FYI: Economy, Decay, Dynamic Loot, and you.

[Witte]

Its all pretty easy to test, just take a crappy power fist and go hunt some weeks with it. Or ask Deathifier if you may lend his Purifier for some time. I think you will quickly come to the conclusion that eco it a pretty important figure

Maybe you can also remeber the IMK2 botters. They werent swinedelux botters

 

[craystar]

Like the thoughts around the 'X' factor - the one bit I would add is that I would expect MA have an ability to directly influence their returns. Again, nothing solid to prove this but my reasoning is this:

MA ultimately need to make a profit (I have no problems with this as no profit = no game). However, to go to your backers (and remember, they are seeking a listing so these would be real shareholders in the future) and state that you have no direct control over your returns would likely cause a lack of management credibility for that company. To base your profits entirely on your ability to grow the user base would also not seem to work for me (recessions etc would leave you vulnerable and you need to cover your rising cost base each year). So the most obvious solution to me here is that they have a way of turning the return taps on and off within the dynamic economy that they have created. At times when activity within that economy is lower or costs are higher (e.g. Cryengine update which is a double whammy - increase in investment costs and decrease in economic activity due to forcing people out until they can upgrade their systems) - they may need to tweak the returns from the economy to maintain or improve their returns. They can balance this by increasing the drop rate of more prized items (e.g. SGA) to help spur activity in the virtual economy.

Could we prove this? I guess only if we had quarterly or monthly reporting from MA to look at - we might then be able to spot trends in the company finances.

 

[kira-red]

then we have to consider how does mining with its very small decay cost and crafting with 0 decay fit in?

I think people tend to overlook a very simple possibility: items such as ammuntion, bombs/probes, and materials consumed in crafting attemps count as "decay". after all, these items are used up and removed.

in this way, the cost decay when using a melee weapon as opposed to a ranged weapon are more consistent. mining cost decays, when including the probes/bombe, increase to something that's not "minor". and, crafting cost decays become significant rather than zero.

as all of these things are consumed a "sink" could collect the terminal value of all these things (and any other fees, as well) and make a percentage of it (95%?) available to the loot distribution engine. MA's cut has then been removed from the recycling system and can be subtracted from the balance sheet's conditional liability.

EU appears to be designed around a cost (decay) for use model. so, it's not unreasonable to assume that when things lke ammunition, bombs/probes, and ores/energy matter are used they decay 100%. it also make everything more consistent, in my mind, at least.

 

[Jambor]

Quite an intressting read.

What I would like to see is to do the same experiment on 5 different avatar with same gear,weapn and decay.

Uber,almost uber,medium avatar, under medium avatar and a total noob. Now that would be intressting. And also to hunt the same mob with the same ammo.

Those numbers would be very intressting. And not just one hunt, but like 1 week. Also at same hours. Aprox 6-10 hours every day.

What I think is that loot differce and also the amount depending on what ammo burn and what decay it does.

And I also believed that you got a limit on how much you could lose before you get a big one. ( this seemed right before but dont look like it anymore tho ).

I also think that all avatars have so called "lucky days", which is no matter what you do you good. And this is also works like the other way. I had days like this before and you can tell a big difference in the loot.

I also think they changed alot with loot when intruducing VU CE2. Alot of people I talked with that was using best eco gear possible dont even make profit now. And the bar on how much you can lose before you get a big one is alot higher bar/limit than before.

And I think that loot is also decided with time and space, meaning the time and the cords. And I also think that the interval is around 15 sec, of that spot moving. But that is just a specualtion on my part. Feel free to flame.

And I also believe that there are 3 different set of loot systems involed. How I know that is by hunting alot and you can see it in mining also. The time and space teori seems that it could apply both in mining and hunting if area specified somehow.

I have seen that the losses have gotten bigger now than before what used to be 75 % profit back then is around 25-50 % now. This would also explain that the uber hof that used to be 10K back then is now 30k + , and there is a small possibility of 100K+ ones now also.

