Developer-Notes--3

[wizzszz]

No idea where you took the underlying data from, but it is useless anyway:

"consecutive runs till a global" is not what i said - it is very well possible to have smaller payouts in between that bring you back to 66%. These can be globals, too, but they are most of the time not much above 50 PED.

Then, the "final" payout can come in two back-to-back globals, or with very few bombs in between.

If you use "drops until first global" you do not even address what i said, nor does it take the size of that global into consideration.



And you completely ignored that i said there are some prerequisites:

It is i.e. important where to start recording, otherwise you won't see how exact loot follows this pattern - 20 drops from before and you will obviously be off by ~6 PED.



Wouldn't it make more sense to first understand the entire thing before making some survivor function plots based on misunderstandings?

If you want to check what i said, buy 2k PED worth of probes and go mining - keep going till you hit a global > 100 PED, then start recording your your return % of TT spent on a simple graph - i know you love those survival functions a lot, but they are not the means of choice here.

 

[falkao]

...

"consecutive runs till a global" is not what i said - it is very well possible to have smaller payouts in between that bring you back to 66%. These can be globals, too, but they are most of the time not much above 50 PED.

Then, the "final" payout can come in two back-to-back globals, or with very few bombs in between.

If you use "drops until first global" you do not even address what i said, nor does it take the size of that global into consideration.

I did what you have stated before and what you are stating now. This is what you've posted:

...
Let's say you do 100 mining runs, all with enough bombs to go on until you hit a global.

Those are my 85 runs.

And record the return all the time.
The return rate pretty quickly converges to 2/3rd

Now you hit a global
And the global size EXACTLY matches the missing amount of PEDs thats needed bring you to 90%.
And you get the same pattern 98 out of 100 times....
...

For every run I have recorded RR till the global. This should be exactly 90%, which it isn't.

...
And you completely ignored that i said there are some prerequisites:

..

You didn't mention them before, but they are irrelevant.

What you are describing is, that one needs a global to achieve a 90% RR. This is well known and an implication of the random loot distribution.

Here the same as before with different cutoffs of 10, 25, 50 and 100 as global. Over 25 the distribution looks the same.

It would be great to see your data.

 

[wizzszz]

For every run I have recorded RR till the global. This should be exactly 90%, which it isn't.

No, you've done it wrong - and you completely ignore again that "first global" is FALSE.
(See post #565)

You didn't mention them before, but they are irrelevant.

I did mention them (see i.e. post #563)
I have not published ALL of those prerequisites - you cannot reproduce my result without them, and i have not even published all that's needed.

I.e. shooting mobs in between is a big no-no, but there's some more...



Again (and i'll type slowly this time):
Your plots are useless, because the underlying data are useless.

I don't know why you keep ignoring what i write - is it because you soo wan't to use your old runs?

What you are describing is, that one needs a global to achieve a 90% RR. This is well known and an implication of the random loot distribution.

Well known, yes, we agree on something, at last.

But your deduction is wrong, that's absolutely NO implication of a random loot distribution if the size of the global matches prior losses.

Those are my 85 runs.

Hardly, tracker can find exactly ONE mining global for you.







I'll just stop replying to you here, for the simple fact that you are SO keen on disproving what i said that you do not even take the time to read all of my posts, you do not even try to understand how it works and what the prerequisites are.

Instead, you just dig up some old data, try to make them look as if they match what i said (which they clearly don't) and then declare my point disproven (which you can't - apples and oranges...).

 

[falkao]

...I have not published ALL of those prerequisites - you cannot reproduce my result without them, and i have not even published all that's needed.
....

imprecise input -> imprecise output.
Reproducibility is the base of any analysis. If your constraints are that way, that nobody is able to reproduce your results then we're talking about an opinion you do have. Nothing more and nothing less.

...
I'll just stop replying to you here, for the simple fact that you are SO keen on disproving what i said that you do not even take the time to read all of my posts, you do not even try to understand how it works and what the prerequisites are...
.

