less if good.. because now you cant get more than you put in after all the crits etc... which is why dpp was superior all this time.

In either case, you gotta hit the multis...

Xen said:

Every weapon so far the efficiency rating directly correlates to dpp.

Click to expand...

Yes. They were ASSIGNED a value based on their dpp values from before. MA has stated this was in order to move away from a dpp model.

I suspect this correlation between dpp and efficiency to not not hold true for newer gear.

Based on MA's own notes, cost*efficiency_scaling matters now, not DPP.

Zho

Selosse said:

Didn't read all but seems you missunderstood how the game works quite abit. The eff. Comes from dpp. The two guns u comparing are not possible. Then the other gun use alot more ammo.
Seems you thing eff. are made up numbers for every gun. Also if DPP doesn't matter, are buffs are useless
And the dpp is same

Click to expand...

I think you are still operating in the pre-2.0 mindset, but things have changed and will change further.

This idea that weapons will generally have an eco of ~ 3.0hp/pec is out the window. DPP is no longer held to this standard, if the loot is based on cost.

Jhereg said:

Yes. They were ASSIGNED a value based on their dpp values from before. MA has stated this was in order to move away from a dpp model.

I suspect this correlation between dpp and efficiency to not not hold true for newer gear.

Based on MA's own notes, cost*efficiency_scaling matters now, not DPP.

Zho

Click to expand...

This is true although so far even the new ArMatrix guns follow the direct dpp/eff correlation. But yes it is possible they could make a low dpp weapon with a high eff.

Next study that needs to be done is to track function loot return vs. weapon efficiency. This one is a bit tougher.

E.g. find two weapons with same damage range and reload, one has 50% eff, one has 62%. Compare loots. I just don't have the energy to do this at the moment, but I can help someone set up the experiment and with data analysis.

We're mixing the dpp/efficiency discussions with the compensation discussion and its getting all muddy.

DPP/efficiency accounts for up to a 7% adjustment in your return. 7% of what, who knows. It's now more like a qualifying condition for determining return % as opposed to an exact cost savings. It also allows you to hunt for longer, however it does not guarantee a positive return as it used to. AFAICT, loot now is on a range between a maximum for size of mob and a minimum based on how close to peak efficiency you are at. This takes into account how efficient your weapon is and what buffs you use.

This is a departure from what we are used to but lets face it... it makes perfect sense. It just seems like after this many years I wonder why they didn't implement it sooner. As a result, a lot of gear inflated hugely in the old system and the longer 1.0 was around the more it inflated.

Things don't print money anymore. EU is no longer job-worthy.

EDIT : the only way to determine my "AFAICT" statement, the test Zho mentions above will need to be done. Which likely someone has already done and wont' share info.

Jhereg said:

Next study that needs to be done is to track function loot return vs. weapon efficiency. This one is a bit tougher.

E.g. find two weapons with same damage range and reload, one has 50% eff, one has 62%. Compare loots. I just don't have the energy to do this at the moment, but I can help someone set up the experiment and with data analysis.

Click to expand...

Run a test with a unl sib Piron weapon, low level to max and bad dpp/eff rating.

Spoiler: you'll get a ton of shrapnel, but probably a decent tt return.

Jhereg said:

So as a scientist, I have several questions.

1) What was gear and buffs in either case? Dates the cycling was done?
2) Are you able to remove your top 5-10% loots and look at the data then on average? I totally agree with you that several 100k might need to be cycled (that's probably not even enough) if you include all globals/hofs, but I suspect if you remove the top 5-10% of outliers, you can get a good sense with much less cycled, as I did.

I've detailed in this reply to my post why 500 samples is enough if you remove outliers. I still believe my analysis is appropriate, but let me know exactly what you think is wrong with it. My analysis specifically speaks to this notion that somehow without cycling 100k's of peds you are not able to make any conclusions, which I believe is incorrect.

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...-in-Loot-2-0&p=3593811&viewfull=1#post3593811

3) Why do you think dpp still matters? MA has said that efficiency is the parameter that loot is now judged on, instead of DPP. So I would argue this means dpp does not have an effect on loot, only the efficiency parameter (+ some other minor factors). My data supports this theory, as my loots reflected an increase in dps due to buffs, while keeping efficiency parameter the same.
4) I know the avatar to avatar variance must be large, since Hulk's cycled about the same amount, with similar gear, but has a 95.5% return rate. (https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?298915-Cerb-Hulk-Beris-Hunting-log)
Zho

Click to expand...

