Question: MA's numbers vs 1M cycle summary

allarom

Old Alpha
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Posts
835
Location
Estonia
Avatar Name
Allar allarom Mark
efficiency: 55%
looter level: 47 (current)
cycled: slightly over 1M
NET tt return: 94.44% (this is with all used/received MU excluded)

I've used total of 19.3k of MU and received 51.5k of MU. So i am facing at 97.58% of an overall return

MA's statement:
Hunters with turnover of more than 50000 PED since Sept. 11 have enjoyed returns of 98.6% on average.
Hunters with turnover between 10000 and 50000 PED since Sept. 11 have enjoyed returns of 97.05% on average.
Accounts created in 2017 have enjoyed returns of 96.94% on average since the changes implemented on Sept. 11.

Nothing adds up here tbh :D (actually it adds, explanations somwhere in thread)

  1. How come these stated averages are different? Let's say test subjects with more than 50k all together cycles 1M and test subjects with less than 50k all together cycles 1M. Sholdn't the average be the same?
  2. Why my NET return is lower than a newbie's who has 0 looter level and most likely the same efficiency?
  3. Is MU included into return algorithms? My overall return fits perfectly to their statement
 
Last edited:
1. No, averages will always differ, that's how statistics work. (Unless you are doing infinite runs of the statistics)
2. Because the loot is somewhat random, Trust me, there are hundreds of players with lower NET return than you.
3. MU cannot be included in their algorithm as the MU is based of what players pay themselves and isn't created by the game engine itself.

There are some factors that you have missed in your calculations of efficiency aswell, to make a true reading of your costs/returns.

1. What armor are you using,does it have MU and how efficient the decay vs protection on it?
2. What healing tool are you using and how efficient is it?
3. Did you use any pills (Which adds to the MU cost) or was only clean runs with rings only.
4. How efficiently were you killing the mobs, did you have to spend time healing a lot with an in-efficient healing tool?

These are just a few extra factors that you would need to consider while doing calculations like these.
 
I think you are missing understanding the word 'averages.'

Rgds

Ace
 
1. No, averages will always differ, that's how statistics work. (Unless you are doing infinite runs of the statistics)

How, please explain? take 100 folks, all shoot 50k, it makes 5M total cycle. Now take 200 folks, all shoot 25k, it makes 5M total cycle. Explain to me, how and why AVERAGE should be different?

There are some factors that you have missed in your calculations of efficiency aswell, to make a true reading of your costs/returns.

1. What armor are you using,does it have MU and how efficient the decay vs protection on it?
2. What healing tool are you using and how efficient is it?
3. Did you use any pills (Which adds to the MU cost) or was only clean runs with rings only.
4. How efficiently were you killing the mobs, did you have to spend time healing a lot with an in-efficient healing tool?

These are just a few extra factors that you would need to consider while doing calculations like these.

Missed? Nothing is missed, everything is added to cycle. I've used some UL armors/faps AND some L armors/faps (which MU is excluded from NET return). Pills is not cycle, their MU is not included to NET return

NB! my return % is perfectly synced between loss and deposits during 1M cycle period
 
How, please explain? take 100 folks, all shoot 50k, it makes 5M total cycle. Now take 200 folks, all shoot 25k, it makes 5M total cycle. Explain to me, how and why AVERAGE should be different?

Well 100 folks all shoot 50k = 5mio cycled, so far all nice.

MA says average is 98.6% return = 4.93mio total.

Speak average / hunter is 49300 PEDs in loot.

But now:
2 of this hunters made 100k profit = 300k of the loot
4 of this hunters 50k profit = 400k of the loot
14 of hunters made 20k profit = 980k of the loot
30 hunters made around 2k profit = 1.56mio of the loot

Altogether 3.24mio for this 50 hunters.
The 50 others lost!

How much did the 50 others lose?
Well they got the remaining 1.69mio, speak 33800 PED on average, which is a loss of 16200 PED on their 50k cycled = a damn evil return rate of 67.6% on average for those who lost.

This is one extreme scenario, but its also a statistical possible one.

