Developer-Notes--3

[wizzszz]

I don't want to make assumptions, and it seems like wizz and mrproper want to gravitate towards the "you'll get 90% return no matter what you do" and/or "eco doesn't matter" theory.

My test does not show that, and I'm not trying to "insinuate" anything. My test only shows that more tt in means higher tt loots, but not necessarily the same % return no matter what you do. I only posted because of talk about loot being based on hp, which it clearly was not at the time of the test (May 2011).

I know that your test do not allow any statement about TT returns.
It could very well be that one gun gives 80% average and the other 50%, or the other way round.

All i wanted to point out is that eco does indeed matter, just like skills do (reducing i.e. armour/fap decay) when killing a given number of mobs - this is in perfect accordance with what we know already.


We need more/different tests to show if there is indeed an average payout rate of what we spend and whether this is independent from eco.


I think, even though it was a small test, it clearly shows that loot is not based on mob health, because your graphic shows the exact opposite we could have expected.

 

[Xen]

Loot is not based on mob health (at least not significantly), according to my test, if the loot system has not changed since May 2011. Probably another test should be performed.

 

[rhogenbe]

Loot is not based on mob health (at least not significantly), according to my test, if the loot system has not changed since May 2011. Probably another test should be performed.

As far as i can tell it is based on the weapon decay (including ammo, attachments) needed to do the amount of damage needed to kill the mob.

 

[Uvas]

We need more/different tests to show if there is indeed an average payout rate of what we spend and whether this is independent from eco.

As there is no personal loot pool, it doesn't matter how much you deposit.

I would imagine the proof of this could be gained from our intrepid non-depositer's returns. If they have similar returns as depositing players...there you go.

 

[Hellraizer]

Loot is not based on mob health (at least not significantly), according to my test, if the loot system has not changed since May 2011. Probably another test should be performed.

Maybe it is not based on health but it's a high factor... a mob that costs average 30 pec to kill often loots 10 pec or below in TT, a mob that costs 30 PED loots 10 pec often?... I think not.


also.. how come I generally get crap loots using an apalo and then switch to a breer m3 on the same mob and start looting a shit load of armour parts. when using amps.. it seems to make things worse on both weapons.

when grinding on Argo's I get overall (usually) descent results using an LR 32, about 70-80% TT return on 300 ped run, but when using a katsu det one time I hit a personal best global streak after repairing 4 times fully and had 300% return, and I even TT'd a korrs 400 of lets say (bad memory) 75 ped.. then looted a 75 korss from an argo just minutes later.. the system is so fucked it makes me feel sober when i'm pissed up off lager!.

 

[wizzszz]

Maybe it is not based on health but it's a high factor... a mob that costs average 30 pec to kill often loots 10 pec or below in TT, a mob that costs 30 PED loots 10 pec often?... I think not.

Why should it be health based when the kill costs are obviously way higher, so that the 10 PEC (1/3rd) should be adjusted to 10 PED on the other mob.

You are comparing apples and oranges here.


Of course, health and kill costs are closely related (as long as you use the same gear), but I think what Xen has posted (the exact opposite of a mob based loot pattern) is so distinct that we should no longer waste time on discussing health based loot.

 

[Hellraizer]

Why should it be health based when the kill costs are obviously way higher, so that the 10 PEC (1/3rd) should be adjusted to 10 PED on the other mob.

You are comparing apples and oranges here.


Of course, health and kill costs are closely related (as long as you use the same gear), but I think what Xen has posted (the exact opposite of a mob based loot pattern) is so distinct that we should no longer waste time on discussing health based loot.

Well... if you also consider that high hp mobs are most likely to drop higher TT value items then of course hp must be considered... do combibo drop shadow armour? no... they drop certain vigi parts, hp based loot may not factor on certain common rescources but they deffinatley factor on item drops, HP is a factor like it or not.

 

[FallenAngel]

Errm...

"Assumptions" are a known concept to you?

I was going to try to rebut what you said but there really is no point is there, you if, you but, you assume, and then come to conclusions that match your preconceptions, and when someone tries to point out the falacy in your argument you move on to the next assumption, data that shows X you seem to want to use as proof that Y is true, except when in the end you dont. I just want to comment on one thing you said in reply to me:

Why would they design a system that should look and feel like a personal loot pool and then make nonsense of their own charade by posting "there is no personal loot pool" in the dev notes?
Does that make much sense to you?

I really doubt that when the amazingly competent programmers at MA designed the loot system they expected people to form strange religions around its inner workings, they did not design it to look and feel like a personal loot pool, some users think it looks and feels like a personal loot pool based on their anecdotal view of the loot system. do you understand the difference between the two?

And on a personal note, thanks for quoting me in your sig, im really ***** now arent i
i should really make some mention of the fact that my original thoughts when put to paper come with a implied copyright and you failed to seek my permission before reproducing them.