Flame on

 

[mrproper]

That will depend on the loot. According to your theory he wont get any more ubers else he will still end up with a surplus in TT. On the contrary, he will have very bad loot to compensate for those ubers. I don't believe that will happen though. But like you I am without proof.

I didn't say that. Anything is possible, I'm just explaining what is most probable.

He can still have ubers, more likely smaller ones, very unlikely he would get bigger ones. And he can log in once and kill 10 mobs in a row with no loot, and the 11th, trying to compensate, gives him another uber. The chances are there, but they're unlikely, just as unlikely to get 2 ubers in 2 days.

However, I want to see someone showing me how he is profiting regularly at tt value, with regular loots. Do you know someone that does that?

 

[mrproper]

I think people tend to overlook a very simple possibility: items such as ammuntion, bombs/probes, and materials consumed in crafting attemps count as "decay". after all, these items are used up and removed.

in this way, the cost decay when using a melee weapon as opposed to a ranged weapon are more consistent. mining cost decays, when including the probes/bombe, increase to something that's not "minor". and, crafting cost decays become significant rather than zero.

as all of these things are consumed a "sink" could collect the terminal value of all these things (and any other fees, as well) and make a percentage of it (95%?) available to the loot distribution engine. MA's cut has then been removed from the recycling system and can be subtracted from the balance sheet's conditional liability.

EU appears to be designed around a cost (decay) for use model. so, it's not unreasonable to assume that when things lke ammunition, bombs/probes, and ores/energy matter are used they decay 100%. it also make everything more consistent, in my mind, at least.

That is flawed on a single argument: MA takes only decay. Do you suggest they are liars?

Also, why would you struggle to get items with less decay? Or get to the trouble of skilling up to improve your eco and damage? Or what happens if someone has 10% better eco than mostly everyone, does that mean they profit all the time at tt value? Where is this person, I want to meet him!

 

[mrproper]

Please study this thread: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...skippies-how-2-profit-thread.html#post1289944

If you are able to explain why he gets the return he gets with your model, I'm listening.

 

[Witte]

I didn't say that. Anything is possible, I'm just explaining what is most probable.

He can still have ubers, more likely smaller ones, very unlikely he would get bigger ones. And he can log in once and kill 10 mobs in a row with no loot, and the 11th, trying to compensate, gives him another uber. The chances are there, but they're unlikely, just as unlikely to get 2 ubers in 2 days.

However, I want to see someone showing me how he is profiting regularly at tt value, with regular loots. Do you know someone that does that?

I think someone with an IMK2 who is not unlucky may indeed be able to profit in the long run in terms of TT. An example with MM can be found here: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...-million-rounds-shot-24-hours.html#post244260

But I guess its just very hard to test this. The variation in loot ruins it.

 

[Jambor]

Please study this thread: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...skippies-how-2-profit-thread.html#post1289944

If you are able to explain why he gets the return he gets with your model, I'm listening.

Because like I and alot of other said before, not all avatars are equal. Maybe its his skills also who knows. Or maybe he is using the right weapon and armor for the right mob. I lean more towards "avatars are not equal". Which most of my info concludes to anyhow.

 

[Spinage]

Please study this thread: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...skippies-how-2-profit-thread.html#post1289944

If you are able to explain why he gets the return he gets with your model, I'm listening.

Using the numbers I used before to compare weapons, I see that a maxed MM would be at 106% TT return before any other fap/scope decay.

That is compared to 'normal' weapons beeing in the reange of 96-99% before armor/fap.

I have no idea what number to use as the X to get a realistic result, but considering fap/armor decay is often around 10% for most, and most people claim around 90% TT returns, I just tried to get a median TT% of close to 100%. So let's 'imagine' these numbers are true. Well, he is 7.6 HA on the MM, but he thinks the scope will make him 10/10 with slightly less dmg than maxed. If that's true then we can expect his overall eco to be lower... then considering scope decay and fap decay (altho miner), his TT% didn't seem too off.

