FYI: Binomial Distribution, Loot, and you.

[mrproper]

I still think that all weapon and amp decay is recycled back into loot

So if you hunt without armor and fap, you don't decay at all? So what are skills then?

Your weapons still decay? And skill make you better and more efficient at things? Maybe I misunderstand your questions

Erm... wait...

DO YOU THINK WEAPONS DECAY AND THAT VALUE IS LOST AND NEVER RECORDED AS REQUIRED TO BE RETURNED, as is the case with ammo that is returned, or do you think that weapon decay is going to be returned along with ammo? Why do you get skills when you decay weapons then? Nothing is free, even sweat and dung have an internal price, even the single green line you see in the chat, has an internal price.

Skills are not what you said. What you said is the effects of skills. I asked what are skills (skill points, skill increases, skill values).

 

[aridash]

You think that's bad?

Take two items now:
Modified Mercenary EP-40
Maddox IV

[...]
So if you hunt without armor and fap, you don't decay at all? So what are skills then?

on that theme, look at say a DOA LM and an HL14. the DOA has both lower eco and decay. which is more significant?

as for skills, you get some defense skills with no expediture or decay. i dont think theres a direct correlation between skills and decay, but skills and expense (suggesting there might be an indirect link). however, if weapon decay isnt returned, then there is a problem with melee and also weapon amps (which are used religiously due to improved eco+dps)

 

[mrproper]

on that theme, look at say a DOA LM and an HL14. the DOA has both lower eco and decay. which is more significant?

as for skills, you get some defense skills with no expediture or decay. i dont think theres a direct correlation between skills and decay, but skills and expense (suggesting there might be an indirect link). however, if weapon decay isnt returned, then there is a problem with melee and also weapon amps (which are used religiously due to improved eco+dps)

For 5 years I thought eco was important. But recently I understand what MA speaks, every time they send out information, and I would now choose to look after decay. It seems to me that ubers get the point faster...

Melee decay is not "decay" that MA takes to pay for their services. Also for amps, but with amps and melee, the actual decay is very well hidden. Mod merc has 2% decay listed on it. Am I right to believe that even if the decay is actually 1%, it will never be more than 2%? Would I consider that in the long run, a weapon that bleeds less decay outside the system, will entitle me to a better return than a crappier weapon?

As for skills, you also get double skills on SIB items...

 

[Witte]

Erm... wait...

DO YOU THINK WEAPONS DECAY AND THAT VALUE IS LOST AND NEVER RECORDED AS REQUIRED TO BE RETURNED, as is the case with ammo that is returned, or do you think that weapon decay is going to be returned along with ammo? Why do you get skills when you decay weapons then? Nothing is free, even sweat and dung have an internal price, even the single green line you see in the chat, has an internal price.

Skills are not what you said. What you said is the effects of skills. I asked what are skills (skill points, skill increases, skill values).

I think weapon and amp decay is recycled just like ammo. And skills do not have any value, except for markup. So skills are just numbers, nothing more.

 

[mrproper]

I think weapon and amp decay is recycled just like ammo. And skills do not have any value, except for markup. So skills are just numbers, nothing more.

But you can't prove that, because MA says "they only take decay" and you repair your weapon, not knowing if that decay really goes to MA or is still counted as an expense towards loot, right?

Skills... you get them from some tools when they decay, or you buy them. They do cost something to acquire. You may also get more of them, if you decay the right items (with SIB). When you take them out, you may be right, in that the chip is decayed by 10% to create a negative drain. However, consider this.

When you loot an ESI, it has real TT value. You then fill it with skill, it decays a bit, and retains some TT value. You sell it. Someone else buys it... and ... inserts it. What happens is that MA will take the full decay of the chip, against the gained skill by the buyer.

If a buyer gets an ESI and dumps in the TT, he gets the ped.
If a buyer gets an ESI with skill on it, and inserts it, he doesn't get the ped? Then, is the skill worth the ped wasted?

 

[Witte]

But you can't prove that, because MA says "they only take decay" and you repair your weapon, not knowing if that decay really goes to MA or is still counted as an expense towards loot, right?

I basically had that covered with the "But well thats just my theory, can't proof it" part

Skills... you get them from some tools when they decay, or you buy them. They do cost something to acquire. You may also get more of them, if you decay the right items (with SIB). When you take them out, you may be right, in that the chip is decayed by 10% to create a negative drain. However, consider this.