 

[wizzszz]

I was going to try to rebut what you said but there really is no point is there, you if, you but, you assume, and then come to conclusions that match your preconceptions, and when someone tries to point out the falacy in your argument you move on to the next assumption, data that shows X you seem to want to use as proof that Y is true, except when in the end you dont. I just want to comment on one thing you said in reply to me:

You completely missed that this assumption was only an auxiliary construction to make a completely different point.

Reading the entire post instead of just jumping on buzz words would have helped there.

I'd love to learn what "fallacy in my argument" you think to see there though, Xen and JC said basically the same, Xen just didn't realize it and mixed my post up with something mrproper has posted in between.

I really doubt that when the amazingly competent programmers at MA designed the loot system they expected people to form strange religions around its inner workings, they did not design it to look and feel like a personal loot pool, some users think it looks and feels like a personal loot pool based on their anecdotal view of the loot system. do you understand the difference between the two?

It was YOU who came up with "they designed it to look like there'd be a "personal loot pool".
Look to what i replied:

Can you not think of any other mechanism that doesnt include personal tracking of every single avatars TT returns that gives a result that would make people think there is a personal loot pool?

A completely illogical argument (which you have meanwhile realized, it seems) i was just trying to rebut.
I'm glad that you found out yourself how silly that point was.


I have no idea why you try to twist things here, can't remember to have killed you in PvP or something...
however, it would be way easier to communicate on a less personal level, or to put it like this:

Anger in your words i sense.

And always remember: Don't drink & post!

And on a personal note, thanks for quoting me in your sig, im really ***** now arent i
i should really make some mention of the fact that my original thoughts when put to paper come with a implied copyright and you failed to seek my permission before reproducing them.

Copyright law only protects content above a certain threshold of originality, which imo does not apply here.
And even then i'd consider quoting you "fair use" as granted by US rights.

However, if it really hurts you that much, just let me know and i'll remove it.

 

[falkao]

Here's my test:

100 kills with each weapon, alternating each kill.

Pretty clear pattern imo.

Could you provide the median, 25th and 75th percentile together with min, max per group and carry out an U-Test using for example this site?

 

[falkao]

2009 was the 2nd one?

yes, and participants formed "teams" with pre-taggers (not ingame team, as this was not possible yet).

 

[wizzszz]

yes, and participants formed "teams" with pre-taggers (not ingame team, as this was not possible yet).

I took part and had two others pre-killing feffs (down to ~60%) for me. I didn't notice any difference in loot compared to killing them alone, same as in the first merry mayhem. And it were quite some feffs we killed back then, so it's not only a small sample.

It is still possible that loot was simply so good that it somehow compensated for the 40% less ammo i shot into them, but it was like that for the full duration of merry mayhem.


Now when we base loot on "cost to kill" that would mean i have not only looted what i spend, but on top of that the ammo my helpers wasted on that mob on top of that...
I never saw kill-stealing as a problem in EU (because of the personal loot), but it seems it may be way more of a problem than i initially thought: Kill-stealing seems to pay.

 

[Xen]

Could you provide the median, 25th and 75th percentile together with min, max per group and carry out an U-Test using for example this site?

I'm not really interested in doing that, as the eyeball analysis is pretty conclusive imo. But I could maybe send you the data or a link to the google spreadsheet.

Plus the test really should be performed again. I'm just not in the mood to do it, busy with missions etc. MA says they haven't changed anything but it's better to test and be sure you still get the same results today.

 

[Jimmy B]

My test does not show that, and I'm not trying to "insinuate" anything. My test only shows that more tt in means higher tt loots, but not necessarily the same % return no matter what you do. I only posted because of talk about loot being based on hp, which it clearly was not at the time of the test (May 2011).

Loot is not based on mob health (at least not significantly), according to my test, if the loot system has not changed since May 2011. Probably another test should be performed.

Nice test.

I don't have test results to hand to support this, but from what I've read & seen myself over the years I tend to feel the loot distribution depends to some extent on the cost of damage inflicted. This would be consistent with my insane regen tests where we saw a strong result in favour of more HP killed due to regen producing more loot, and also consistent with your test here.

In terms of these Dev Notes, Hit Ability would still be important since misses don't inflict damage. Reducing defence costs would still be important since defence costs don't inflict damage. However, the dev notes also imply being maxed on damage and the native eco of gun are also important. For this to be true, loot from a mob can't increase in direct proportion to the increase in cost of damage inflicted. Could be that if you halve your native eco, you increase your loot but don't double your loot (we could check that on your data set here, and mine from the insane tests), or that eco-related loot increases are lower for the rarer high multiplier loots.

 

[aia]

Here's my test:

100 kills with each weapon, alternating each kill.

Pretty clear pattern imo.

As it looks to me (at a quick glance), it looks like weapons with high decay *do* carry a bonus. But, the bonus isn't going into individual loots proportionally (if you use a 2 dmg/pec weapon instead of 4 dmg/pec you won't get double loots), but rather sends you into a higher "tier" of loots more often. Instead of getting a HOF(*) every 2% of the mobs you get a HOF 4% of the kills. Before I started to think now, I thought about some sort of memory. But I guess it works the same way as enhancers - enhancers either break or not and don't decay so there is no difference between a newly crafted enhancer and one you buy from someone unknown in auction.