On the losers side there could also be extrem lows and close to 100% returns, speak even a 50%- return rate for a single hunter wouldn´t change the fact of the overall average return of 98.6% for all together.

Well the loot is much flatter than it is in this sample, so there will be less winners and not that much really low returns below 70%, but its definately possible for single hunter to have less than 70% return rate (befor MU) and the numbers given by MA may still be right. The gaps between winners and losers aren´t that big, but to explain it is better to take some extrem numbers.

Its damn simple math.

Beside that I dont like that they just give an average. We should also have info about median and mode, what would help much more to see where you stand in the big picture. Beside that they could also give info about MIN and MAX.

I doubt they will give us that much statistical details.
 
Well 100 folks all shoot 50k = 5mio cycled, so far all nice.

MA says average is 98.6% return = 4.93mio total.

Speak average / hunter is 49300 PEDs in loot.

But now:
2 of this hunters made 100k profit = 300k of the loot
4 of this hunters 50k profit = 400k of the loot
14 of hunters made 20k profit = 980k of the loot
30 hunters made around 2k profit = 1.56mio of the loot

Altogether 3.24mio for this 50 hunters.
The 50 others lost!

How much did the 50 others lose?
Well they got the remaining 1.69mio, speak 33800 PED on average, which is a loss of 16200 PED on their 50k cycled = a damn evil return rate of 67.6% on average for those who lost.

We don't even have to take somebody's loss / profit into account. Let's say, the cycle number of all hunter combined is infinity. compared to <50k cyclers vs >50k cyclers, averages just can't be different. For me, these MA's numbers are taken from thin air and forces people to cycle more :D
 
It is easy to put it down to efficiency and looter levels, but then I have had ~95% tt return for multiple months with much higher levels and have increased the efficiency without seeing positive effects, so have kind of the same questions not for the first time in my looting career.
The only answer you would get is that it is dynamic and that your statistics are wrong, I am afraid. Ah and yes you will also get this question a lot - are you complaining about 94% tt return? As for others (ones who suspiciously never track their runs) the return is 80% on good weeks.

efficiency: 55%
looter level: 47 (current)

  1. How come these stated averages are different? Let's say test subjects with more than 50k all together cycles 1M and test subjects with less than 50k all together cycles 1M. Sholdn't the average be the same?
  2. Why my NET return is lower than a newbie's who has 0 looter level and most likely the same efficiency?
  3. Is MU included into return algorithms? My overall return fits perfectly to their statement
 
2. Because the loot is somewhat random, Trust me, there are hundreds of players with lower NET return than you.
It is not about low/high return, it is statistics for comparsion. You should do some also when you will reach 1M cycle within next 5 years
3. MU cannot be included in their algorithm as the MU is based of what players pay themselves and isn't created by the game engine itself.
"cannot"? go check FEN vendor's FEN (L) items. All prices all well calculated based on possible MU value
 
I actually cycled ~155k in aproximately 2 months time last summer and my returns were 97.38% TT returns, It was done with pretty much the same setup for the entire duration. (Around 60% eff. weapon, good eff. armor etc).
It is just random with statistics honestly, there is no way to compare it to anything because it needs numbers that are extremely high before they even out.

Here is a link to my excel doc where I tracked my returns for about 2-3 months time. (If you are interested)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_38FvO5fTL5WRLP1N71RR6BNZHO_rK1EjRrAqHhl4Zg/edit#gid=0

It is not about low/high return, it is statistics for comparsion. You should do some also when you will reach 1M cycle within next 5 years

"cannot"? go check FEN vendor's FEN (L) items. All prices all well calculated based on possible MU value
 
MA has stated that efficiency has a 7% effect on TT return. If you had been using an item with 80% eff, you would have had 1.75% better TT returns. Using an IMK2, you would be in MU profit.
 
MA has stated that efficiency has a 7% effect on TT return. If you had been using an item with 80% eff, you would have had 1.75% better TT returns. Using an IMK2, you would be in MU profit.

That's what i want to believe, i am pleased with my return tbh. But let's say i will gain 14 extra looter levels for +1% tt return. I will buy 90% efficiency gun setup that adds up another +2.5% tt return. My total should be ~98% tt return.