When you loot an ESI, it has real TT value. You then fill it with skill, it decays a bit, and retains some TT value. You sell it. Someone else buys it... and ... inserts it. What happens is that MA will take the full decay of the chip, against the gained skill by the buyer.

If a buyer gets an ESI and dumps in the TT, he gets the ped.
If a buyer gets an ESI with skill on it, and inserts it, he doesn't get the ped? Then, is the skill worth the ped wasted?

I don't know what happens to the chips TT value when its inserted. Could be recycled back or taken by MA.

 

[Joat]

Interesting reading. But when it comes randomness, no I don't see
randomness in system. Neither did authority that looked in to EU, and
since a system can't even be constructed without any randomness at all
but with a general impression that there are randomness, I believe there
are a lot of "layers" that must be combined to get best possible outcome.

But what I see is only my p.o.v, so it can be anything from totaly wrong,
to "close to solution".

What I do see is one object (avatar, with all equipment and " stuff related
to it") interact with another object (target, can be a mob, machine or
whatever, with "stuff related to it") creating values, ending up anything
from terrible to excellent, depending on how well these two objects
"match" each other.
Above this, there is a system that boost the outcome of the interaction
between those two objects. Not down to a indiviual spawn, but to a
spawn cluster/area, and timing matters too.
Remember, those two objects has a lot of info, but everything is simplified
by the use of dynamic coding.

So in the end, it has nothing to do with who do what. It's about a
playercontrolled object interact with another object, no matter of name of
the accountholder.
Find the balance between those two objects and there might be a better
outcome than today.
(I know, I don't live as I learn, but interactions that works better is often
way too boring to grind with. Sadly. Been there, done that, saw a lot... )

 

[Spinage]

Another thread?

O.K, so I have just done a lot of statistics and fiddling to figure out a system in which it can be possible for all these things at once:

a) Loot being completely random/ all avatar being equal 'luck'-wise
b) All mobs having standard 'loot' based on hp and/or other factors
c) MA's statement of "we take a portion of decay"
d) A controllable, dynamic or static (depending how it's used, ie, MA might jsut have a set static number, a controllable 'switch' that applies to everyone, not individuals, or a dynamic equation that is based on lots of factors, including whatever you want) factor that would balance loot in a certain direction, whilst still allowing ubers and hofs at the same time. This will be the most opposed point, but is completely possible.

All without considering the defensive bill (so returns would be assumed to be quite high, since as most defensive bills make up a lot).

I am going to make a thread about it now, trying to explain it again although it will be math heavy. This new thread will be different from this thread in a few ways: It is more reliant on statistics than probability (there is a difference); it also is much more of a 'fun' theory, as in, it can't really be proved. Again though, it will show how something CAN be possible in the environment of EU (with maths, not just pure speculation), so may interest some of you.

It's gonna take a while to write up . I just wonder what reactions I'll get from this


Edit: done.. think it's different from what I thought it would be at the start.
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/about-entropia-universe/176675-economy-decay-dynamic-loot-you.html#post2254877

There's even stuff that caters for conspirisists in there! woo

 

[Coop_]

Ok, so suppose I get an eco of 2, and you get an eco of 3. If both of us spend 1000 ped hunting a certain mob at the same time, in the same area, do you expect me to get 600 ped back, and you to get 900 ped back?

Yes, because I will have killed 50% more mobs than you during the same time, so on average I will have 50% more little loots, and 50% more special loots.

Ofc that's the expected value, individual tests would vary.

 

[mrproper]

Yes, because I will have killed 50% more mobs than you during the same time, so on average I will have 50% more little loots, and 50% more special loots.

Ofc that's the expected value, individual tests would vary.

I'm sorry, this discussion implies that "return" is tt value only, special loots do not exist in tt value.

You still don't explain why eco 3 is better than eco 2. Because you can kill more mobs?

 

[Spinage]

I'm sorry, this discussion implies that "return" is tt value only, special loots do not exist in tt value.

You still don't explain why eco 3 is better than eco 2. Because you can kill more mobs?

I think he is trying to say "you can kill more mobs for the same price".. or you can kill the same ammount of mobs for cheaper.

So for example.. with eco of 3, over 1000 ped you should deal an avg of 300,000 damage.

With eco of 2, for 1000 ped you should deal 200,000 damage..

If you were killing mobs with say.. 1,000 health, you can kill a whole 100 more mobs for the same price with an eco of 3... This would lead anyone who doesn't believe in personal loot theory to believe your return% will be higher, due to more loot for the same price.