This speaks against the economy talk though about that "stats is all that matters".
Though, in a way it feels obvious with (L) gear that MA can't give someone PEDs back for using a high markup% weapon as most new weapons have about same level of cost/decay (from MAs point of view - TT value).

Another test that could be done would be someone with relatively low skills shifting between Opalo (maxed then) and Jester D-1 (let's say hit ability 2.0-3.0).

(*) The difference between the highest loots and second highest loot seems to be a factor 3x, so my guess is that the test was done on rather small mobs size puny or something like that; and that on a normal mob your 6 ped loots would have been a bigger global at least. Just a guess.

 

[bettlejus]

IMO, what MA said about being maxed on damage is related to saving decay from FAP and Armor

If you are maxed on hit but not on damage, you spend more time killing a mob, thus more decay on armor and fap.

This is what I think about being maxed on damage

 

[FallenAngel]

I took part and had two others pre-killing feffs (down to ~60%) for me. I didn't notice any difference in loot compared to killing them alone, same as in the first merry mayhem. And it were quite some feffs we killed back then, so it's not only a small sample.

It is still possible that loot was simply so good that it somehow compensated for the 40% less ammo i shot into them, but it was like that for the full duration of merry mayhem.


Now when we base loot on "cost to kill" that would mean i have not only looted what i spend, but on top of that the ammo my helpers wasted on that mob on top of that...
I never saw kill-stealing as a problem in EU (because of the personal loot), but it seems it may be way more of a problem than i initially thought: Kill-stealing seems to pay.

if pre-tagging reduces loot as the data falkao analysed seems to show, and we base loot on cost to kill, then kill stealing does not pay as the kill stealer gets a reduced loot based on the cost/damage the kill stealer did, the only winner would be MA or the general loot pool? It seems simple to me, mob has a certain cost to kill or damage done (which is somewhat related to HP), there is a "killsteal/team" check applied for anyone doing damage, if not teamed person doing highest damage gets loot proportional to the damage they did to the mob. If teamed loot is shared proportionally among those in the team. If the mob has a idealised cost to kill/damage done to be able to loot it then your eco/efficiency matters, unless you are doing really stupid stuff you should not be deviating to far from the ideal in most situations so due to the regular fluctuations in the loot you get it might take a while to notice the difference between eco and less eco setups?

 

[FallenAngel]

It was YOU who came up with "they designed it to look like there'd be a "personal loot pool".
Look to what i replied:

A completely illogical argument (which you have meanwhile realized, it seems) i was just trying to rebut.
I'm glad that you found out yourself how silly that point was..

I think you missed my point, maybe its a language thing, i did not say that MA designed something to look like a personal loot pool at all, i was trying to get you to apply your critical mind to your own rather fixed theory of how the loot works, i.e. if a system when viewed by someone blindfolded and in the dark appears to be explained by there being a personal loot pool, what are the other posibilities, there are other posibilities that may appear to the blind to be a personal loot pool but are not? The other thing i asked was based on the same premise, be critical of your own theories, what does not fit that cant be explained, i.e. if there is a personal loot pool, and all the countless logs and data seems to show that loot converges towards 90% TT return and eco did not matter untill MA changed things, how do you then explain the people that were vocal in the past complaining about their poor returns? why did the personal loot pool not give them back the peds they were due?

I have no idea why you try to twist things here, can't remember to have killed you in PvP or something...
however, it would be way easier to communicate on a less personal level, or to put it like this:

Anger in your words i sense.

And always remember: Don't drink & post!

I didnt realise i was the one doing all the twisting, i didnt know you were into PVP, i dont remember meeting you in PVP or dying at your hands, i personally dont mind dying in PVP as it costs me nothing, so no its not personal at all.
I think it is a bit rich you commenting on angry words, you dont come across as very peaceful in the way you express yourself? But sure, i can be a angry person, as you probably have noticed i can be highly critical of MA, if there is any anger towards you it is probably due to my feeling so much time and energy is being wasted criticizing MA over fantasies like personal loot pools when our energy could be much better spent. It also just makes it so much easier for the people at MA to just say oh its those crazies on the forum again and not take us seriously.

You are angry about the removal of a personal loot pool that quite possibly never existed, but i think what you really just want is better loot in general, if you want better loot in general why does it matter how it is calculated and if it is personal or not, what you want is better loot? That argument is simpler and easier to convey than "omg where is my personal pool gone MA!". years ago i made the comparison, when it seemed to be that MA was "playing tricks" trying to squeeze more out of a population that wasnt really growing, between a corner shop and a supermarket, if MA wants more revenue, lower the cost of participation to increase participation, halve the cost, make players happy about loot, happy players tell their friends, a simple solution to complaints? Would you be on this forum complaining about personal loot pools disappearing if you were happy about the loot you got?

Copyright law only protects content above a certain threshold of originality, which imo does not apply here.
And even then i'd consider quoting you "fair use" as granted by US rights.

However, if it really hurts you that much, just let me know and i'll remove it.

arent you confusing copyright and patent law, the threshold of originality in copyright law is based upon how much my comment reflects my personality not so much if it has never existed before. And unless you are publishing your thoughts from the US i dont see how american law helps you here, i would readily admit the Schöpfungshöhe of my thoughts is quite low, so obviously Kleine Münze
but just to be clear as i thought it would be pretty obvious, that part of my comment was a joke

 

[wizzszz]

if pre-tagging reduces loot as the data falkao analysed seems to show, ...

There is no test of pre-killing, nor can his results be interpreted that way.

..., how do you then explain the people that were vocal in the past complaining about their poor returns? why did the personal loot pool not give them back the peds they were due?

Errm, not sure why you do not see this, but the (various) tests that hint 90% overall return (long-term) imply that MA tracks your (personal) loot somehow.

Furthermore, i think that "due" is very relative and depends a lot on your playing style.
If you keep playing, keep depositing, (read: do what's best for them) why should MA give you a fat compensation ath and make you stop depositing?

..., so no its not personal at all.

Sounded like that... but if we can keep the emotions out of the debate we might actually get somewhere

.., if there is any anger towards you it is probably due to my feeling so much time and energy is being wasted criticizing MA over fantasies like personal loot pools when our energy could be much better spent.

Look, if you want to gain knowledge you have to take ALL possibilities into consideration, even unlikely and inconvenient ones.

One of these possibilities is that we either interprete the dev notes incorrectly, or the underlying info is not correct.
It's not any anger towards MA, but we simply can't rule out that they might give us confusing or misleading info.

You are angry about the removal of a personal loot pool that quite possibly never existed, but i think what you really just want is better loot in general, if you want better loot in general why does it matter how it is calculated and if it is personal or not, what you want is better loot?

Removed? According to MA there has never been a personal loot pool.

That argument is simpler and easier to convey than "omg where is my personal pool gone MA!". years ago i made the comparison, when it seemed to be that MA was "playing tricks" trying to squeeze more out of a population that wasnt really growing, between a corner shop and a supermarket, if MA wants more revenue, lower the cost of participation to increase participation, halve the cost, make players happy about loot, happy players tell their friends, a simple solution to complaints? Would you be on this forum complaining about personal loot pools disappearing if you were happy about the loot you got?

This has nothing to do with me or my loot and how happy (or not) i am.

I simply think that the "non-gambling" aspect leaves hardly and other choice than tracking losses, otherwise killing a mob would be like buying a raffle ticket, and we all know that this is gambling at it's best.

arent you confusing copyright and patent law, the threshold of originality in copyright law is based upon how much my comment reflects my personality not so much if it has never existed before. And unless you are publishing your thoughts from the US i dont see how american law helps you here, i would readily admit the Schöpfungshöhe of my thoughts is quite low, so obviously Kleine Münze
but just to be clear as i thought it would be pretty obvious, that part of my comment was a joke

No, patent law only protects things people requested protection for. Copyright law protects ANY intellectual property without any further action.
Originality of content is a law term (unless my translator tricked me) and means there needs to be a certain minimum creativity and work put into it - a mere comment on a forum hardly meets these criteria, let alone a snippet thereof only.

The US law applies because the server is run in the US.
(otherwise you could sue 711 for people using copyrighted pics on this forum - that's not allowed in germany without explicit permission of the copyright holder)


And as you are already using the appropriate german terms, you should know by now that the "Schöpfungshöhe" is very likely too low to fall under any copyright protection.

I took your complaint not too seriously, but if you feel unhappy i'll remove it - i found your comment quite good, so it is kind of a compliment to quote you in my sig, but i don't want you to feel bad every time you see it.

 

[narfi]

There is no test of pre-killing

Over the last 4 months I have cycled over 300k ped of which less than 1/4 came from my own weapon. (the rest from support shooters NOT in a team with me.

I have in essence been kill stealing every mob during this period and still receive approximately the expected 85% tt returns on the overall Offensive costs of the entire team. (its in a 5% taxed land area)

I am convinced that Kill-stealing (truly stealing from people you wish to harm) can be a profitable occupation with the way loot currently works.

IF there was such a thing as a personal loot pool, then I would be at about 400% tt returns for the last 4 months. (I very highly doubt this is the case)

While we have only killed a few thousand mobs, I think the sample size is enough to at least make some assumptions from.

