Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Nightbird's Loot Distribution Theory

Status
The Nightbird said:
lol, that's amusing. 1 meter isn't much though and that's certainly no proof that deposits are in the ground and not generated by the avatar.
Click to expand...

Like I said "wouldn't that indicate", not "doesn't that prove". Whilst 1 meter is not a lot - why would it change at all?

I am not disagreeing with your theory, just trying to see how everyone's experiences fit into it.
 
what was i thinking?
 
Last edited:
aridash said:
point of order. you really are talking about different things here. the database doesnt do anything to create its data, only stores it and allows access to it. an external server component performs that data generation, however it is done (avatar, predetermined, or other). It is my understanding that creating and populating a new table in a database is a larger overhead than reading and writing into an existing one.
Click to expand...

You're grasping as straws lol. Indeed, it is as you say but the process of creating the data that will populate the database is what makes the theory that all deposits are pre-generated and stored very unlikely.
 
Qweeg said:
Like I said "wouldn't that indicate", not "doesn't that prove". Whilst 1 meter is not a lot - why would it change at all?

I am not disagreeing with your theory, just trying to see how everyone's experiences fit into it.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry. It said that he didn't claim it. He should have claimed it each time and recorded the position since the deed expires after 1 hr anyways. If he then rebombed it again and find it in a different position, that would be interesting. A difference of 1 meter when going by the finder isn't as reliable as the position on the deed.
 
Interesting post here, but please explain, if your teory is correct, that every drop is black listed, then how come when i have found an ore deposit and accidentally pulled up matterfinder when I was running to claim it, i then re-dropped a bomb and i found the same claim??
 
The Nightbird said:
Oh sorry. It said that he didn't claim it. He should have claimed it each time and recorded the position since the deed expires after 1 hr anyways. If he then rebombed it again and find it in a different position, that would be interesting. A difference of 1 meter when going by the finder isn't as reliable as the position on the deed.
Click to expand...

Hope this helps you..
Ive tested this method... Intentionally not claiming deposits, and allowing the timer to run out, and rebomb... Ive refound the same deposit few meters away, and over days seem to move even farther away in a straight line.. Each claim deposit Ive followed in different zones seems to have its own linear travel path. However the spacing along its linear line seem to be totally random over x period of time... The size of the deposit seems to change over time reandomly increasing and never decreasing until hit.. Once the deposit has been claimed, I always find a new deposit of something different or sometimes none..
 
danceofdeath said:
Hope this helps you..
Ive tested this method... Intentionally not claiming deposits, and allowing the timer to run out, and rebomb... Ive refound the same deposit few meters away, and over days seem to move even farther away in a straight line.. Each claim deposit Ive followed in different zones seems to have its own linear travel path. However the spacing along its linear line seem to be totally random over x period of time... The size of the deposit seems to change over time randomly increasing and never decreasing until hit.. Once the deposit has been claimed, I always find a new deposit of something different or sometimes none..
Click to expand...

For the bold part, can you explain a bit more? Once you let a claim expire and rebomb it, the size increases? That seems too good to be true, though I might have misunderstood it.

This is all new to me, never thought to test it :) I don't think it directly impacts my theory negatively however, atm anyways. I'll need to think a bit on why this might be, though for now I think it's MA messing with us by randomly moving the location of a existing claim :D

Mia said:
Interesting post here, but please explain, if your teory is correct, that every drop is black listed, then how come when i have found an ore deposit and accidentally pulled up matterfinder when I was running to claim it, i then re-dropped a bomb and i found the same claim??
Click to expand...

Already answered, though not in the FP. I wanted to keep this thread simple but it got out of hand lol, too many questions, all of which I've considered thankfully. The answer is somewhere in the mess ;)
 
danceofdeath said:
Hope this helps you..
Ive tested this method... Intentionally not claiming deposits, and allowing the timer to run out, and rebomb... Ive refound the same deposit few meters away, and over days seem to move even farther away in a straight line.. Each claim deposit Ive followed in different zones seems to have its own linear travel path. However the spacing along its linear line seem to be totally random over x period of time... The size of the deposit seems to change over time reandomly increasing and never decreasing until hit.. Once the deposit has been claimed, I always find a new deposit of something different or sometimes none..
Click to expand...