Just imagining an avg loot of 3ped from each of those mobs, the eco of 3 will loot 900 ped of loot, while the eco of 2 will loot 600.. for the same cost.

It just depends what you believe in until it's proved either way.

 

[mrproper]

I think he is trying to say "you can kill more mobs for the same price".. or you can kill the same ammount of mobs for cheaper.

So for example.. with eco of 3, over 1000 ped you should deal an avg of 300,000 damage.

With eco of 2, for 1000 ped you should deal 200,000 damage..

If you were killing mobs with say.. 1,000 health, you can kill a whole 100 more mobs for the same price with an eco of 3... This would lead anyone who doesn't believe in personal loot theory to believe your return% will be higher, due to more loot for the same price.

Just imagining an avg loot of 3ped from each of those mobs, the eco of 3 will loot 900 ped of loot, while the eco of 2 will loot 600.. for the same cost.

It just depends what you believe in until it's proved either way.

Yes, but it does not happen like that. There are many hunters going with with eco 2.0, and they do just fine. And there are many tests that show that you get more loot than your eco indicates, even if you kill less mobs with the same money.

There are also many hunters going out with setups that have almost 3.0, and they constantly lose and whine...

 

[Witte]

Yes, but it does not happen like that. There are many hunters going with with eco 2.0, and they do just fine. And there are many tests that show that you get more loot than your eco indicates, even if you kill less mobs with the same money.

There are also many hunters going out with setups that have almost 3.0, and they constantly lose and whine...

I have never seen those tests. Can you give examples of them?

 

[mrproper]

I have never seen those tests. Can you give examples of them?

Would https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/158400-50-katsuichi-honor-runs-drones.html qualify as an example?

According to http://entropiawiki.com/Chart.aspx?chart=Weapon with prefilled skill based data (dmg 39, hit 36, from thread posts), we get 2.452 dmg/pec. The weapon has 2.988 when maxed. Yet the loot (even if a minimal set) shows more than 82% loot return, actually it's 94%.

 

[Witte]

Would https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/158400-50-katsuichi-honor-runs-drones.html qualify as an example?

According to http://entropiawiki.com/Chart.aspx?chart=Weapon with prefilled skill based data (dmg 39, hit 36, from thread posts), we get 2.452 dmg/pec. The weapon has 2.988 when maxed. Yet the loot (even if a minimal set) shows more than 82% loot return, actually it's 94%.

The difference in eco is only 20%, not 50%. And the test length is just way too short. In my own log I have spent over 20k and my returns are 113%. How do you explain that? Funny detail is that this figure is exactly similar for both ore and em. For now I explain it by loot variation and luck. But if I get to 100k with a similar result it will get harder to stick with that position.

Can you also link a couple other tests?

 

[mrproper]

The difference in eco is only 20%, not 50%. And the test length is just way too short. In my own log I have spent over 20k and my returns are 113%. How do you explain that? Funny detail is that this figure is exactly similar for both ore and em. For now I explain it by loot variation and luck. But if I get to 100k with a similar result it will get harder to stick with that position.

Can you also link a couple other tests?

No, they're harder to find, and the samples are too small anyway.

The difference in eco is indeed around 20%, thus the expected loot if loot is given by eco, is to be around 80% or less of the TT spent.

However, it wen tup to 94%, due to "luck"?! If it were luck, it would have been bigger than 100%.

If personal loot theory models should be tested, it is imperative that any test is completely discarded when the loot return contain big loots that surpass 50% of continuously recorded loots. So if you go hunting for 100 ped, and you get a global, you should consider either dropping the test, or have it started at that point. Then of course we could either aim for a value of say 100 times bigger than the maximum loot in peds (so if you global once in for 50 ped, you should hunt mobs worth of 5000 ped? (in MM we hunted over 10000 corns, with a maximum global value of 190 ped, so I think this may not be possible at all).

Or we could find a way to record a statistically different model instead of average or total loot...

 

[Witte]

No, they're harder to find, and the samples are too small anyway.

The difference in eco is indeed around 20%, thus the expected loot if loot is given by eco, is to be around 80% or less of the TT spent.

However, it wen tup to 94%, due to "luck"?! If it were luck, it would have been bigger than 100%.

If personal loot theory models should be tested, it is imperative that any test is completely discarded when the loot return contain big loots that surpass 50% of continuously recorded loots. So if you go hunting for 100 ped, and you get a global, you should consider either dropping the test, or have it started at that point. Then of course we could either aim for a value of say 100 times bigger than the maximum loot in peds (so if you global once in for 50 ped, you should hunt mobs worth of 5000 ped? (in MM we hunted over 10000 corns, with a maximum global value of 190 ped, so I think this may not be possible at all).