I think that because I am doing less than 25% of the total dmg while still being credited the kill and loot (as opposed to doing 60% of the dmg) It is a wide enough spread that you can not blame a "good" loot period as I have not received any high multiplier loots during this time.
(my highest multiplier during this period was only 13-14x of kill costs for that single mob)

narfi

 

[FallenAngel]

There is no test of pre-killing, nor can his results be interpreted that way.

well there seems to be and i dont mind trusting Falkao's methods and interpretations as they at least seem to be based upon some data and i have yet to see anyone challenge his methods or the data used to come to his conclusions:

Not sure if you do remember the Merry Mayhem in 2009. There were a lot of complaints about bad loots. Especially those that did hunt with a pretagger noticed low returns.
Hence fluske started testing and here are the results.

Loot was lower when using a pretagger contrasted to solo and team and was proportional to dmg done by looter in the pretagged group and to overall hp dmg done in the other groups. One year later MA changed rules and allowed teams in Merry Mayhem.

There are other experiments as well, all showing that loot is proportional to dmg done.
Nevertheless, there is one exception when using a capped amp (amp too large for weapon). The additional cost due to the dmg cap influences loot, although dmg done is the same.

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?137924-Merry-mayhem-scoreboard&p=1718599&viewfull=1#post1718599

Errm, not sure why you do not see this, but the (various) tests that hint 90% overall return (long-term) imply that MA tracks your (personal) loot somehow.

Furthermore, i think that "due" is very relative and depends a lot on your playing style.
If you keep playing, keep depositing, (read: do what's best for them) why should MA give you a fat compensation ath and make you stop depositing?

logic fail? Nothing is implied by the 90% overal return other than there is a overal return of 90%, how this is arrived at is matter for debate, ok sure, and if MA gives compensation hofs based on personal loot pools the person getting that hof doesnt have to deposit for a period of time?

Look, if you want to gain knowledge you have to take ALL possibilities into consideration, even unlikely and inconvenient ones.

One of these possibilities is that we either interprete the dev notes incorrectly, or the underlying info is not correct.
It's not any anger towards MA, but we simply can't rule out that they might give us confusing or misleading info.

but then so do you, and one of the possibilities is that you are wrong and there never was a personal loot pool?
one that is not so unlikely and seems inconvenient to you, the personal loot pool seems to make you feel safe so you are invested in it?

Removed? According to MA there has never been a personal loot pool.

i was using your argument, you cant turn your argument around on me

This has nothing to do with me or my loot and how happy (or not) i am.

Maybe i misunderstood or misread but i seem to remember some of your comments related to changes in returns you think you received in the "personal loot pool era" you believe existed v. the present, so i assumed you want better returns

I simply think that the "non-gambling" aspect leaves hardly and other choice than tracking losses, otherwise killing a mob would be like buying a raffle ticket, and we all know that this is gambling at it's best.

I also think its important to carefully parse MA's words:

There is no such thing as a “personal lootpool” for individual avatars, and there is no system in place which tracks each avatar’s returns over time, or which provides compensation to individual avatars

the word individual appears twice, there is no statement regarding any method/algorithm/governor that is applied systemwide. that statement leaves a lot of room for other explanations that do not include gambling. and one explanation that it is partially a game of chance where you as a participant have some influence on the outcome (choice of gear/skills/time/place/mob/tt-ing or auctioning etc).

The US law applies because the server is run in the US.
(otherwise you could sue 711 for people using copyrighted pics on this forum - that's not allowed in germany without explicit permission of the copyright holder)

And as you are already using the appropriate german terms, you should know by now that the "Schöpfungshöhe" is very likely too low to fall under any copyright protection.

I took your complaint not too seriously, but if you feel unhappy i'll remove it - i found your comment quite good, so it is kind of a compliment to quote you in my sig, but i don't want you to feel bad every time you see it.

as i said i was only joking, well half joking, i still think im doomed by being in your sig, but you are free to keep it there as long as you wish (j/k!)
but i do think you are mistaken, there are 3 jurisdictions at work, where you are when you publish, where the information is published, and where i am, the consumer of what you have published, a german example would be that you could probably be prosecuted in germany for posting nazi symbols or denying the holocaust on forum that is hosted in the USA.

 

[wizzszz]

well there seems to be and i dont mind trusting Falkao's methods and interpretations as they at least seem to be based upon some data and i have yet to see anyone challenge his methods or the data used to come to his conclusions:

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?137924-Merry-mayhem-scoreboard&p=1718599&viewfull=1#post1718599

The test from 2009? How does that fit in here when Xen does not even trust his results from a few months ago...?

logic fail? Nothing is implied by the 90% overal return other than there is a overal return of 90%, how this is arrived at is matter for debate, ok sure, and if MA gives compensation hofs based on personal loot pools the person getting that hof doesnt have to deposit for a period of time?

Not a logic fail, especially if you look at the pattern - i know, you think the law of large numbers will do the trick, too, but it does NOT explain why people lose bigtime before hitting big. This pattern can only be explained when MA somehow keeps track of what you've lost.

but then so do you, and one of the possibilities is that you are wrong and there never was a personal loot pool?
one that is not so unlikely and seems inconvenient to you, the personal loot pool seems to make you feel safe so you are invested in it?