So your saying if my finder displays something there, dont claim,,,come back over and over and over (this only done to make sure the deposit wasnt mined by someone, because not claiming each time), its going to be larger and larger and larger each time? Hmmm,,,Interesting...Ok Im going to some WAY out of the way place, where no one EVER goes,,and let my small deposit over a few days grow huge...is that what your saying here?

Doesnt that sound like its too easily exploitable for MA?
 
Mia said:
Interesting post here, but please explain, if your teory is correct, that every drop is black listed, then how come when i have found an ore deposit and accidentally pulled up matterfinder when I was running to claim it, i then re-dropped a bomb and i found the same claim??
Click to expand...


Because once you find it, it will be there until the claim expires. Once you drop and the finder indicates a deposit, all the data stays with it until its time value expires.

Von
 
The Nightbird said:
For the bold part, can you explain a bit more? Once you let a claim expire and rebomb it, the size increases? That seems too good to be true, though I might have misunderstood it.

This is all new to me, never thought to test it :) I don't think it directly impacts my theory negatively however, atm anyways. I'll need to think a bit on why this might be, though for now I think it's MA messing with us by randomly moving the location of a existing claim :D



Already answered, though not in the FP. I wanted to keep this thread simple but it got out of hand lol, too many questions, all of which I've considered thankfully. The answer is somewhere in the mess ;)
Click to expand...


Yes it slightly increases over time at what rate its random... The same day no same size same spot, few hours later you may find it 2 meters away same size or even more.. 2 days later say 50-100 meters slightly larger find.. Take into consideration my findings were from 5-7 vu's ago.. I have not tested this recently... I followed a poor melc once over a weeks period and it became a 59 ped hit...
Yes I picked very random low traveled locations to test this, and hoped no one came through carpet bombing since I wasz investing my own ped in thisz test... To add I used several locations to test this theory out to compare my findings treating each area as seperate test.
I might add that I did run into some locations that never moved but always seemed to be a dif type say poor oil one day and poor melc the next...
My test was conducted to see a pattern in the loot theory on deposit size and more aptly calculate where one would be more likely to global in ab advanced amount of time... I found that there seems to be both moving and stationed spawns. My guess is the moving ones are the eventual globals or hoffs when ever they are found... The unmoving spawns seemed to never inrease into the larger size range thus always staying consistant usszually poor, tiny, and average amounts.
 
Last edited:
straws are for drinking rum
 
Last edited:
aridash said:
sorry, but this wasnt straws clutching, just trying to outline basic principles. how can there be debate if key points are misunderstood and people have different definitions. thats why i said it was a point of order, it was about clarifying a definition. you think this some how alters the validity of your or a contrary theory when it does not. and so once again you make an inference based on nothing but your point of view rather than evidence or logic.

Seems to me that while you have the foundation of a very good theory, it will never be fully developed because you cannot concieve of alternatives to test the theory one way or the other. Nevermind.
Click to expand...

Ouch :laugh: But fair enough, I didn't expect everyone to simply take my theory as fact but I did try to justify my assumptions as much as possible based on the information we have access to. If it doesn't qualify as evidence or logic, then there's nothing more I am willing to do to prove it.
 
Interesting theory. It makes sense that loots and deposits would be calculated based on location, time, ava, etc. rather than have a huge database that has to be searched each time someone kills a mob or drops a bomb. I am impressed that you have found a way to crack the system to the point where you are finding more deposits than you would otherwise.

Have you tried this theory with sweating as well? It seems that a similar system would be used to determine "sweat" or "no sweat" as well as the amount of sweat acquired.
 