Now the numbers starting to add up compared to their statement (97.05%-98.6%). Did their test subjects had 60+ looter level (at the very start of looter profession introduced) and 90% efficiency guns? :confused: - most likely not. Then again, we should have room for tt profit? :eyecrazy: - doesn't makes sense either :D
 
efficiency: 55%
looter level: 47 (current)
cycled: slightly over 1M
NET tt return: 94.44% (this is with all used/received MU excluded)

Thanks for sharing, interesting numbers.
In theory, if you would have had for example 80% efficiency and ~65 looter, you would have ~97%.
I have that efficiency and and that looter and past 1.4mil I'm almost there.


1 million peds is a respectable batch but there will still be 1.5-2% variance from this 94.44% but you are there, where you should be, IMO.

Efficiency is worth improving, I would not dare to hunt so much with so low efficiency. 1% over 1mil peds is 10k peds so you lost that on effi alone.
 
They calculate the returns including markup. tested severall times
 
Thanks for sharing, interesting numbers.
In theory, if you would have had for example 80% efficiency and ~65 looter, you would have ~97%.
I have that efficiency and and that looter and past 1.4mil I'm almost there.
Exactly as i stated in my previous post. And thanks for the info, it proves that my calculations are correct and worth to set some goals for the future

Also, more i read statistics about returns, more i am sure that this does not hold any water without MU included:
Hunters with turnover of more than 50000 PED since Sept. 11 have enjoyed returns of 98.6% on average.
Hunters with turnover between 10000 and 50000 PED since Sept. 11 have enjoyed returns of 97.05% on average.
Accounts created in 2017 have enjoyed returns of 96.94% on average since the changes implemented on Sept. 11.
 
Last edited:
efficiency: 55%
looter level: 47 (current)

I don't know what are you smoking but you have a lot of guts to shoot 1 mil peds with that :)
I wouldn't unless I could obtain something at the end of it.
GL
 
I don't know what are you smoking but you have a lot of guts to shoot 1 mil peds with that :)
I wouldn't unless I could obtain something at the end of it.
GL

If you don't buy all the good guns from mayhem trader, i might obtain something at the end of it :D
 
Note that those numbers are for that specific time period alone, and does not guarantee you can expect those TT returns at all times/forever.

More likely, as has been mentioned in the past, there's a 'slide bar' somewhere that MA can tune the returns up or down for ALL players at once to tune what % they make versus still having players hunt as much as possible.

So comparing your current returns to those numbers doesn't say anything.

As others have mentioned, 55% eff is quite low. You should expect about 95% return average with those numbers based on my qualitative experience.

edit: when i ran at 63% i ended up at around 96% eff, so yours might be about a percent below that...
 
Last edited:
They calculate the returns including markup. tested severall times

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...t-2-0-Update&p=3606998&viewfull=1#post3606998

As mentioned earlier it includes all decay of weapons, ammo, armor etc associated with killing the creature. Repairing simply moves PED from one place to another much like buying/selling things from the TT, neither has an effect on loot or MindArk revenues.
The loot system never accounts for markup. Not on markup spent on things like enhancers or limited weapons, nor on markup gained from loot such as oils, items and ESI etc, markup values are just transactions between players. It is always TT in vs TT out. These statistics also do not include any loot that was paid as tax on land areas, so the returns are actually slightly higher than stated here.
 
Ok, this is clear now. Their test subjects just had hell of a good period
 
Love the naivety(or is it ???) of the calculations item stats to tt return.

Reminds me of coming back, buying imk2 and wondering why the dpp % increase over time did not seem reflected in tt return.
Then getting around the same tt return with way lower dpp improved strikehammer.
Then getting way better tt return with modmerc, even better with introduction of mk2 attachments
Then 95% tt return for ~18 months whatever that was
Then no improvement with loot 2.0.
Then a change for the better with buying unique blade.
Then again 95% tt return for 6 months whatever that was

Dynamic... But ~95% seems to be the non-chosen state.
 
Ok i'm not a hunter (except when it comes to getting mats i need that are too expensive), so perhaps i don't understand something here (most likely). But if looter level affects your TT return by 0.07% per level (as found in another thread that had tested it), and efficency is supposed to affect your tt return by up to 7% (found on the link that girtsn posted above) ....then assuming that you had maxed on both you would receive 100% TT return (unlikely).