Or we could find a way to record a statistically different model instead of average or total loot...

Why should luck result in higher returns? It seems to me "luck" can range from 1% to 100%. In my own example my luck is also just around 20%. So he went from 80% to 95%, I went from 95% to 113%. Almost exactly similar.

 

[Spinage]

No, they're harder to find, and the samples are too small anyway.

The difference in eco is indeed around 20%, thus the expected loot if loot is given by eco, is to be around 80% or less of the TT spent.

However, it wen tup to 94%, due to "luck"?! If it were luck, it would have been bigger than 100%.

If personal loot theory models should be tested, it is imperative that any test is completely discarded when the loot return contain big loots that surpass 50% of continuously recorded loots. So if you go hunting for 100 ped, and you get a global, you should consider either dropping the test, or have it started at that point. Then of course we could either aim for a value of say 100 times bigger than the maximum loot in peds (so if you global once in for 50 ped, you should hunt mobs worth of 5000 ped? (in MM we hunted over 10000 corns, with a maximum global value of 190 ped, so I think this may not be possible at all).

Or we could find a way to record a statistically different model instead of average or total loot...

The main issue here are that you assume eco of 3 =100% TT. Other issues have been pointed out about the insignificance of the test.

Anyway, that's not really what I wanted to talk about lol, I just always go off on one. What I was supposed to be on about is:

You wouldn't have to discount runs with big loots (or hofs etc). You could simply do, as an example, 10 runs with an eco of X costing (example) 100 ped each. Then record these figures:

Median of all 10 runs
Mean of each individual run
Median Mean of all 10 runs
Lower quartile Median
Upper quartile Median
Range of lower to upper quartile Median.

Then do the same for another eco of Y costing the same ped (100 each). Then compare all these numbers.

A proper analysis could be done with these statistics, quite easily proving to a reasonable degree whether eco has a direct effect on loot output (whether or not personal loot pool exists).


The reason you see me talk about Median a lot when it comes to this particular theory, is simply because this is exactly the type of scenario where Median averages are more useful than the Mean... Take this quote from wikipedia:
The median can be used as a measure of location when a distribution is skewed, when end values are not known, or when one requires reduced importance to be attached to outliers

Or as I was taught at school: the median is used to analyse statistics in a scenario with an uneven distribution.

I think that applies to EU and this whole debate?

 

[Spawn]

The difference in eco is only 20%, not 50%. And the test length is just way too short. In my own log I have spent over 20k and my returns are 113%.

If one run with honor takes about an hour, that's like 50 hours worth of hunting. Assuming he didnt do them after eachother it could be two weeks worth of hunting.

What would you consider to be long enough?

 

[Witte]

I think the theory mrproper proposes is that uneco is payed back in globals, or outliners as you call them. It seems to me that the test you propose will not include this scenario.

 

[Spinage]

I think the theory mrproper proposes is that uneco is payed back in globals, or outliners as you call them. It seems to me that the test you propose will not include this scenario.

The upper quartile Median is an average of the outliers. I think that should suffice well enough.

If the overall median of means and median of the entire 10 eco runs is similar to the 10 uneco runs, then the upper quartile median would HAVE to be noticeable larger in the uneco condition.

If both are similar, personal loot pool theory argument is looking very week. If they are unsimilar, it is looking strong.

The reason I take a median of upperquartile and not a mean is to exclude extreme extreme outliers, like ubers/aths. If mrproper is preposing that these should be included and are not a by product of something else, then personal loot pool theory has already failed every time a noob got an uber in his first week.

Unless the systen makes use of supernatural, psycic abilities that predict the said player burning through that uber and 10x more at a constant loss happily

This would be the most accurate test you could devise for this situation. I think no matter what, people will still have their own opinion at the end of the day; it will just be a very.. weak argument. (or strong? who knows.)

 

[Witte]

The supporters of the theory will just claim that big hofs are part of the payback. It is very easy to make it fit with noob hofs too. For example, those hofs are payed from another source, like auction fees.

IMO the test will not add much weight to either case. Unless of course there will be a clear difference in lower loots. If not, we are in the same situation we are in now.

 

[Spinage]

If one run with honor takes about an hour, that's like 50 hours worth of hunting. Assuming he didnt do them after eachother it could be two weeks worth of hunting.

