For a long while I have been thinking about common loot theories, statements from MA, item stats, and how it all ties together and have came up with a few 'conclusions'.
It is always tricky to really get into topics like this on EF due to it being quite 'controversial'
, so I'd like to say from the begginning; Nothing is true until it is officially confirmed, and even if that happened, it still isn't necessarily true lol.
This thread will hopefully show you how in EU (hunting in particular), all these statements can be true:
Now, already I guess 90% of you are thinking, wtf is this clown going to come out with now; half of those things contradict each other. Well, as I have said in another post
, just read the whole post and try to understand it before commenting.
OK so, let's start:
Since hearing about 'personal lootpool' I have always been skeptical, but mostly quietly so. It would be really hard to prove either way without a huge statistical test on an almost undoable scale. So I decided to see what I could do that was on a do-able scale and realised that, whilst impefect, you can simulate results to a degree, depending on what you 'assume'. So; I took the statistics of some ranged weapons from entropedia and made an excel chart that was mostly automated (using basic formulas) that would tell me how returns would be effected if we were to 'assume' different things. I assumed: "My TT% will be loot=Expenses - Decay." and got this:
All figures in pec
These numbers didn't make sense. Apparently, the Maddox 04, second most 'eco' weapon on the list, would only give me around a 66% return BEFORE fap/armor, where as an opallo, second most uneco, would give me a99% return.
This was assuming MA takes all decay of course. So I decided to test the theory (personal loot pool) again, but with arbitrary fraction of decay not being recycled (in other words, I chose a random ammount of decay for MA to take, and returned the rest as loot). Trial and error and rationalize until I saw something that made sense was my plan.
The results I got were much of the same, just with different numbers. If personal loot pools existed, I concluded, we would know already, indefinitely. Using arbitrary mob hps to generate cost to kill and assuming loot was different depending on what you spent on the mob (aka personal loot) in ammo (ie -decay) I saw that you would be getting consistent 1ped differences in each loot event between using a maddox and opallo on a 1khp mob. The difference was greater on greater hps. Also, just simply using loot=90% of expenditure would mean great variations in loots from mobs too (and I mean noticeable variations, especially on bigger mobs.)
No matter how I calculated, or what variables I changed, I couldn't find a method that wouldn't be blindingly obvious already that inplied the sytem "Tracked" how much you spent and returned it.
So I decided to dimiss personal loot theory for now, and see how loot could work without it. My first thought was "maybe mobs just have basic, standard loot averages based on things like their HP".
This still makes ubers/hoffs possible as the loot would still effectively be random, it would just have a mean ammount that it would deviate around, independant on the ammount you SPENT on the mob.
O.K, this bit is difficult to explain, but as always, I'll try:
While testing, I realised that the % of decay taken (as in the % of the %decay) by MA (taken from the quote from MA "some of the decay" not "all") had to be DYNAMIC. It wouldn't make sense with a static number on all weapons. It had to be a different % of the stated decay on weapons, for each weapon.
I devised a simple formula to apply to all weapon decay: "(mobHp/X)/decay = % of decay that is MA actual profit".
Now I need to make this clear: that is not even a guess at the real formula, but it again shows how it would be possible and shows it in a simplistic formula. I suspect if such a real formula existed, it would also account for the Mobs damage, the weapons range, the mobs regen .. etc... etc.
X is a arbitrary number set by MA/dynamic formula/static number. I used 290 in my experiment. Let me show you the chart that came out of it:
[br]Click to enlarge[/br]
Explanation:
The MA/Decay section is just the above mentioned formula; in excel terms it was "=(h'/290)/l'". This gave a different % to be used for each weapon, but the % would stay the same if mob hp was changed. It woul only change if the 'X' factor (that we will never know changed, or decay changed (weapon).
In the chart, you can see I was even able to hazard a guess at actual decay costs of melee weapons as well, despite all there costs being in decay.
"Ma profit" was the decay % from the above formula, multiplied by the total decay it took to kill the mob.
For this to be correct, it would imply something that I think I've not heard yet on the forums, yet something that is quite logical: MA takes a static ammount of ped as profit for each mob killed, independant of any money spent, completely based on the formula mentioned above (which would have more variables, the main one being X.. explained further down). This would mean MA would always profit from a mobs 'death', and each death would create a drain on the in game ped. This also implys MA are taking a % of decay, since as the formula to take a fair ammount of ped for each death relies heavily on decay of items. Also I believe (although I won't discuss this in detail, I think it's kinda just taken as fact anyway) that MA also take decay of fap/armor, so that is why the TT returns after weapon use alone are quite high (higher than the 90% expected).
This 'theory' would also mean that loot is not effected, at least TT wise, by the weapon you use or armor you wear. Meaning it is possible to increase your returns by being eco, but considering decay % of total costs too. See the chart for maddox 4 example. There is only a 5% difference in returns between opallo and maddox 4 now, much more realistic, and interestingly, in the opposite direction. Before using this formula, there is a 32%~ difference.