Wouldn't you be expecting to sit somewhere around 93% return with 55 efficiency and 47 looter?
If you had maxed looter then you would sit somewhere around the 96%-97% return with 55 efficiency.

Also, reading the notes in that link that girtsn posted, it mentions that turnover is not the way to look at your return average, yes they used it as a chosen metric for the study group, but they also explain why:

The amount of turnover isn't very relevant to the average return or volatility in return for any individual player. To reach a stable average return it's really the amount of loot instances or creatures killed that matters. As an example, if a player kills 2 Sand Kings spending about 5000 PED to do so the expected loot returned on those 2 kills can vary greatly. If instead killing 200,000 Punies also about 5000 PED the expected loot return is going to be very close to the expected average of 96%+ seen in the 2017 group. A more realistic example of this is perhaps spending 300 PED hunting Proterons vs spending 300 PED hunting small Argonauts where the Argonaut hunt will usually yield similar results and the Proteron hunt results can be all over the place since the loot events are so few.
The reason turnover is chosen as the metric to present these statistics is because number of kills doesn't really say much about which level of players are in which category since anyone can kill a large number of mobs if they are small enough.
 
Wouldn't you be expecting to sit somewhere around 93% return with 55 efficiency and 47 looter?
If you had maxed looter then you would sit somewhere around the 96%-97% return with 55 efficiency.

Yes, I should. Does that mean that all the subjects in their observation was maxed out looters / effiensies?:
Hunters with turnover of more than 50000 PED since Sept. 11 have enjoyed returns of 98.6% on average.
Hunters with turnover between 10000 and 50000 PED since Sept. 11 have enjoyed returns of 97.05% on average.
Accounts created in 2017 have enjoyed returns of 96.94% on average since the changes implemented on Sept. 11.

Don't get me wrong, I never complained about my return, i know exactly what i am facing with at 55% eff. It's MA's statement vs reality that draws my attention
 
Love the naivety(or is it ???) of the calculations item stats to tt return.

Reminds me of coming back, buying imk2 and wondering why the dpp % increase over time did not seem reflected in tt return.
Then getting around the same tt return with way lower dpp improved strikehammer.
Then getting way better tt return with modmerc, even better with introduction of mk2 attachments
Then 95% tt return for ~18 months whatever that was
Then no improvement with loot 2.0.
Then a change for the better with buying unique blade.
Then again 95% tt return for 6 months whatever that was

Dynamic... But ~95% seems to be the non-chosen state.

I actually think that DPP matters more than the eco stat. For instance your imk2 ancient is now rated number 29th best weapon on the entropia wiki list based on DPP (sorted for all weapons by DPP).

Now lets assume the loot goal posts moved slightly after the introduction of recent new gear, because many 'new' weapons are far superior on DPP than the Ancient imk2 excluding any attachments or rings etc.

Ancient imk2 is still good of course at 3.281 DPP, but there's a lot of new 'SIB' unlimited gear that can out rank it now. So what if the extra 1 or 2% your looking for is because of using an old weapon?

Even a weak argo FEN claw, would now appear to out rank an imk2 on DPP, on pure base weapon and you don't need level 100.

What do you think, am I talking bollocks?

Rick
 
Yes, I should. Does that mean that all the subjects in their observation was maxed out looters / effiensies?:


Don't get me wrong, I never complained about my return, i know exactly what i am facing with at 55% eff. It's MA's statement vs reality that draws my attention

Well we all know there is down swings and up swings....its not like every creature you loot is giving you the exact % you expect. The numbers they gave were based from 11th Sep 2017 to somewhere before the 27th Sept 2017 when they posted them. So it really is a short timeframe which would mean there is a good chance of variance, especially since we have no idea what those people spending over 50K peds were shooting....it might have been biased towards looking good since there was alot of talk about loot 2.0....not to say numbers are wrong, just maybe how they presented it????

It actually would be interesting to see what the numbers would now be since the change in Sept 2017.
 
Back
Top