He varied betwen 94%-103% over large ammounts of ped spent in TT, hunting with no armor and realllly high eco. This is definitely a good TT%. I fully expect with a maxed MM and no scope decay, he could probably profit on most runs in TT alone (wearing no armor and using his adj fap).

That's how that particular case would fit in the model.

Imo, a test needs to be done. It is difficult with variance, but if we were to use Median averages instead of Means to base our conclusions on, that should be minimal.

I just made up some random numbers (20 total) with a median of ~2.7 but a mean of 5.6, it was a lot of small numbers and one big one (60..ie global, or big loot). I then added 10 more more tinys to see how it effected the averages. I saw that the median barely changed but the mean increased by 2.

So, we could easily track average loot from a mob with median averages to minimise variance. I can't get on EU is my main problem . If anybody has the patience to record like 100 mob individual TT value loots with one weapon... same maturity, same type, preferably no regen, then compare it to somebody using a different weapon, or hunt another 100 of the same mob using a different weapon, that would help a lot.

If there is a large difference in the median loot per mob. This whole model fails , if there is no/small difference, it is food for thought.

Remember, no-loots are classed as 0TT value, and should be included. I will do some myself when I get on. It will be cheap and will be just as valid on mobs like daikiba young as daspletor young. So if you do do it, just do it on a cheap mob that you don't have too much overkill on (Finishers should not be used).

 

[mrproper]

I think someone with an IMK2 who is not unlucky may indeed be able to profit in the long run in terms of TT. An example with MM can be found here: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...-million-rounds-shot-24-hours.html#post244260

But I guess its just very hard to test this. The variation in loot ruins it.

Ok, so Stryker spent 12000 ped in ammo, and 238.19 ped in decay, which is normal for MM (1.985 % decay). His taxed returns were 119.5%, or 124.5% without tax? It was a very interesting result, and I wish there were another test like this to provide a clearer result, because there was a hof involved, and the test was done a few years back, many things have changed since 2006...

 

[aridash]

That is flawed on a single argument: MA takes only decay. Do you suggest they are liars?

Kira point is not flawed by anything. MA says they only get revenue from decay, MA does not say they take all decay, infact iirc there is a Marco quote around to the effect that they take some decay. imo, unless ammo, bombs, lyst etc consumption is counted as "decay", the system doesnt make any sence at all.

 

[kira-red]

That is flawed on a single argument: MA takes only decay. Do you suggest they are liars?

no. my point is that a weapon cell decaying 100% when it's used is exactly the same thing as the decay on the gun that fired it. and, according to MA's balance sheet, they take a portion of the conditional liability as their revenue. from a business view, it's the reduction of this conditional liability (which represents all peds "tied up" in the game as held ammunition, ores, weapons, any other items, etc) that "frees" these funds from possibly being paid back to the players who possess them.

as things are used, the majority of it is recycled back. the result is a lossy system that keeps the company alive.

Also, why would you struggle to get items with less decay? Or get to the trouble of skilling up to improve your eco and damage?

to achive personal cost reduction, obviously.

Or what happens if someone has 10% better eco than mostly everyone, does that mean they profit all the time at tt value?

I doubt it. if the system is designed properly, it should not be possible to profit from a pure trade terminal price perspective. and, this does seem to be the case today.

Please study this thread: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...skippies-how-2-profit-thread.html#post1289944

If you are able to explain why he gets the return he gets with your model, I'm listening.

I see nothing inconsistant in the results skip posts. he's not raking it in hand-over-fist, from a trade terminal perspective. he's just minimizing his losses.

Total after 7k PED of Ammo: -412.48
% of return @ 7k PED of Ammo: 94.45%

skippie has profited greatly because of other smart things he's done which, to my knowledge, are more economic based and centre around mark-up and margin on resale.

for my part, due to lower skills and lesser equipment, I cannot minimize my loss as well as he can. however, my returns, in terminal value only, are not significantly lower when you consider that my expenses are slightly higher.

still, I fail to what any of this has to do with my suggestion of considering ammunition and bombs and such as items which decay 100% upon use. in my mind, having a crafting attempt's decay be the materials consumed is much more consitant with everything else than saying there is no decay on crafting.

also, exactly how things are recycled isn't really that important. it may be that spent ammunition is immediately recycled to the global loot generator. however, does that really matter?