Angel D said:
Interesting theory. It makes sense that loots and deposits would be calculated based on location, time, ava, etc. rather than have a huge database that has to be searched each time someone kills a mob or drops a bomb. I am impressed that you have found a way to crack the system to the point where you are finding more deposits than you would otherwise.

Have you tried this theory with sweating as well? It seems that a similar system would be used to determine "sweat" or "no sweat" as well as the amount of sweat acquired.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I haven't sweated seriously since when I started and will never do it again for fear of falling asleep, slipping from my chair, and subsequently hitting my head on some overlooked hard and pointy object, resulting in death :)
 
Actually, another possible theory is that mining deposits are exactly like mobs, except they don't move. MA could be using the exact same spawn system they use for mobs, maybe with a wider possible spawn range to scatter things out a bit. That would account for people being able to find the same deposit. If it was randomly determined at 'looting' time, then you would not have two people find the same deposit. Too bad that can't be checked for mobs.
 
Kirov said:
Actually, another possible theory is that mining deposits are exactly like mobs, except they don't move. MA could be using the exact same spawn system they use for mobs, maybe with a wider possible spawn range to scatter things out a bit. That would account for people being able to find the same deposit. If it was randomly determined at 'looting' time, then you would not have two people find the same deposit. Too bad that can't be checked for mobs.
Click to expand...

That's not another theory :) that is the theory that most people believe in currently, and this theory is just an alternative. :)
 
Another thing is that the database that holds all this already exists. That is why you can run to the middle of the wilderness, drop a ped next to a tree, and someone else can run to that exact same tree and find that ped right there. Every location is already in a database somewhere. Telling the database that X spot has loot could be as little as one bit in a word.
 
Kirov said:
Another thing is that the database that holds all this already exists. That is why you can run to the middle of the wilderness, drop a ped next to a tree, and someone else can run to that exact same tree and find that ped right there. Every location is already in a database somewhere. Telling the database that X spot has loot could be as little as one bit in a word.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, please refrain from posting views that have been posted and replied to in this thread lol, or it'll never end. :) I know it's long but I would say there's alot that can be learned from reading it all.
 
Kirov said:
Actually, another possible theory is that mining deposits are exactly like mobs, except they don't move. MA could be using the exact same spawn system they use for mobs, maybe with a wider possible spawn range to scatter things out a bit. That would account for people being able to find the same deposit. If it was randomly determined at 'looting' time, then you would not have two people find the same deposit. Too bad that can't be checked for mobs.
Click to expand...

Unless....MA played a fast one (to throw us off track) and put a check in if someone else's finder was beeping for that deposit...NA, they too lazy. Just a theory tho...;)
 
one thing that supporst Nightbirds theory IMO is the fact that if MA indeed uses the system he discribes, it can be very easily changed/controlled, thus making sure YOU are not the one to profit in the long term ;)
 
pointless, dont know why i bothered
 
Last edited:
aridash said:
This is basic, simple yet excellent illustration that demonstrates the existance of a very large database sitting in the backend of the system. Given this database exists and is apparently capable of holding any item at any coordinates, it provides evidence that a pre-determined deposit distribution could be implemented, as the main objection, that it is too difficult, is refuted.

It does not prove that the system is predetemined, but it does answer just about every argument against it being possible.
Click to expand...

Please explain how the existence of a database that is capable of holding any item at any coordinates refutes the the objection that generating an enormous number of deposits that satisfy certain patterns would be infeasibly server intensive, whereas a spontaneous generation process would require little processing power.
 
kira-red said:
I asked about this. the answer I received went like this:

if all creatures and resources were predetermined and on/in the ground, the required storage of the data-base would be immense. access to a data-base, even a well indexed one, is proportional to its size.

generating small temporary "on-the-fly" stores reduces data-base requirements by an order of magnitude, as none of this information is persistently stored.

it is highly likely that both creature and resourse generation is performed by the same method. the likely one is that upon reacing a certain distance from a spawn point the appropriate creatures or resources are generated from an algorithm. these are then cached with a "time to live" value. if the timer expires and no one is within range, the cache is deleted. a seperate algorithm would be used to re-populate should someone always be present.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this just seems like a rehash of the old puzzle - 'If a tree falls in a forest but theres nobody there to witness it does it make a sound?'

Simply impossible to prove.

Also, you're surely wrong in your assumption that the database would be too large if it included all deposits and mobs.

For a start, each server is likely to maintain its own local database, reducing the size of considerably.

Also as pointed out by Kirov later in the thread the DB structure is already in place to hold millions of items - eg every item carried by every avatar, every item on the ground. It doesnt seem unreasonable to add a few thousand mobs and deposits (per server).

But even if we accept your spawn theory - that those mobs may only spawn in reaction to an avatar entering the area, nevertheless the mobs are spawned, and are available for anyone else, they have a finite lifetime and are most certainly not created on the fly as part of a timer function.

So you're theory has much more in common with mine, than with Nightbirds, I think.
 
The Nightbird said:
Please explain how the existence of a database that is capable of holding any item at any coordinates refutes the the objection that generating an enormous number of deposits that satisfy certain patterns would be infeasibly server intensive, whereas a spontaneous generation process would require little processing power.
Click to expand...
Spontaneous generation requires far more 'processing power', as it it running a background process continuously. Also there are fundamental scalability problems, ie lots of people dropping lots of bombs could easily break the process.

Mass spawn generation requires the least processing power, but the most data storage. Generation is run as a batch process once per whenever, only creating an overhead during this period.

Processing power has a far greater value than storage space. If I were MA, I wouldn't use a spontaneous generation algorithm.
 
aridash said:
If a database can hold an entry that at 23000, 12400 1ped is located, it can just as easily store that at 245045, 18930 a belk deposit exists (value as yet to be determined by the loot server). The example demonstrates the existance of such a database, therefore it is not too complex or too intensive.

The database would be populated by an external component anyway. Generating the deposit in an ad hoc fashion as avatars drop probes/bombs, or generating every 30 min/hour/day if not existing (ie found) is load neutral at best or at worse is in favor of predetermine as the population can be generated as low priority process and/or at off peak times.

Seperate out the compontents of the system. There isnt one big server running a big app like the client side, it will be a series of semi-independant software server components feeding into each other.
Click to expand...

The "server" is by necessity composed of a network of computers, so there are no "external" components. My argument is still that simulating patterns such as a sudden drop in hits after a big uber, veins that run in one direction, good and bad periods, and many others would require complex programming and intensive calculations considering the vast numbers of deposits that would have to be created. My theory is simply based on a way of generating deposits that would be far more efficient and elegant than generating by brute force a huge spawn of deposits, and would also explain every pattern that I've noticed while mining. That is all.
 
Ironheart said:
Spontaneous generation requires far more 'processing power', as it it running a background process continuously. Also there are fundamental scalability problems, ie lots of people dropping lots of bombs could easily break the process.

Mass spawn generation requires the least processing power, but the most data storage. Generation is run as a batch process once per whenever, only creating an overhead during this period.

Processing power has a far greater value than storage space. If I were MA, I wouldn't use a spontaneous generation algorithm.
Click to expand...

Take that to a computer programmer, but be sure to fill him in on the patterns that have to be created, not just some random X, random Y code.

I am one, but I might be biased :laugh:
 
I have noticed while sweating in some areas vs others you do get a higher chance to get more sweat on average.... Lol...:dunce:
 
apache_ZC said:
one thing that supporst Nightbirds theory IMO is the fact that if MA indeed uses the system he discribes, it can be very easily changed/controlled, thus making sure YOU are not the one to profit in the long term ;)
Click to expand...

May I point out that this is the meaning of entropy? And that this is ENTROPIA Universe? ;)
 
mrproper said:
May I point out that this is the meaning of entropy? And that this is ENTROPIA Universe? ;)
Click to expand...

Oh crap, this is a better way of approaching the reasoning lol. My way was unnecessarily complex sighz... and I was arguing against complexity too :p my bad
 
Status
Back
Top