Of course one of the possibilities is that i am wrong and there is no and never was a personal loot pool.
I am trying not to propagate a certain theory here, it seems that's what you think - what i try to do is to find an explanation that matches all the prerequisites, like "not gambling", "no luck involved, as well as my personal observations about the "compensating loots" described above.

i was using your argument, you cant turn your argument around on me

No, it wasn't - i only said that IF the system works like they say now, it clearly didn't before.
This could as well mean their description is wrong and loot didn't change... no idea, can't be arsed to play atm,
so i can neither confirm any of the possibilities.

And on a sidenote: using your arguments against you is absolutely ok, you try to do that with mine, too, you know...

Maybe i misunderstood or misread but i seem to remember some of your comments related to changes in returns you think you received in the "personal loot pool era" you believe existed v. the present, so i assumed you want better returns

Who wouldn't want better returns? You don't need to be a psychic to say something like that, this statement applies to pretty much everyone.

I also think its important to carefully parse MA's words:


the word individual appears twice, there is no statement regarding any method/algorithm/governor that is applied systemwide. that statement leaves a lot of room for other explanations that do not include gambling. and one explanation that it is partially a game of chance where you as a participant have some influence on the outcome (choice of gear/skills/time/place/mob/tt-ing or auctioning etc).

Oh, now you start being picky? Good thing, about due.

However, a SYSTEM wide pool where loots (including those incredible 200k+ ATHs) distributing loot on a (semi-) random basis is gambling - why can't you accept that?

as i said i was only joking, well half joking, i still think im doomed by being in your sig, but you are free to keep it there as long as you wish (j/k!)

Which part was kidding now? The "keep it"?

but i do think you are mistaken, there are 3 jurisdictions at work, where you are when you publish, where the information is published, and where i am, the consumer of what you have published, a german example would be that you could probably be prosecuted in germany for posting nazi symbols or denying the holocaust on forum that is hosted in the USA.

Now you're talking penal law, that's something entirely different.
Infringement of copyright is a matter of civil law. Only.
There has to be someone to file a law suit, this is not done automatically (like it is done in penal law, where the public prosecutor files the law suit). Then you have to be hurt in some way, and prove that accordingly. Then... well, let's drop that, ok?

International law is too complex for a "in between" debate, and will lead us nowhere - all i know for sure is that you will not have much success when you'll sue me over using that quote w/o asking. Feel free to try...

 

[Uvas]

Logical fail:

Not a logic fail, especially if you look at the pattern - i know, you think the law of large numbers will do the trick, too, but it does NOT explain why people lose bigtime before hitting big. This pattern can only be explained when MA somehow keeps track of what you've lost.

If you look at all the new people that hit it big right at the start, a "Personal loot pool" theory fails completely.

And the law of averages says that a person on a losing streak will sometimes end it with a big hit. It is bound to happen.

But random distribution covers both just fine.

 

[FallenAngel]

The test from 2009? How does that fit in here when Xen does not even trust his results from a few months ago...?

last try
because Xen does not trust his data from a few months ago means i cant trust Falkao's?
thats another logic fail right there

Not a logic fail, especially if you look at the pattern - i know, you think the law of large numbers will do the trick, too, but it does NOT explain why people lose bigtime before hitting big. This pattern can only be explained when MA somehow keeps track of what you've lost.

As i have said over and over, there is no pattern because there are many people who did not hit big after losing big time. law of large numbers will do the trick for both these case and your answer to why those people did not hit big yet, ie, cycle more peds?

Of course one of the possibilities is that i am wrong and there is no and never was a personal loot pool.
I am trying not to propagate a certain theory here, it seems that's what you think - what i try to do is to find an explanation that matches all the prerequisites, like "not gambling", "no luck involved, as well as my personal observations about the "compensating loots" described above.

is not gambling and no luck involved really a prerequisit?i dont think so, both are possible?

but i could make a stab at a alternate system, based on the shared loot model, most damage done has the highest chance to loot x, but only the highest chance, not a certainty, now picture every avatar having a coefficent based upon "deviation from 90% norm", and the higher that coefficent the higher the chance of recieving one of the extremely rare higher loot classes, at any given time there are x amount of ppl running around looting mobs/dropping probes, this is not a personal loot pool and would explain some people thinking they have a personal loot pool and some people not getting compensation loots. It didnt take me long to think this up as a alternate theory, there must be others?

No, it wasn't - i only said that IF the system works like they say now, it clearly didn't before.
This could as well mean their description is wrong and loot didn't change... no idea, can't be arsed to play atm,
so i can neither confirm any of the possibilities.

"it clearly didnt before" just isnt born out by any facts i have seen, period. i am playing atm after a long break of two years and everything seems the same to me.

And on a sidenote: using your arguments against you is absolutely ok, you try to do that with mine, too, you know...

you can use my argument against me just not your argument, they are your views not mine?