The only extreme outlier seems to be in the Imp MK II, which seems to be significantly better than most weapons.. but again, compared to other theories results in this test, it is much more balanced.
This is just a basic...very basic overview of how this would really be applied to MA, and in no way would predict loot (it's random, even if averaged). It does however show a very nice way of comparing weapons besides "eco" which by the looks of it, is not the only factor (based on maths alone).
The X factor
The most interesting thing about that little formula I devised is the X factor. this number has the most influence on the whole table. Changing this would effectively change your return % due to MA taking more/less per kill or per hp, or per any other factor.
This 'x' would be 1 of three things, if at all real:
A) a static number decided at birth of EU, and never changed unless in a complete balancing fiasco/mistake.
B) a changeable number/'switch' that allows MA to directly effect return %s universally. I doubt they'd fiddle with this, but at least it gives the conspiracists something to think about.
C) IMO most likely (if true at all); a dynamic formula within itself, based on many factors like time/skills/mob/event/location/population/economoy, etc, whatever you want to add.
Now. I may have just sounded like the biggest raving lunie ever, so here's a disclaimer:
I don't particularly believe any of this to be true, again it is just a 'theory' that could be 'true' with the knowledge that we do have. It encompasses a lot, and it's important to look at it from a wide perspective. It is most likely that parts of it are spot on, and parts of it are way off. The only things that need to be true (or really, not true) for this to be possible are:
No personal loot pool/ loot pool really.
System not 'tracking' people's loot/expenditure and balancing it (instead, relying on law of large numbers, which invariable creates misnomers like people getting doubel ubers)
Thanks for reading this whole thing if you did
I'm not sure I'd have the patience rofl.
Edit: requested conclusion (im crap at keeping things short):
Main point of this, if it was true, would be that MA don't take a % of loot, or expenditure, they just take a set number of pec/ped for each mob killed, whilst loot is variable on other factors (that we never know)
This would mean that, ironically, if your expenditure was lower on killing something, the % taken by MA is higher, but your returns are still higher. If yourexpenditure is higher, % taken by MA is lower, but less returns. Also, it would mean that people using less eco guns are almost donating to people using eco guns.
It is always tricky to really get into topics like this on EF due to it being quite 'controversial'
, so I'd like to say from the begginning; Nothing is true until it is officially confirmed, and even if that happened, it still isn't necessarily true lol.This thread will hopefully show you how in EU (hunting in particular), all these statements can be true:
- There is no personal loot pool (in fact, no loot pool at all technically).
- Every avatar has equal chances - already covered Here, but still applies.
- Hunting loot, although random, is a predetermined average dependant on Hp and other factors of mob
- MA take a 'dynamic' portion of decay of weapons/amps.
- Despite loot being random and equal, it IS to an extent controllable by MA (on a universal scale), although they may have never, ever changed it. There are three ways this can apply that will be discussed later, only one of which actually means someone from MA sits there and tinkers with loot (the most unlikely scenario imo).
- Considering both eco AND decay % (we won't be discussing effects on defensive decay too deeply), you can reduce costs enough to marginally effect TT% before defense.
Now, already I guess 90% of you are thinking, wtf is this clown going to come out with now; half of those things contradict each other. Well, as I have said in another post
, just read the whole post and try to understand it before commenting.OK so, let's start:
Since hearing about 'personal lootpool' I have always been skeptical, but mostly quietly so. It would be really hard to prove either way without a huge statistical test on an almost undoable scale. So I decided to see what I could do that was on a do-able scale and realised that, whilst impefect, you can simulate results to a degree, depending on what you 'assume'. So; I took the statistics of some ranged weapons from entropedia and made an excel chart that was mostly automated (using basic formulas) that would tell me how returns would be effected if we were to 'assume' different things. I assumed: "My TT% will be loot=Expenses - Decay." and got this:
All figures in pec
These numbers didn't make sense. Apparently, the Maddox 04, second most 'eco' weapon on the list, would only give me around a 66% return BEFORE fap/armor, where as an opallo, second most uneco, would give me a99% return.
This was assuming MA takes all decay of course. So I decided to test the theory (personal loot pool) again, but with arbitrary fraction of decay not being recycled (in other words, I chose a random ammount of decay for MA to take, and returned the rest as loot). Trial and error and rationalize until I saw something that made sense was my plan.
The results I got were much of the same, just with different numbers. If personal loot pools existed, I concluded, we would know already, indefinitely. Using arbitrary mob hps to generate cost to kill and assuming loot was different depending on what you spent on the mob (aka personal loot) in ammo (ie -decay) I saw that you would be getting consistent 1ped differences in each loot event between using a maddox and opallo on a 1khp mob. The difference was greater on greater hps. Also, just simply using loot=90% of expenditure would mean great variations in loots from mobs too (and I mean noticeable variations, especially on bigger mobs.)
