What gave you the impression that i expect/want that?
Well, you clearly don't. You can look at my EL profile and see that it's not my priority either. But we're not (either of us) playing in isolation.
If profiting from your in game activities is truly a secondary goal or even "something you're not really thinking about" you are part of a small and under-appreciated minority.
But we are not here in isolation. The game has to make money from a vastly larger percentage of players that are literally here 100% focused on taking what peds they can.
A legit question for you, this is not a jab: How many people will keep coming when it's a hard fact that 99-100 out of 100 EU play sessions will end in a documentable TT loss?
Do you really think you're going to roll 10 times 1000 multipliers in a row when you're sitting at 5k loss with an average of 0,5 ped per craft? with <0,5 PED craft being the most crafted... The whole frigging point is to limit the maximum losses.
I think that any system you want to implement has to compensate equitably for players that consider being 150k ped in the negative as an acceptable situation.
More on this in a minute...
What do you think it feels like, when you look at your chart:
average click-size: 0,46 PED
missing for 95% return: 5000 PED?
there's just no frigging way to regain those losses on a 0,5 PED craft, so must craft bigger to have a shot at rescoping the missing peds, yet, if you start clicking bigger, then your missing for 95% return may just change from 5k ped to 50k ped....
Do you want to limit losses on a per-session basis, or on a per-blueprint basis? Are you going to limit them on a straight PED basis or on a percentage basis? Will you vary these parameters per blueprint type?
Or just overall per individual's overall crafting activity for those who try to "make it back" with a small sample size at a larger cost per click, as you describe?
In short, you may be totally fucked if you're going for MU stuff and that's the whole problem... which even causes that much TT-food on hunting/mining loot, this, better not touch the craft, even if it would be good profit at 95% return, because the risk outweights the potential profit...
This bad behavior would be chasing after MU stuff rather than sticking to TT-food stuff?
Specifically, the obvious and common bad behavior would be trying to "load" the system with large losses until it "owes" you a large multiplier.
Your system will have MA protecting Henry and SpaceJanitor and their descendants and how many K deep can you allow them to get before your protection kicks in?
This is already a too-common practice and occasionally leads to someone exploding all over the forum and game chats for a few days when they don't hit the multiplier and finally have to stop throwing PED into the pit.
Hunter, miners, crafters, no matter. It happens in all professions because "there's a HoF out there" that pushes people past "quit while your losses are acceptable".
You can't limit them to 10k ped in loss before they get payback or they are never going to hit that HoF or ATH they're rolling for.
A limit from 10k ped in losses isn't even going to matter to you. How many times would you hit that?
If it's going to be a percentage then it pretty much has to be a blueprint which, again, interferes with the activity you're describing about stepping it up by changing prints. Now any way you want to break it down we're adding individual loot tracking, including possible individual, per-blueprint loot tracking.
And maybe per individual blueprint literally to the copy because what if you switch from a 25QR print you're working up to a 100QR print mid-run to get back some losses.
So for all this to be working correctly and to stay protected at any level, there's a significant additional burden to the game systems, ranging from significant per click to somewhere in the realm of ridiculous with an actual log of every player's click on every single unique copy of every blueprint in the game ever.
It's so much work, with so many ramifications and repercussions that I'm not even interested in MA attempting such a thing. If you think this is hyperbole, really think it through to detail something that works for all these players, isn't easily gamed, and still provides the safety blanket you're looking for.
It's not hard to see why people would act negatively to this sort of thing even as a vague sort of idea. You did ask for some elaboration, so understand here that I'm not just trying to break you down for your idea or be negative.
It's not simple to do what you're suggesting, and the odds of it being well and equitably implemented here are less than the odds that a majority of players would find such a system boring and distasteful.
IMO. No one else seems interested enough to bother explaining.