1 : 1 st cycle imk2 + hyper +T9 dmg enh, mk2 scope, mk1+2 laser, mmowc ring + easter 2016
2nd cycle imk2 + hyper +t5-9 acc enh, mk2 scope, mk2 laser x2 same rings.
2: as far as iam concerened on eomon the outliner loots are removed (if a certain size happens 15+ times per week it should be considered avarage loot)
Even if you remove outliners, please tell me what happens to your stats if you run another 100 mobs and 35% of them are near min loot and you set a new all time low?
3: effinecy translates directly into dpp. Its just a branding from MA cos they dont want players going into 3rd party sites to find out if their gun is ok to use or not.
If dpp wouldnt matter why make the effort of adding the info ingame, if there was a True change were it didnt matter MA wouldnt tell people to not use those 2.7 dpp ark guns.
Second part of this, i have not in 1.0 nor in 2.0 belive that you can effect you loot in any way.
All there is : x ammount of set multis on x ammount of mobs, the less you spend to kill 10 000 mobs the more loot you will have.
This is were tracker comes in, mob to globals seem to be a set ammount and you can see during events were People Who spend about the same gear near same ammount of globals and total loot.
In 2.0 ive noticed a change to this tho, mekanics are the same tho and this theory i keep to my self for now.
4. Hulks results iam supriced too see since ive been seing more stable results the lower HP i go, but his stats arent showing how much he lost at alpha eomon

carle said:

1 : 1 st cycle imk2 + hyper +T9 dmg enh, mk2 scope, mk1+2 laser, mmowc ring + easter 2016
2nd cycle imk2 + hyper +t5-9 acc enh, mk2 scope, mk2 laser x2 same rings.
2: as far as iam concerened on eomon the outliner loots are removed (if a certain size happens 15+ times per week it should be considered avarage loot)
Even if you remove outliners, please tell me what happens to your stats if you run another 100 mobs and 35% of them are near min loot and you set a new all time low?
3: effinecy translates directly into dpp. Its just a branding from MA cos they dont want players going into 3rd party sites to find out if their gun is ok to use or not.
If dpp wouldnt matter why make the effort of adding the info ingame, if there was a True change were it didnt matter MA wouldnt tell people to not use those 2.7 dpp ark guns.
Second part of this, i have not in 1.0 nor in 2.0 belive that you can effect you loot in any way.
All there is : x ammount of set multis on x ammount of mobs, the less you spend to kill 10 000 mobs the more loot you will have.
This is were tracker comes in, mob to globals seem to be a set ammount and you can see during events were People Who spend about the same gear near same ammount of globals and total loot.
In 2.0 ive noticed a change to this tho, mekanics are the same tho and this theory i keep to my self for now.
4. Hulks results iam supriced too see since ive been seing more stable results the lower HP i go, but his stats arent showing how much he lost at alpha eomon

Click to expand...

Efficiency is DPP, that's not argued. MA has now capped it's effect on average loot and it is not a direct pec savings now but rather a percentage (potential).

Adding 100 or 1000 data rows for either side of the comparison will still align with the 10% difference based on cost spent to kill. If your cost is lower, your return will be as well. There is no longer a exact dpp to pec return concept.

some avatars seem to be capped for whatever reason, that's what pisses me off the most - of course it is biased and after the loot 2 the cap seems to have doubled

carle said:

4. Hulks results iam supriced too see since ive been seing more stable results the lower HP i go, but his stats arent showing how much he lost at alpha eomon

Click to expand...

girtsn said:

some avatars seem to be capped for whatever reason, that's what pisses me off the most - of course it is biased and after the loot 2 the cap seems to have doubled

Click to expand...

Nothing personal. I don't think MA really cares that much about one person specifically. (Except for some rumors that we won't discuss here LOL).

carle said:

3: effinecy translates directly into dpp. Its just a branding from MA cos they dont want players going into 3rd party sites to find out if their gun is ok to use or not.
If dpp wouldnt matter why make the effort of adding the info ingame, if there was a True change were it didnt matter MA wouldnt tell people to not use those 2.7 dpp ark guns.

Click to expand...

They made this change exactly because the loot system is no longer dpp-centered now. It is cost-based. MA has said this. Those 2.7 dpp ark guns have low efficiency. That's why they aren't eco now. Not because they are low dpp, that's now an old artifact.

They put the info in game exactly because otherwise the value would be invisible and hard to determine, unlike with DPP.