As you took yourself out of discussion you released us from a consistently repeated opinion as it would not have become true with this.

 

[FallenAngel]

I did mention them (see i.e. post #563)
I have not published ALL of those prerequisites - you cannot reproduce my result without them, and i have not even published all that's needed.

I.e. shooting mobs in between is a big no-no, but there's some more...



Again (and i'll type slowly this time):
Your plots are useless, because the underlying data are useless.

First you wont publish any data, now you have secret prerequisites that you refuse to share to reproduce your anecdotal results that prove your theories of how loot work, this is not science or rigorous this is subjective validation. You asked for scepticism earlier in the thread, well this pushes all my sceptic buttons.

I have had 1977 mining claims in the last 30 days, i already log my TT returns in a thread in the mining section, if you or anyone else wish me to collect more exact and current data to help settle this, or any other discussion about returns, just ask me what you want me to collect and how. If +/- 10K drops a month is not enough to say something meaningful about returns then what is?

 

[falkao]

...
, if you or anyone else wish me to collect more exact and current data to help settle this, or any other discussion about returns, just ask me what you want me to collect and how. ..

thx for your proposal. For those interested in mining data collection here (2nd code table with Run, Find, Finder, ...) a format that is usefully.

A simple test to verify if there is memory or not would consist in using loot values before and after a global. For instance, if b(n-1), g, a(n+1) is the chronologically ordered series of collected loot values, where g is the nth global, b(n-1) the loot value preceding the global and a(n+1) the one after the global, then the distribution b and a should be the same if there is no memory.

Not sure if this data should come from different avas or if a single ava can be used.

 

[FallenAngel]

thx for your proposal. For those interested in mining data collection here (2nd code table with Run, Find, Finder, ...) a format that is usefully.

A simple test to verify if there is memory or not would consist in using loot values before and after a global. For instance, if b(n-1), g, a(n+1) is the chronologically ordered series of collected loot values, where g is the nth global, b(n-1) the loot value preceding the global and a(n+1) the one after the global, then the distribution b and a should be the same if there is no memory.

Not sure if this data should come from different avas or if a single ava can be used.

i take it you mean this format?

Run	Find	Finder	Skill	NRF	SIZE	DEPTH	Range	RESS	UNITS	TT	TAX	Amp	Driller	Skills	Drills
1	1	Ziplex Ju10	178.1/204	8	2	76	44.8	Alicenies Liquid	14	0.7	4.00%	0	Genesis Star Energy Extractor EE/01	3.9/6.8	9,5
1	2	Ziplex Ju10	178.1/204	1	2	51	11.6	Force Nexus	72	0.72	4.00%	0	Genesis Star Energy Extractor EE/01	3.9/6.8	17,17,21,16,1
1	3	Ziplex Ju10	178.1/204	1	4	100	43.9	Force Nexus	209	2.09	4.00%	0	Genesis Star Energy Extractor EE/01	3.9/6.8	19,18,19,22,21,22,19,23,23,20,3
1	4	Ziplex Ju10	178.1/204	1	2	168	23.2	Force Nexus	57	0.57	4.00%	0	Genesis Star Energy Extractor EE/01	3.9/6.8	19,24,14

is information such as depth/range/resource type/skill/driller/drills relevant? the less i have to collect the faster i can collect data. If i collect it as shown below am i missing something you need?

Find nr	NRF	SIZE          UNITS	TT	TAX	Amp

 

[falkao]

...

is information such as depth/range/resource type/skill/driller/drills relevant? the less i have to collect the faster i can collect data. If i collect it as shown below am i missing something you need?

Find nr	NRF	SIZE          UNITS	TT	TAX	Amp

range is relevant as it influences hit rate, but it is sufficient to know the finder you've used for the dataset. Therefore, an own column is not needed for it.