No matter how I calculated, or what variables I changed, I couldn't find a method that wouldn't be blindingly obvious already that inplied the sytem "Tracked" how much you spent and returned it.
So I decided to dimiss personal loot theory for now, and see how loot could work without it. My first thought was "maybe mobs just have basic, standard loot averages based on things like their HP".
This still makes ubers/hoffs possible as the loot would still effectively be random, it would just have a mean ammount that it would deviate around, independant on the ammount you SPENT on the mob.
O.K, this bit is difficult to explain, but as always, I'll try:
While testing, I realised that the % of decay taken (as in the % of the %decay) by MA (taken from the quote from MA "some of the decay" not "all") had to be DYNAMIC. It wouldn't make sense with a static number on all weapons. It had to be a different % of the stated decay on weapons, for each weapon.
I devised a simple formula to apply to all weapon decay: "(mobHp/X)/decay = % of decay that is MA actual profit".
Now I need to make this clear: that is not even a guess at the real formula, but it again shows how it would be possible and shows it in a simplistic formula. I suspect if such a real formula existed, it would also account for the Mobs damage, the weapons range, the mobs regen .. etc... etc.
X is a arbitrary number set by MA/dynamic formula/static number. I used 290 in my experiment. Let me show you the chart that came out of it:
[br]Click to enlarge[/br]Explanation:
The MA/Decay section is just the above mentioned formula; in excel terms it was "=(h'/290)/l'". This gave a different % to be used for each weapon, but the % would stay the same if mob hp was changed. It woul only change if the 'X' factor (that we will never know changed, or decay changed (weapon).
In the chart, you can see I was even able to hazard a guess at actual decay costs of melee weapons as well, despite all there costs being in decay.
"Ma profit" was the decay % from the above formula, multiplied by the total decay it took to kill the mob.
For this to be correct, it would imply something that I think I've not heard yet on the forums, yet something that is quite logical: MA takes a static ammount of ped as profit for each mob killed, independant of any money spent, completely based on the formula mentioned above (which would have more variables, the main one being X.. explained further down). This would mean MA would always profit from a mobs 'death', and each death would create a drain on the in game ped. This also implys MA are taking a % of decay, since as the formula to take a fair ammount of ped for each death relies heavily on decay of items. Also I believe (although I won't discuss this in detail, I think it's kinda just taken as fact anyway) that MA also take decay of fap/armor, so that is why the TT returns after weapon use alone are quite high (higher than the 90% expected).
This 'theory' would also mean that loot is not effected, at least TT wise, by the weapon you use or armor you wear. Meaning it is possible to increase your returns by being eco, but considering decay % of total costs too. See the chart for maddox 4 example. There is only a 5% difference in returns between opallo and maddox 4 now, much more realistic, and interestingly, in the opposite direction. Before using this formula, there is a 32%~ difference.
The only extreme outlier seems to be in the Imp MK II, which seems to be significantly better than most weapons.. but again, compared to other theories results in this test, it is much more balanced.
This is just a basic...very basic overview of how this would really be applied to MA, and in no way would predict loot (it's random, even if averaged). It does however show a very nice way of comparing weapons besides "eco" which by the looks of it, is not the only factor (based on maths alone).
The X factor
The most interesting thing about that little formula I devised is the X factor. this number has the most influence on the whole table. Changing this would effectively change your return % due to MA taking more/less per kill or per hp, or per any other factor.
This 'x' would be 1 of three things, if at all real:
A) a static number decided at birth of EU, and never changed unless in a complete balancing fiasco/mistake.
B) a changeable number/'switch' that allows MA to directly effect return %s universally. I doubt they'd fiddle with this, but at least it gives the conspiracists something to think about
.C) IMO most likely (if true at all); a dynamic formula within itself, based on many factors like time/skills/mob/event/location/population/economoy, etc, whatever you want to add.
Now. I may have just sounded like the biggest raving lunie ever, so here's a disclaimer:
I don't particularly believe any of this to be true, again it is just a 'theory' that could be 'true' with the knowledge that we do have. It encompasses a lot, and it's important to look at it from a wide perspective. It is most likely that parts of it are spot on, and parts of it are way off. The only things that need to be true (or really, not true) for this to be possible are:
No personal loot pool/ loot pool really.
System not 'tracking' people's loot/expenditure and balancing it (instead, relying on law of large numbers, which invariable creates misnomers like people getting doubel ubers
)Thanks for reading this whole thing if you did
I'm not sure I'd have the patience rofl.Edit: requested conclusion (im crap at keeping things short):
Main point of this, if it was true, would be that MA don't take a % of loot, or expenditure, they just take a set number of pec/ped for each mob killed, whilst loot is variable on other factors (that we never know
)This would mean that, ironically, if your expenditure was lower on killing something, the % taken by MA is higher, but your returns are still higher. If yourexpenditure is higher, % taken by MA is lower, but less returns. Also, it would mean that people using less eco guns are almost donating to people using eco guns.
Last edited:
