Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

current losses and upcoming crafting/mining changes

A

Alukat123

Stalker
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Posts
1,851
Avatar Name
Son Alukat Goku
Manufacturing
Overall volatility will be reduced during the testing period, while the overall chance of success will be increased slightly. In addition, Near Success outcomes will return more of the initial input.

Mining
Overall volatility will be reduced during the testing period, by increasing the size of the smallest possible claims.

***NOTE*** Please keep in mind that these tests will incorporate macro-level changes to the manufacturing and mining systems and thus the results or experiences for individual avatars and/or for small sample sizes may not differ significantly from current settings. Also note that the overall (macro-level) expected return for these systems will be unaffected.
Click to expand...

So i suspect you're going to change the chance for multipliers , this leaves the question if we can still regain the peds, we currently are behind the expected return, or will those losses be permament?
 
Alukat123 said:
So i suspect you're going to change the chance for multipliers , this leaves the question if we can still regain the peds, we currently are behind the expected return, or will those losses be permament?
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that you see the average return stated by MA and think thats what you will get.
That is not the case, average does not mean everyone gets the same. One person can get 50% tt return and another get 140% tt return....what is the average between them?
 
thee pepe said:
you just answered your own question.
Click to expand...

No, i didn't.
I've asked about the peds missing to get to the expected return, not about getting very close to the expected return percentage ;)
 
Last edited:
Alukat123 said:
In the long run, yes, see law of large numbers.
Click to expand...

Law of large numbers is still not saying that you will 100% get that outcome...it says that you should get close to that outcome over a large number of events. Not that it is guaranteed.

Another thing to note:
It is important to remember that the LLN only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered.

So maybe in the very long run you will come to that average MA give.....whether you hang around long enough to get that is another story.

Also we don't know what your spending habits are...maybe you go on a spending spree when you global? do you track all your activites and spending down to the last pec? Do you account for everything used in your returns? before loot 2.0 were you being un-eco in your setups?

Perhaps what you think you should get back is not actually what you should be entitled to?
Perhaps you should be entitled to more? Perhaps you should be entitled to less?
Maybe you should take a break and come back for a welcome back HOF?
 
0 x 0 = 0
0 x 1000 = 0

:)
 
From Delevoper Notes #11:
Later this month, MindArk will be releasing a special Loot 2.0 Version Update that will overhaul the way in which hunting loot is calculated and distributed. Many of the features and systems added over the past few years have gradually led to this update, which will significantly improve overall loot returns for the vast majority (upwards of 98%) of participants.
Click to expand...

The problem now is, that i'm at 90,4% TT-return, which is very far away from those 98+%.
In order to now get to 98% i need a 4892,20 PED HoF.

The multipliers are balanced around the non-multiplied TT-return.
In the next iteration they increase the non-multiplied TT-return, which means they're going to nerf the multiplier chances/sizes in order keep the expected return stable.
This means the multiplier that currently (most likely) exists and which i do currently need may no longer exist or be even more rare after the next adjustment.

This raises the question, if i can still somehow get that 4892,20 PED HoF i'm currently missing once the next adjustment goes live or if it just goes to the expected return (like a reset) and those 4892,20 PED will be lost forever.
 
Last edited:
Alukat123 said:
This raises the question, if i can still somehow get that 4892,20 PED HoF i'm currently missing once the next adjustment goes live or if it just goes to the expected return (like a reset) and those 4892,20 PED will be lost forever.
Click to expand...

Yes you are guaranteed to get it, just make sure you keep spending those peds, otherwise it will never happen.
 
Darth Revan said:
Yes you are guaranteed to get it, just make sure you keep spending those peds, otherwise it will never happen.
Click to expand...

LOL, i don't see that guarantee when they nerf the multiplier chances/sizes, unless there's some personal lootpool.
 
Alukat123 said:
From Delevoper Notes #11:


The problem now is, that i'm at 90,4% TT-return, which is very far away from those 98+%.
In order to now get to 98% i need a 4892,20 PED HoF.

The multipliers are balanced around the non-multiplied TT-return.
In the next iteration they increase the non-multiplied TT-return, which means they're going to nerf the multiplier chances/sizes in order keep the expected return stable.
This means the multiplier that currently (most likely) exists and which i do currently need may no longer exist or be even more rare after the next adjustment.

This raises the question, if i can still somehow get that 4892,20 PED HoF i'm currently missing once the next adjustment goes live or if it just goes to the expected return (like a reset) and those 4892,20 PED will be lost forever.
Click to expand...

The 98% in the notes refers to the number of participants not the tt loot return.
 
krazykat said:
The 98% in the notes refers to the number of participants not the tt loot return.
Click to expand...

right, little misread there on my end last night :laugh:
Anyway, question still remains if we can still get the ped amount that is currently missing for the expected return ^^
 
Alukat123 said:
right, little misread there on my end last night :laugh:
Anyway, question still remains if we can still get the ped amount that is currently missing for the expected return ^^
Click to expand...