What would you consider to be long enough?

Based on return rate (%) alone, I would consider time irrelevant. It's more to do with how many mobs he kills. I would estimate he killed around 2300 drones in that time.

To be considered "long enough" is tricky, but with the variance in EU, e.g. he could easily get a 1k uber, and that would throw the whole log off by ~28%, I would need at least 200,000 mobs to be killed... which would roughly reduce the effect of that 1k uber to 1% variance.

Still, considering 10k ubers are possible, an experiment so simple as "this is my % return", would probably need 2,000,000 to be killed before it could be anywhere near conclusive . Which is why different types of experiments/logs need to be done to get useful information on return %s vs eco.

 

[Spinage]

The supporters of the theory will just claim that big hofs are part of the payback. It is very easy to make it fit with noob hofs too. For example, those hofs are payed from another source, like auction fees.

IMO the test will not add much weight to either case. Unless of course there will be a clear difference in lower loots. If not, we are in the same situation we are in now.

Really, you are right, no matter what we do, people will argue one thing or another.

However, it doesn't mean that experiment wouldn't be useful and interesting to some people. I see myself as open-minded enough to at least consider changing my stance if there was a proven difference, so I am sure there are people out there that would change their mind if there wasn't a difference.

It just depends whos got the time and patience to conduct it. Despite being interested in the results, I don't think I'd be bothered to do it, for the reasons you've already said.

 

[Witte]

Really, you are right, no matter what we do, people will argue one thing or another.

However, it doesn't mean that experiment wouldn't be useful and interesting to some people. I see myself as open-minded enough to at least consider changing my stance if there was a proven difference, so I am sure there are people out there that would change their mind if there wasn't a difference.

It just depends whos got the time and patience to conduct it. Despite being interested in the results, I don't think I'd be bothered to do it, for the reasons you've already said.

It is up to the people supporting the theory to come with the evidence. So I will not be participating in testing either. Mainly because I think it will make my PED card unhappy .

 

[Spawn]

Based on return rate (%) alone, I would consider time irrelevant. It's more to do with how many mobs he kills. I would estimate he killed around 2300 drones in that time.

To be considered "long enough" is tricky, but with the variance in EU, e.g. he could easily get a 1k uber, and that would throw the whole log off by ~28%, I would need at least 200,000 mobs to be killed... which would roughly reduce the effect of that 1k uber to 1% variance.

Still, considering 10k ubers are possible, an experiment so simple as "this is my % return", would probably need 2,000,000 to be killed before it could be anywhere near conclusive . Which is why different types of experiments/logs need to be done to get useful information on return %s vs eco.

2 million mobs rendering any research to be done useless, isn't that convenient. In most scientific research, scientists use samples, not entire populations.

 

[Witte]

2 million mobs rendering any research to be done useless, isn't that convenient. In most scientific research, scientists use samples, not entire populations.

A personal loot pool can be proven with much smaller sample size. But to disproof it you need such a large sample size.

 

[Spinage]

2 million mobs rendering any research to be done useless, isn't that convenient. In most scientific research, scientists use samples, not entire populations.

It's not my fault you can get 10k uber hofs in this game. So sorry if it is convenient... I find it annoying too, because it would be a lot easier to show that it doesn't exist.

It's only 2million on that specific example, with a kat honor hunting drones anyway, on higher lvl mobs 1k ubers etc don't impact the overall % AS much, so a smaller experiment could be done, but it would still need to be huge.

When independant testers test whether gambling sites are truly random, they also use huge samples.

Oh, yea a sample can be any ammount of number.. scientists use samples yes.. but the sample size can vary greatly for whatever they are testing...

Anyway, I said "on return % alone" you'd need 2million mobs... if you did the experiment I described earlier, you could easily prove personal loot theory to be true (if it is true) over 2k ped turnover on mobs like drones.

You could also get a very strong argument for it not being true in the same experiment, but as Witte said, you'd need a lot more evidence to prove this, because people will just say "well his big payback uber didn't come yet"... Convenient right?

So no, it's not all useless, it just would have to be done properly. Return % doesn't really say much unless it's over those 2,000,000 mobs

 

[mrproper]

A personal loot pool can be proven with much smaller sample size. But to disproof it you need such a large sample size.

Yay.....

Maybe you need a small sample size to disprove global loot pool

 

[Kerham]

The funny aspect with this discussion is we're already exceeding both in time and in ped circulation the length of most avatars' life