 

[mrproper]

Kira point is not flawed by anything. MA says they only get revenue from decay, MA does not say they take all decay, infact iirc there is a Marco quote around to the effect that they take some decay. imo, unless ammo, bombs, lyst etc consumption is counted as "decay", the system doesnt make any sence at all.

Kira said the number was around 5% of loot. But with a mod merc, you only spend 2%. So if MA takes a "portion of decay", then decay as we understand it "go to the repair terminal and pour in money without anything back", or "your weapon loses value in the field no matter what you shooot", is flawed?

Does decay include only weapon, armor, tool and amps deterioration (or part of deterioration) or is this concept stretched to include also ammo and bombs?

no. my point is that a weapon cell decaying 100% when it's used is exactly the same thing as the decay on the gun that fired it. and, according to MA's balance sheet, they take a portion of the conditional liability as their revenue. from a business view, it's the reduction of this conditional liability (which represents all peds "tied up" in the game as held ammunition, ores, weapons, any other items, etc) that "frees" these funds from possibly being paid back to the players who possess them.

as things are used, the majority of it is recycled back. the result is a lossy system that keeps the company alive.

What you are saying is, due to the earthly nature of accounting, the imagined world of Calypso requires that decay even if truely given to MA, cannot be used yet, because the customer has not yet withdrawn their remaining cash, thus leaving their decay value back as profit, so this is a loophole that accounts for the decay difference, no matter what it is.

 

[mrproper]

to achive personal cost reduction, obviously.

I doubt it. if the system is designed properly, it should not be possible to profit from a pure trade terminal price perspective. and, this does seem to be the case today.

I see nothing inconsistant in the results skip posts. he's not raking it in hand-over-fist, from a trade terminal perspective. he's just minimizing his losses.

Ok, so if it is possible to minimize your losses from let's say 15% (my current number) to 4-5% (some posted experiments), then how is that a large quantity of the used value is lost into the system? If it averages 10%, then MA is raking in a lot of value, it would be crashing the whole system in less than 100 days... yet, that doesn't happen, because the decay rates are around 3-4% if we consider the "repair" portion.

Or to put it another way. If so many (almost all) players are losing money, then someone must be consistently receiving over-unitary TT value. Is this the case?

it may be that spent ammunition is immediately recycled to the global loot generator. however, does that really matter?

YES!!!!

Of course it matters, how else would you

minimize my loss

 

[Witte]

Ok, so Stryker spent 12000 ped in ammo, and 238.19 ped in decay, which is normal for MM (1.985 % decay). His taxed returns were 119.5%, or 124.5% without tax? It was a very interesting result, and I wish there were another test like this to provide a clearer result, because there was a hof involved, and the test was done a few years back, many things have changed since 2006...

I think all these tests are not that useful at all. It is better to test under a controlled condition, and set up a solid test. And even then, the variance in loot may be so large it is just impossible to come to a sensible conclusion. First you need to know what the sample size needs to be. And I can tell you, it needs to be huge. Astronomically huge. It might be better to use other methods, like using surveys and the hof boards.

 

[aridash]

Kira said the number was around 5% of loot. But with a mod merc, you only spend 2%. So if MA takes a "portion of decay", then decay as we understand it "go to the repair terminal and pour in money without anything back", or "your weapon loses value in the field no matter what you shooot", is flawed?

as far as i can see, Kira offered a possible value, she didnt say it was 5%, and even so its a detail rather than a flaw in the point made. it could be that MA do take some of the ammo in addition to decay. it could be that the MM, Imp MKII etc user genuinly pays less to MA than a normal weapon. also consider the amps in use and the likly armour decay of a MM user.