You keep talking about your overall tt return. But you are not making just one item.

You cannot compare as it is not like for like.

Just like going out and dropping 10 bombs without amp and then dropping 10 bombs with lv13 amp. You cannot then say what your overall tt return is, as it makes no sense. You could say what your tt return on no amping was, and waht it was with lv 13 amp. But not together.


Rgds

Ace
 
Mindark isn't exactly known for retroactive changes. So the answer is probably no since it's part of being a "dynamic" economy. Lol
 
The problem is when they reduce volatility for testing mostly everyone gets better returns. Instead of a ton of 90%s and just a few 120% most get around the 95-102% which is good, then when they reintroduce the volatility it goes right back to the crummy everyone gets 90% and a very few lucky ones gets 120% to pad the numbers back up to the standard 96% margin they want.

It would be different if they stated that they expect most returns to be around 90% and there will be a few (very few) players that will see huge globals that will make them hit 150% or more to drag the standard to 96% or so, but by the way they word it that average players should see a 96% return they pretty much build everyone's hopes up only to crush them with the results.
 
How I read it the TT return the long run will not be affected. So to recover actual losses by TT value, no that wont happen.
Increasing the CoS, to get out more products than you actual do, so you might have a chance to recover losses in the future with the MU of the crafted product.
I looking forward to this adjustment, actually the number of real success on a 90 UL or 95 L BP is way to low.
If there is more real success even at just TT in materials = TT out product, would help very much.
I would also accept a drastically lower near success TT value if I get a lot more real success at 1:1 input=output.
That way you could really provide a crafting service and break even after MU of the product.

No big multiplyers needed if there is enough real success that generates MU instead only getting residue at 100.5% from the many near success we actually have.
 
Ace Flyster said:
You keep talking about your overall tt return. But you are not making just one item.

You cannot compare as it is not like for like.

Just like going out and dropping 10 bombs without amp and then dropping 10 bombs with lv13 amp. You cannot then say what your overall tt return is, as it makes no sense. You could say what your tt return on no amping was, and waht it was with lv 13 amp. But not together.


Rgds

Ace
Click to expand...

Not quite, let's look at the logic.

example:
Statement is 95% TT-return on crafting.
Craft A may be the small craft, craft B the big one.

1) If craft A has 110% and craft B 80% , but both combined have 93% return, then the expected return is met nowhere. Which means the 95% return statement doesn't hold true.

2) If craft A has 120% and craft B 80% , but both combined have 95% return, then the expected return is met on overall return but not at individual crafts. The 95% return statement does hold true on the overall return.

3) If craft A has 95% and craft B 80% , both combined have 86% return, then the expected return is only fullfilled on craft A but neither on craft b nor on overall. The 95% return statement does hold true for craft A but not on craft B, this creates a conflicting result.

4) If craft A has 95% and craft B has 95% , both combined have 95% return, then the expected return is met on both, the individual level as well as the overall level. The 95% return statement on crafting holds true.

Since in scenario 1) the 95% return doesn't hold true and in scenario 3) there's a conflict in returns it's highly unlikely that MA coded the game in a away that it produces these results in the very long run.
Which means they most likely coded it in a way produce either 2) or 4) in order for the 95% return statement to become true.
Note: 1) & 3) may turn into either 2) or 4) after some further crafting, since 2) & 4) both produce 95% overall return, you can expect something "big" to happen to get you to 95% overall return.

Maybe you do now understand why i'm going with overall return ;)

Btw, personally i hope for personal (for scenario 2) or craft internal personal loot-pool (for scenario 4), then i'm going to see all those lost peds again :D
 
Last edited:
GoNi said:
I looking forward to this adjustment, actually the number of real success on a 90 UL or 95 L BP is way to low.
Click to expand...

i'm looking forward to it too, however

GoNi said:
How I read it the TT return the long run will not be affected. So to recover actual losses by TT value, no that wont happen.
Click to expand...

yeah, that may be happen, but all the profits of the past 3-4 years of work would have been lost within those 2-3 months of bad crafting/mining return, which would just be very demotivating D:

GoNi said:
I would also accept a drastically lower near success TT value if I get a lot more real success at 1:1 input=output.
That way you could really provide a crafting service and break even after MU of the product.
Click to expand...

currently the lowest near success TT value is 10% of the costs.... i wouldn't like that happening more often, it already pisses me off that it currently happens very often, which creates those bad returns btw.

The could even go with 95% real success rate, 5% fail-rate and no multipliers at all, that would produce 95% tt-return as well, yet it would drastically decrease the demand of hunting/mining materials, so i'm kinda opposed to it... curse me for being social here and being opposed due to hunters/miners interest :laugh:
 
Last edited:
Alukat123 said:
right, little misread there on my end last night :laugh:
Anyway, question still remains if we can still get the ped amount that is currently missing for the expected return ^^
Click to expand...

dont worry. you werent able to get back ur losses before and you certainly wont be able after. so no change at all
 
My 2 pec: Just experienced indeed some changes, now able to hit XII and XIV claims when doing level 8 amp mining. Was not possible before ! Have received some bigger claims now when doing amped mining.
 