"Resource" is helpfully. With resource and units, TT can be calculated. If resource is not given then "Resource type" (ore/enmatter) should be given as loot needs to be standardized according to type.

Skill, driller, drills and depth is not needed. Depth is a "nice to have".

 

[FallenAngel]

range is relevant as it influences hit rate, but it is sufficient to know the finder you've used for the dataset. Therefore, an own column is not needed for it.

"Resource" is helpfully. With resource and units, TT can be calculated. If resource is not given then "Resource type" (ore/enmatter) should be given as loot needs to be standardized according to type.

Skill, driller, drills and depth is not needed. Depth is a "nice to have".

if i can avoid it i would prefer not to publicly document the resource in each find
if i record type and units and tt of each find will that be sufficient?
i dont mind adding range and depth if it helps.
once i have some data i will start posting it elsewhere as this thread doesnt seem the right place for it.

 

[falkao]

if i can avoid it i would prefer not to publicly document the resource in each find

The following would be sufficient as SIZE and UNITS are not that important. TYPE = "e" for enmatter and "o" for ore. Finder range should be communicated via pm per dataset.

ID	NRF	TYPE	TT	TAX	Amp

once i have some data i will start posting it elsewhere as this thread doesnt seem the right place for it.

sure, best is to make a new thread.

 

[FallenAngel]

The following would be sufficient as SIZE and UNITS are not that important. TYPE = "e" for enmatter and "o" for ore. Finder range should be communicated via pm per dataset.

ID	NRF	TYPE	TT	TAX	Amp

sure, best is to make a new thread.

ah that saves me quite a bit of effort, i started logging everything but its slowing down my drop rate quite a bit

 

[falkao]

ah that saves me quite a bit of effort, i started logging everything but its slowing down my drop rate quite a bit

yep I know. To collect data is very time consuming. At least there are some loggers now but for mining you do need paper and pencil mostly.

 

[wizzszz]

imprecise input -> imprecise output.
Reproducibility is the base of any analysis. If your constraints are that way, that nobody is able to reproduce your results then we're talking about an opinion you do have. Nothing more and nothing less.

No, it's not only an opinion.
I recorded everything long ago, but as soon as MA started messing up mining grounds i deleted all.

The results were painfully obvious, no doubt they can be easily reproduced.

As you took yourself out of discussion you released us from a consistently repeated opinion as it would not have become true with this.

You sound relieved...

Must be really a pain in the ass when someone consistently points out where your studies are wrong - it is necessary though, as you tend to misinterprete stuff and jump to conclusions.

First you wont publish any data, ...

I can't published detailed data, because i don't have them anymore.
And i do not need them anymore, because i've already evaluated them and found what i was looking for.

.. now you have secret prerequisites that you refuse to share ...

They are by no means "secret" - i just won't publish them on the forum, that's all - look here, pretty obvious what i meant, don't you think...:

There are a few minor prerequisites though, that are needed if you want to reproduce my results (nothing special, really) - but i prefer to not share them in public.

Did anyone of you PM me and ask me for the exact prerequisites? Nope.
Yet you feel the need to attack me for "refuse to share"... bit silly, innit?

... this is not science or rigorous this is subjective validation.

Trust me, i've collected and evaluated the data strictly under scientific aspects.
I had, at that time, no preconceived theory, so the evaluation was absolutely neutral (and by no means "subjective").

That i am defending "loot tracking" or "loot algorithm with a memory" is only a logical consequence of my own results.

You asked for scepticism earlier in the thread, well this pushes all my sceptic buttons.

Sure, scepticism is always welcome, it helps to straighten out the communication-induced uncertainties, and helps to make sure you didn't interprete things "your way" - just cut down a bit on the personal attacks, will ya?

A simple test to verify if there is memory or not would consist in using loot values before and after a global.

Won't (dis)prove anything - according to what i outlined earlier, loot outside of globals is most of the time pretty much the same... why do i have the feeling that nobody really understood my posts?

 

[FallenAngel]

Did anyone of you PM me and ask me for the exact prerequisites? Nope.
Yet you feel the need to attack me for "refuse to share"... bit silly, innit?

you want to be believed? i could of had a PM with details if that is what you meant with public, for some reason i include myself in the data set "public".
i dont believe i have attacked you?i have been quite firm in my rejection of some of your statements and question their basis, but thats not attacking you, and for someone who is not shy about firmly telling others what you think of them and their methods im surprised you complain about my tone.

Trust me, i've collected and evaluated the data strictly under scientific aspects.
I had, at that time, no preconceived theory, so the evaluation was absolutely neutral (and by no means "subjective").

That i am defending "loot tracking" or "loot algorithm with a memory" is only a logical consequence of my own results.

see this is the problem, its unrealistic to say trust me, trust me that MA is lying now or secretly changed something, trust me you are all wrong, the data is wrong, the analysis is wrong and expect everyone to have a sudden "religious conversion" based upon trust.
But as i promised earlier, i will provide my raw data so that you can use that if you wish, and if you PM me your prerequisites i will see if it is possible and reasonable to take those into account.

 

[wizzszz]

you want to be believed?

Honestly? No.
Actually, i couldn't care less if a few hairsplicers trust my words or not - i've seen what i've seen, this is not possible with a loot system people (and devs) propagate here, no matter how many nice graphs with next to zero relevance you post.

i could of had a PM with details if that is what you meant with public, for some reason i include myself in the data set "public".

Is my english that bad? Or is it your reading comprehension?

"not share them in public" - No matter which word i emphasize here, i still do not arrive at the interpretation you've made.

i dont believe i have attacked you?

I do.

i have been quite firm in my rejection of some of your statements and question their basis, but thats not attacking you,...

Apology accepted.

... and for someone who is not shy about firmly telling others what you think of them and their methods im surprised you complain about my tone.

If i "firmly tell" others what i think of their post, i make sure that i am 100% right first - you didn't.
If you make an attack based on something you have to twist first i can only interprete this as some kind of helpless personal attack.

see this is the problem, its unrealistic to say trust me, trust me that MA is lying now or secretly changed something, trust me you are all wrong, the data is wrong, the analysis is wrong and expect everyone to have a sudden "religious conversion" based upon trust.

I don't expect anyone to trust me.
I just keep telling people why they are wrong, why even the dev notes can't mean what people see in it.

If you think that i am just delusional, why argue?

And what if i am right (despite being or not being delusional)??

Repeat after me:
You shall not abandon your faith so easily.

But as i promised earlier, i will provide my raw data so that you can use that if you wish, and if you PM me your prerequisites i will see if it is possible and reasonable to take those into account.

Well, after reading how much you twist my words i am afraid that you will not understand the prerequisites or be unable to follow them.

It is easy to produce results that look different than what i claimed, if you do something stupid in between.

And yes, i am fully aware that this makes my claims kinda "untouchable", but i don't f'ing care if you or anyone believes me - the truth is out there, if you really want to find it, i'll provide the means to do so - if you're just out to disprove me, well...

And you can PM me and kindly ask for the needed prerequisites, it's not like i have to take these info after you.

 

[FallenAngel]

The following would be sufficient as SIZE and UNITS are not that important. TYPE = "e" for enmatter and "o" for ore. Finder range should be communicated via pm per dataset.

ID	NRF	TYPE	TT	TAX	Amp

sure, best is to make a new thread.

i have no problem with the range or dataset itself being public, that i why i asked if the specific resource could be left out of the collection.
i made a new thread with a example of the raw data i collected earlier, if there is not a problem with that i will start to also add more data to the thread, and in your preferred format.