Oh, now you start being picky? Good thing, about due.

i have always been picky? search is your friend

However, a SYSTEM wide pool where loots (including those incredible 200k+ ATHs) distributing loot on a (semi-) random basis is gambling - why can't you accept that?

I have never stated that it is completely ruled out that there isnt a element of chance or gambling as you wish in entropia. The only thing i have a problem with is the twisted logic you use and the things you state as facts that have no basis in fact as i understand facts

 

[wizzszz]

last try
because Xen does not trust his data from a few months ago means i cant trust Falkao's?
thats another logic fail right there

It means you should be sceptic, too, in case something has indeed changed.
This is no fallacy, but what you do is close to one - disregarding possibilities because you simply do not like them is a cocksure way to go wrong.

You might say that i am just being paranoid, but then you are calling Xen (and everyone who wants to be on the safe side) paranoid, too...

"Better dafe than sorry" is a known concept to you?

Scientific data, especially empirical data, cannot be confirmed enough.

As i have said over and over, there is no pattern because there are many people who did not hit big after losing big time. law of large numbers will do the trick for both these case and your answer to why those people did not hit big yet, ie, cycle more peds?

??
I have provided a simple explanation for what you ask - look, even your supermarket investigates where to place the toilet paper so it makes you buy more. It is only logical to assume that MA adapts the payout rate to your gaming style. You completely ignore this, and well, what else can i say other than repeating myself:
You are disregarding possibilities here simply because you don't like them.

is not gambling and no luck involved really a prerequisit?i dont think so, both are possible?

Possible only if you think MA lies and the swedish authorities do so, too.

While this is indeed a possibility, we should start somewhere and take some prerequisites as granted.
If you don't like them, please elaborate on why you think the swedish authorities might lie and we might take it into consideration. (i.e. bribery?)

but i could make a stab at a alternate system, based on the shared loot model, most damage done has the highest chance to loot x, but only the highest chance, not a certainty, now picture every avatar having a coefficent based upon "deviation from 90% norm", and the higher that coefficent the higher the chance of recieving one of the extremely rare higher loot classes, at any given time there are x amount of ppl running around looting mobs/dropping probes, this is not a personal loot pool and would explain some people thinking they have a personal loot pool and some people not getting compensation loots. It didnt take me long to think this up as a alternate theory, there must be others?

That coefficient is just another way to express that loot is based on your past losses - another term for the same mechanism is "personal loot pool".
You didn't even realize that you are argueing in favour of "MA tracks long-term loots and compensates players", did you?

"it clearly didnt before" just isnt born out by any facts i have seen, period. i am playing atm after a long break of two years and everything seems the same to me.

It is very well supported by facts i have seen.
And i cannot comment on whether it has changed recently or not, no time to play atm - but i said that in my last post already.

you can use my argument against me just not your argument, they are your views not mine?

I can use whatever argument i want to use, with very little constraints - it is up to you to disprove them, because that's how a debate works.

i have always been picky? search is your friend

No idea, i tend to not remember (or not attribute posts correctly) if people do not even have an avatar picture.
However, if you are that much of a critic, why do you disagree with my general observation that something does not match???

I have never stated that it is completely ruled out that there isnt a element of chance or gambling as you wish in entropia. The only thing i have a problem with is the twisted logic you use and the things you state as facts that have no basis in fact as i understand facts

I do not twist logic, and if i do please carefully point out what exactly you deem illogical.

You, in contrast, ignore possibilites with no other reason than not liking them - just look at the first part of your post, you are doing it all the time.

I think "facts" do mean something entirely different to you than to i.e. me, and i wonder if this conversation really makes any sense when you argue only based on gut feelings and accuse me of doing the same.





And, "believe" in a personal loot pool means exactly just that - "belief" is a known concept to you?
If i could prove it beyond any doubt, it would no longer be belief - however, this does NOT mean that it is wrong, only because i cannot prove it. Feel free to disprove it though, but learn the basics of "how empirical knowledge can be gained" first, you appear to make it wrong.

 

[falkao]

.... But I could maybe send you the data or a link to the google spreadsheet.
..

thx Xen for providing the data and here are the results.

Both weapons do 12 dmg with similar dps but total cost of weapon is quite different.
DLxE: Ammo 500, Decay .52, Total Cost 5.52, dps 5.6
EP-13: Ammo 300, Decay .04, Total Cost 3.04, dps 4.9

Results
From the 100 kills with DLxE, 49% had loot not statistically significantly different from the 43% with EP-13 (p=.395, Chi-square test).

Median loot with DLxE was 1.33 PED (range .3 to 5, mean 1.5) statistically significantly higher than with EP-13 were median loot was .76 (range .19 to 5, mean .92) (p<.001 U-test, p<.001 Log-Rank test).

Boxplot of loot value in PED by DLxE and EP-13.

More details are given by the respective survival functions.