Simon Great said:
My 2 pec: Just experienced indeed some changes, now able to hit XII and XIV claims when doing level 8 amp mining. Was not possible before ! Have received some bigger claims now when doing amped mining.
Click to expand...

that means getting a 16 ped per drop finder, a lvl 13 amp and some indoor fun for the biggest ath ever possible!
would be nice if there were search radius decrease "enhancer"
 
Simon Great said:
My 2 pec: Just experienced indeed some changes, now able to hit XII and XIV claims when doing level 8 amp mining. Was not possible before ! Have received some bigger claims now when doing amped mining.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's now possible to find claims in what used to be 'the second gap', I hit a VIII enmatter today unamped. Doesn't seem to happen often though, and no X ore unamped yet.

Still haven't seen anything within 'the first gap' (VII ore or V enmatter unamped).

edit: reworded
 
Haruto Rat said:
Yes, it's now possible to find claims in what used to be 'the second gap', I hit a VIII enmatter today unamped. Doesn't seem to happen often though, and no X ore unamped yet.

Still haven't seen anything within 'the first gap' (VII ore or V enmatter unamped).

edit: reworded
Click to expand...

Yeah indeed, only have experience with the second gap as i always do amped mining. Which makes me believe you can now find 2,5- 4k ped claims with level 8 (third gap). Which was also not possible before.
 
The multipliers are higher, but the hitrate is still terrible. I have to cycle through more areas till I find one that has a acceptable hitrate.
 
R4tt3xx said:
The multipliers are higher, but the hitrate is still terrible. I have to cycle through more areas till I find one that has a acceptable hitrate.
Click to expand...

Yup definetely noticed higher multipliers too. I guess we should expect the hitrate to be lower though. After all, hitting 5 ped claims once is the same as hitting 1 ped claims 5 times :yay::yay::yay:
 
ledja said:
Yup definetely noticed higher multipliers too. I guess we should expect the hitrate to be lower though. After all, hitting 5 ped claims once is the same as hitting 1 ped claims 5 times :yay::yay::yay:
Click to expand...

It's not the same, for the 5 PED claim you do need a bankroll of 5 PED to get the claim while with 5 times 1 PED claim you can do ok with an bankroll of 1 PED to get those 5 claims ;)
 
at first thats an interesting read.

Second i think that MAs statesments are not made for individual players, but for the whole community. So if we would put all players data in one pot numbers would fit their statements perfectly. Its like, you got to beat the system first and the other players second. They come with different setups, different habbits and thereby with different performances. One wrong moment toilet break might mess up the whole thing for you and you might think MA lies about the returns. Simply what you missed to understand the whole thing is the hof of another guy who was present while you were afk. The more minis, that are not shown to anyone but the looter makes it even more difficult to get the whole picture right.

Third the whole system is devided into many different levels, into different professions, into different spawns/spots/bps/qrs/weapons efficiencies, so its not a linear logic structure anymore its becomming a VUCA problem for us players. VUCA means Volatile (highly dynamic), Uncertain (hard to grasp), Complex (different layers read levels/mob spawns, professions/spots/bps/qrs and so on and so on) and Ambiguent (messing up logics entirely)

overall this gives "deterministic" a whole new meaning on the recipient side of the game that is next to impossible to riddle out by one individual. I would be very careful with personal statistics in EU! Its simply impossible to plan returns in EU

My 2 pecs
 
Last edited:
Parlog said:
at first thats an interesting read.

Second i think that MAs statesments are not made for individual players, but for the whole community.
Click to expand...

a single player doing 100k clicks should net the same returns as 10 players doing 10k clicks each.
a single player doing 1 million clicks should net the same returns as 100 players doing 10k clicks each.
and so on.
So based on the law of large numbers, a single player should experience nearly the same result as the whole community, simply because at some point in time the single player click amount will be equal to the amount of clicks of the entire community in a specific point in time in the past.

Unless there's something overall lootpool and some people manage to constantly tab into it leaving nothing for the remaining players.
In loot 1.0 and loot 2.0 (prior to december VU) i've found no evidence for this theory.
The observation and experiments i've made prior to december VU are more into favour of personal loot-pool or plain RNG or mixture of both. While the mixture of both is the most likely one, because it assures some randomness while still preventing people with very good RNG prediction skills to constantly get >100% tt-return and it also prevents people from getting very low TT-return and leaving the game frustrated.

So as it goes for post december VU my educated guess still goes with a mixture of both RNG as well as personal loot-pool.

As it goes for volatility, so far i suspect, that they've replaced the times 200, times 500 and times 1000 multiplier by a times 3000 multiplier in december VU, which increased the volatility, still got to confirm or disproof this yet, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top