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?230470-mining-data-2012

 

[Uvas]

you want to be believed? i could of had a PM with details if that is what you meant with public, for some reason i include myself in the data set "public".
i dont believe i have attacked you?i have been quite firm in my rejection of some of your statements and question their basis, but thats not attacking you, and for someone who is not shy about firmly telling others what you think of them and their methods im surprised you complain about my tone.




see this is the problem, its unrealistic to say trust me, trust me that MA is lying now or secretly changed something, trust me you are all wrong, the data is wrong, the analysis is wrong and expect everyone to have a sudden "religious conversion" based upon trust.
But as i promised earlier, i will provide my raw data so that you can use that if you wish, and if you PM me your prerequisites i will see if it is possible and reasonable to take those into account.

Forget it sir.

He will not let himself be cornered into a position that could be possibly falsified. (Which, by the way, is required by any scientific theory.) That will open himself up to being proven wrong. He is much more happy pontificating to us mere mortals.

 

[wizzszz]

Forget it sir.

He will not let himself be cornered into a position that could be possibly falsified. (Which, by the way, is required by any scientific theory.) That will open himself up to being proven wrong. He is much more happy pontificating to us mere mortals.

So desparately looking for something negative to say about me?

You appear to forget something vital here:
I never asked people to verify/falsify or even believe what i said - my ONLY question was this:

Can a loot pattern (like described above) be produced with an algorithm that has no memory.

To answer this question it is completely irrelevant whether i actually had such runs, whether someone can verify/falsify them or whether you or anyone believes me.




But thank you for yet another fruitless attempt to run me down in public - you made it once more clear that you have no interest in contributing to the topic, and instead display that you have once more commented on something you have not even read.

I have already reported you to the mods for stalking me - didn't you already promise you'd stop your antisocial behaviour?

 

[wizz]

.... you made it once more clear that you have no interest in contributing to the topic, and instead display that you have once more commented on something you have not even read.

as are 99% of all the posts on this forum.



and yes, mine is also one of the 99%

 

[Viperstrike]

Time to bump some dev notes for the last few months of newcomers to read

 

[Viperstrike]

BUMP It up - Dev Notes - Oh noes! No Loot Poolz

Just to clear up some apparent confusion and misunderstandings related to the Personal Lootpool portion of Developer Notes #2-- Entropia Universe has never had any kind of so called personal lootpool mechanic.

It seems some participants have incorrectly interpreted the developer note article to mean that personal lootpools or some other sort of loot tracking / avatar compensation mechanic existed in the past and was later removed. This is not the case.

The fundamental loot architecture in Entropia Universe has been unchanged since public beta. Of course, minor tweaks and adjustments have been made over the years to improve balancing and to accomdate new game systems, but the basic underlying concept is the same as ever.

How about we revise the loot system and ruleset balancing engine for the 10 year anniversary, bring it out of the dinosaur era

Some particularly good information in this thread "towards the end of it" on how this would be achieved

Link > https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...he-dynamics-of-Entropia-Universe-loot-returns

Hi Falkao,

Thanks for the reply.

My hope is that something will be considered for the 10 year anniversary, even if it is just a tabled research project. It would be funds out of the 6 Mil USD from CLDs sold well spent before hugely investing into a worldwide marketing blitz which will bring the same problems with it as people leave as the ones prior to it.

Entropia Universes' imaged needs to be turned around and I strong agree that experimenting with some new RCE ingredients as you have put it is the key to achieving this.

Cheers and +rep,
Viper

 

[wizzszz]

In dev notes #1 they said there are separated loot pools for all three professions, and a few weeks later they tell us that there is no loot pool mechanism at all...

My opinion: They put all these (dis)information in dev notes so they can always fire some poor guy and say this:

Wtf? Those weren't authorized announcements - we are awfully sorry, but it's not our fault if you believe everything people post in a dev blog.
It's obvious that if we wanted to communicate such things we would have chosen the well-established form of communication we have used all the years before!!!

I was a nice guy though and have removed all the additional comments i had in there...

 

[aridash]

In dev notes #1 they said there are separated loot pools for all three professions, and a few weeks later they tell us that there is no loot pool mechanism at all...

no personal loot pool, in case the detail is overlooked.

 

[Viperstrike]

no personal loot pool, in case the detail is overlooked.

Hush, if there were only universal loot pools we drew from statistically, it would infer gambling
Since we are all drawing from a position based on statistics, RNG and other factors.

hehe enough said!
Don't go getting us Aussies ban from playing EU ... Our great firewall sux as it is.

Under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA), parliament established a regulatory framework which makes it an offence to provide certain interactive gambling services to a customer physically present in Australia. The prohibited interactive gambling content under the IGA includes services that are often described as 'online casinos' and usually involve using the internet to play games of chance, or games of mixed chance and skill.

 

[OZtwo]

In dev notes #1 they said there are separated loot pools for all three professions, and a few weeks later they tell us that there is no loot pool mechanism at all...

And then just a few weeks after these notes, the loot itself just seemed to dry up and go south.

 

[John B Knight]

Quote from dev note 3:
'Efficiency in hunting has several components, the most vital of which is Hit Ability (sometimes abbreviated as HA). Hit Ability is a measure of how accurate you avatar is with a weapon. You can view your avatar’s Hit Ability on a weapon by right-clicking on the weapon and viewing the item’s information panel. Based on your avatar’s skills and the requirements for the particular weapon, a number between 0.0 and 10.0 will be calculated and displayed. The single most important effort a hunter can make in becoming more efficient in his or her hunting activities is to always use weapons which are “maxed” -- weapons with which your avatar has 10.0 Hit Ability. The importance of this cannot be stressed strongly enough.

A second and very important part of efficient hunting is to consider the relative cost of using a particular weapon, often referred to as weapon economy, usually measured as damage per PEC. This measures how efficiently, in terms of weapon decay and ammo consumption, a weapon produces each point of damage. An avatar will enjoy much better overall hunting results over time when using weapons with higher damage per pec. Many community websites, such as www.entropiawiki.com, offer detailed statistics on the economy of nearly all the various weapons available in Entropia Universe. The MindArk development team is also considering including more detailed economy statistics on the item information panel in an upcoming release to improve the availability of such information.

Another important part of hunting efficiently is making sure that your avatar has achieved the full damage capability of the weapon being used. Like Hit Ability, damage capability is calculated based on the avatar’s skills and the weapon’s requirements, and is shown in the format Actual_Damage / Maximum_Damage on the item information panel. For example: 10.0-20.0 / 10.0-20.0. To be the most efficient as possible, make sure to hunt with weapons on which your avatar has reached the weapon’s maximum damage potential.
'

My question on this would be - have you considered vehicle and spacecraft weapons and taken them into account ?
There is no way to view hitrate for spacecraft guns.
There is no way of predicting wheter a gathered mobs hitbox is currently blocked by another mobs nonhitable bodyparts when opening fire, your only way to figure it out is to loose your ammo and see no hit message.
There is no way to view the stats of the spacecraft guns.
There is no way to skill up on more level appropriate guns for those starting out new.
There is no way to estimate if a mob is in shooting range if you have no team and cant use team target.

Aside from this there has been a massive change in space hunting effecting our overall returns without any public notice:
Critical hits in space since several months do not have the double damage potential anymore but instead seem to be just a part of a normal hit nowadays.
In the past a skilled gunner hitting for 200-400 dmg on mothership guns and averaging in the 300+ could hit up to 800 on a crit but nowadays crits yield around 200-300 on most cases
-> this means having the 'luck' to have a crit makes you hit for less then if you had a normal hit
-> this means the more you skill up from a certain level and the higher your chance of getting crits grows the more often you will hit for less
-> so while there is still improvement in skilling up due to better hitrate, it is at the same time lowered due to hitting more often with crits for less

Im dont know if damage done is calculated for lootdistribution or if just the cost per shot counts - however the change to crits made it necessary to shoot at mobs more often to kill them then before often exceeding the hitpoints of a mob by far on the finishing shot - this seems to have impacted average lootreturn quite noticeably.

In the above mentioned point of mob hitboxes being hidden behind other mobs bodyparts in space, i want to make aware that privateers and motherships have to collect huge numbers of mobs to keep repaircrew busy/happy which will always lead to alot of mobs close to the ship.
My estimation for myself of peds wasted into 'hidden'/'shielded' spacemobs over the time of this years hunting is several thousand peds.

I hope that when talking of our ways to hunt effeciently space will be taken into account and adapted accordingly

 

[Uvas]

In dev notes #1 they said there are separated loot pools for all three professions, and a few weeks later they tell us that there is no loot pool mechanism at all...

Once again you are posting outright lies. Do you have no shame at all?

Personal Lootpools - Many of the theories which suggest - inaccurately - that efficiency is unimportant will often employ the concept of a “personal lootpool”, claiming that the “system” will eventually provide a sort of compensation to avatars who have been operating in an inefficient manner. Such theories are very much misguided. 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. As a result, long-term results in Entropia Universe are directly related to the choices made by each participant, and those who approach their chosen profession in an efficient manner will find more success than those who do not. Overall this is a very positive thing and an important part of the Entropia virtual universe concept, as it allows those participants who spend the time and effort to approach their activities within Entropia Universe in a smart way to improve their chances of becoming successful, just like in the real world.

Can you please point out the part that states that there is "no loot pool mechanism at all"?

What they are saying is that there is no tracking of individual results. Hence, no personal loot pool.

Mindark having a large loot pool for mining that grows from all mining activities by all players, is not a personal loot pool.

Mindark having a large loot pool for hunting that grows from all hunting activities by all players, is not a personal loot pool.

Mindark having a large loot pool for crafting that grows from all craftng activities by all players, is not a personal loot pool.



{removed}

 

[Viperstrike]

Mindark having a large loot pool for mining that grows from all mining activities by all players, is not a personal loot pool.

Mindark having a large loot pool for hunting that grows from all hunting activities by all players, is not a personal loot pool.

Mindark having a large loot pool for crafting that grows from all craftng activities by all players, is not a personal loot pool.

Not sure where it says that they have this either
Even though it may be the case where they do have large universal pools.

However if it were the case that a universal pool that did grow from all activities and then was distributed via statistical means using an effeciency rating model and other factors it would be considered gambling, period.

What I am trying to say in the shortest and most polite sense possible is that this will get Australians banned from using the service if it exists in such format with the 2011/2012 IGA 2001 act (law) review.

See my post here > https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...oper-Notes-3&p=2984076&viewfull=1#post2984076

Se act review currently in its final stages here > http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/online_gambling

ie. Our firewall will filter all known MindArk associated IP addresses from being accessed.

Please refrain from stating it is the case, unless specifically documented by MA.

Peace,
Viper

 

[Uvas]

Not sure where it says that they have this either
Even though it may be the case where they do have large universal pools.

However if it were the case that a universal pool that did grow from all activities and then was distributed via statistical means using an effeciency rating model and other factors it would be considered gambling, period.

What I am trying to say in the shortest and most polite sense possible is that this will get Australians banned from using the service if it exists in such format with the 2011/2012 IGA 2001 act (law) review.

See my post here > https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...oper-Notes-3&p=2984076&viewfull=1#post2984076

Se act review currently in its final stages here > http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/online_gambling

ie. Our firewall will filter all known MindArk associated IP addresses from being accessed.

Please refrain from stating it is the case, unless specifically documented by MA.