Discussion

DLxE produces higher loot than EP-13. This is in some way unexpected as HP-dmg done was comparable. Mean loot was .92 for EP-13 and 1.5 for DLxE, hence loot of EP-13 was by .613 lower than with DLxE and this corresponds quite well to the ammo ratio of 300/500 = .6 but not to the ratio of total cost 3.04/5.52 = .551.

Correcting loot of DLxE using the ammo factor of 0.6 leads to the following survival functions, not statistically significantly different from each other (p=.954, Log-Rank test). Using the total cost factor gives a log-rank of p=.363, which indicates that this correction is not that appropriate.

A similar result was seen when using capped amps. Hence one might conclude that ammo is turned into loot but not decay. Hence, although loot is higher with DLxE, the quite high decay might not get compensated.

As DLxE is unique in terms of ammo/dmg = 41.6 (median is 21.2) it is possible that this effect has been overseen so far. Emik X0 (L) with 237 might be a similar candidate as DLxE or NIP P5 (L) with 6.62 ammo/dmg is an extreme on the other side.


If it proofs true that ammo is turned into loot, then dmg/pec might be useless and decay/cost might be more relevant.

 

[Uvas]

thx Xen for providing the data and here are the results.

Both weapons do 12 dmg with similar dps but total cost of weapon is quite different.
DLxE: Ammo 500, Decay .52, Total Cost 5.52, dps 5.6
EP-13: Ammo 300, Decay .04, Total Cost 3.04, dps 4.9

Results
From the 100 kills with DLxE, 49% had loot not statistically significantly different from the 43% with EP-13 (p=.395, Chi-square test).

Median loot with DLxE was 1.33 PED (range .3 to 5, mean 1.5) statistically significantly higher than with EP-13 were median loot was .76 (range .19 to 5, mean .92) (p<.001 U-test, p<.001 Log-Rank test).

Boxplot of loot value in PED by DLxE and EP-13.

More details are given by the respective survival functions.

Discussion

DLxE produces higher loot than EP-13. This is in some way unexpected as HP-dmg done was comparable. Mean loot was .92 for EP-13 and 1.5 for DLxE, hence loot of EP-13 was by .613 lower than with DLxE and this corresponds quite well to the ammo ratio of 300/500 = .6 but not to the ratio of total cost 3.04/5.52 = .551.

Correcting loot of DLxE using the ammo factor of 0.6 leads to the following survival functions, not statistically significantly different from each other (p=.954, Log-Rank test). Using the total cost factor gives a log-rank of p=.363, which indicates that this correction is not that appropriate.

A similar result was seen when using capped amps. Hence one might conclude that ammo is turned into loot but not decay. Hence, although loot is higher with DLxE, the quite high decay might not get compensated.

As DLxE is unique in terms of ammo/dmg = 41.6 (median is 21.2) it is possible that this effect has been overseen so far. Emik X0 (L) with 237 might be a similar candidate as DLxE or NIP P5 (L) with 6.62 ammo/dmg is an extreme on the other side.


If it proofs true that ammo is turned into loot, then dmg/pec might be useless and decay/cost might be more relevant.

Could this be evidence that total weapon ped cost used in killing a mob is the determining factor on loot? The gun that costs more to use to kill the same mob gives more loot.

 

[Joat]

Errm...
That's not the main point, the real question is: Where do our losses go?
(the "unexpected" losses, runs way below average)

Distributed to other players, with a 1/100000 chance?
This is SO gambling, that the system can't work like that or the swedish gambling commission must be deaf, mute and blind.

For you it might be the main point, for me it isn't.
I'm more interested in the mechanism why we get the loot we get.
One thing many seem to miss is that dmg/pec is just a statistic value, based on
linear cost from the damage done.
Why are cost for interaction linear while loot moves up and down?
Can we decrease the negative in that loot moves and down?
This is the main point for me, the solid created values done in our interactions, not
statistic value based on something done over time.

So, where do our spent peds go from our interactions?
Well, it isn't called Lootpool for nothing.
We all fill them up with values from our interactions, and we all get
some value back from our interactions.
Are we able to get a better (or maybe I should say less bad ) value back, if we truely
understand the progress of the loot system? Imo we can.

 

[falkao]

if pre-tagging reduces loot as the data falkao analysed seems to show, and we base loot on cost to kill, then kill stealing does not pay as the kill stealer gets a reduced loot based on the cost/damage the kill stealer did, the only winner would be MA or the general loot pool? ..

The problem is that only the PED's of the pre-tagger are lost, hence a kill stealer will get lower loot but it is proportional to the dmg he did and hence for him it will remain the same.

 

[falkao]

Could this be evidence that total weapon ped cost used in killing a mob is the determining factor on loot? The gun that costs more to use to kill the same mob gives more loot.

It seems that direct weapon cost (without decay) determines loot. Till now I've assumed that it is hp dmg done.

As it looks now, mobs do record dmg cost (ammo, without decay and misses) and pays out accordingly.

P.S. This might also expalin why I had unknown variability when trying to establish a loot model for hunting. The data I've used was from different weapons.