Peace,
Viper

Independent Lootpools - One concern that we see very often on community forums, especially when a big All Time High is achieved, is that one profession is unfairly “financing” a huge loot in another profession. This misconception often results in one group of participants (i.e. hunters) becoming upset or frustrated that their activity is being used to fund the rewards given to another group of participants (i.e. miners). To hopefully dispel this misconception, we would like to inform participants that the loot pools for each main profession (hunting, mining and manufacturing) are completely independent of one another, and that a large loot in one profession has absolutely no impact on potential loots in any of the other professions.

Separate, large loot pools for each profession, funded by player activity.

I don't have time right now as I am getting ready for work, but i will look at your links about how this makes it gambling when I get home.

Cheers.

 

[Viperstrike]

Hi Uvas,

That is what I hope you wouldn't point out

Independent Lootpools - One concern that we see very often on community forums, especially when a big All Time High is achieved, is that one profession is unfairly “financing” a huge loot in another profession. This misconception often results in one group of participants (i.e. hunters - one lootpool) becoming upset or frustrated that their activity is being used to fund the rewards given to another group of participants (i.e. miners - another seperate lootpool). To hopefully dispel this misconception, we would like to inform participants that the loot pools for each main profession (hunting, mining and manufacturing) are completely independent of one another, and that a large loot in one profession has absolutely no impact on potential loots in any of the other professions.

Under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA), parliament established a regulatory framework which makes it an offence to provide certain interactive gambling services to a customer physically present in Australia. The prohibited interactive gambling content under the IGA includes services that are often described as 'online casinos' and usually involve using the internet to play games of chance, or games of mixed chance and skill.

Part of the research/investigation I was involved in my past work was to do with statistically assigning return of finance to the player, making a clear statement by an MA official of the such is a bad thing and will be caught up in the next review of Entropia Universe.

The initial commitee review on Entropia was giving the green light as not to be filtered.
I do not know the exact notes of the findings as I was not there until the end - Accident occured IRL.

If this was due to the constraints of the current IGA 2001 ACT's context, which I feel it may have been.
Then it will definitely be resolved within the IGA 2012 (or 2013) final act once it has been passed by government.

Personally I am a little concerned as I feel the next review will be the request for access to intelectual property (Their coding structure/routines/flowchart of funds through the system) which we all know MA will never allow and hence they will be added to the firewall unless by some mircale they can prove it is not gambling.

2011 review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001

The Interactive Gambling Act 2001
Submissions received for the review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001

The Australian Government, after consultation with the states and territories, decided that the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy would undertake a review of the operation of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.

Terms of reference for the review

Having regard to the issues facing the enforcement of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (the Act), the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy is to undertake a review of the operation of the Act, with reference to:

• the growth of online gambling services (both regulated and unregulated) in Australia and overseas, and the risk of this to the incidence of problem gambling
• the development of new technologies, including smartphones, and the convergence of existing technologies that may accelerate the current trend towards the take-up of online gambling services in Australia and overseas
• the adequacy of the existing provisions of the Act, including technical, operational and enforcement issues relating to the prohibition of interactive gambling services and the advertising of such services
• consideration, where appropriate, of technology and platform neutrality including current distinctions relating to 'betting on the run' and micro-betting
• international regulatory approaches to online gambling services including consideration of their effectiveness and cost
• examination of the social, tax, jurisdictional and enforcement aspects of regulated access to interactive gambling services currently prohibited under the Act
• harm minimisation strategies for online gambling
• the findings of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform inquiry into interactive and online gambling and gambling advertising and the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report on Gambling (2010), and
• any other relevant matters.

In undertaking the review, the department will consult with key stakeholders, states and territories and the broader Australian community. The department will commission additional research as needed.

The department is to provide a report of its findings to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy by the first half of 2012, subject to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform reporting by the end of 2011.

Entropia was flagged in 2005 as a potential online casino and money laundering facility hidden behind a game concept/front-end, research began in 2006, investigation began in Jul 2007 which lasted 3 years.

I am retired now, so can't give too much more info on the situation.
I play for fun, however I am still concerned.