Does decay include only weapon, armor, tool and amps deterioration (or part of deterioration) or is this concept stretched to include also ammo and bombs?

thats the idea proposed. care to prove otherwise while accounting for different decay rates for items the same eco, mining's low decay and crafting?

 

[Spinage]

Ok, so Stryker spent 12000 ped in ammo, and 238.19 ped in decay, which is normal for MM (1.985 % decay). His taxed returns were 119.5%, or 124.5% without tax? It was a very interesting result, and I wish there were another test like this to provide a clearer result, because there was a hof involved, and the test was done a few years back, many things have changed since 2006...

If tax was 5%, then before tax his return would of been 125.79% ((119.5/95)*100). Anyway, I think that he may have included markup in his return.. I'm not sure. If not he is one lucky sob

 

[mrproper]

care to prove otherwise while accounting for different decay rates for items the same eco, mining's low decay and crafting?

TT weapons have 2% decay on ammo expenditures.
TT finders have 1.5% decay on consumables expenditures.
TT excavators have 0.5% decay on single use.

How could I account for mining's low decay, when it's the same as for hunting, and not low at all?

Crafting. To craft, you need to refine the items. This was not enough for MA (0.031 pec per unit refined?) so they added another layer of decay in the form of (L) items, that when decayed by miners and hunters, also produce extra decay for the crafter, thus solving the problem. I hope someone else saw that, or else you will think I'm crazy...

If tax was 5%, then before tax his return would of been 125.79% ((119.5/95)*100). Anyway, I think that he may have included markup in his return.. I'm not sure. If not he is one lucky sob

Ok, my bad, your math is better, yet, that was 2006, and there was a hof, and there were lots of variables, such as lots of other hunters in the area and time of experiment. And of course, we don't know how well he did BEFORE 12000 ped and AFTER 12000 ped after this experiment.

 

[aridash]

TT weapons have 2% decay on ammo expenditures.
TT finders have 1.5% decay on consumables expenditures.
TT excavators have 0.5% decay on single use.

How could I account for mining's low decay, when it's the same as for hunting, and not low at all?

Crafting. To craft, you need to refine the items. This was not enough for MA (0.031 pec per unit refined?) so they added another layer of decay in the form of (L) items, that when decayed by miners and hunters,

going by tt weapons is interesting, but the majority of hunters arent using them. what you have done here is either established there is a fixed ceiling to decay revenue to very low fractions of a pec or else shown everything is based on fixed %. both work for me, which is it though? consider a widely used weapon the p5a, the decay is 10% or 0.938pec, is some of that returned to loot? as for crafting, you transfer the cost to the miner/hunter (who often refine the materials too) so i still feel theres a problem there.

 

[mrproper]

going by tt weapons is interesting, but the majority of hunters arent using them. what you have done here is either established there is a fixed ceiling to decay revenue to very low fractions of a pec or else shown everything is based on fixed %. both work for me, which is it though? consider a widely used weapon the p5a, the decay is 10% or 0.938pec, is some of that returned to loot? as for crafting, you transfer the cost to the miner/hunter (who often refine the materials too) so i still feel theres a problem there.

Yes, that was my intention. That is, showing that 2% would be a guaranteed leech, and that you should not expect that in your loot. This 2% would bundle up with fap and armor decay, and it goes on it's way, into MA's pockets, never to be seen. This would be the economy drain, something that MA can take away. Ammo and bombs and minerals and materials will have to be returned to the player by MA.

At any time, the players own everything they deposited for, except for spent decay. Thus if they all withdraw, MA already has the decay in the pocket.

But some people consider you should expect weapon decay in your loot. That's because they consider that ammo and bombs contain decay too, and of course, some itmes like amps, have tons of decay, hiding the real decay margin from players... like the P5A, Maddox IV ... the madness...

 

[Spinage]

As for crafting, most crafters generally agree that you get a 90% return and since as it's not 'decay' as we know it, people assume the 10% not returned is cycled similar to auction fees etc. The best example is in colouring where 90% of the TT value of the paint is added on to the TT of an item, or returned in ped or something when TT is full. I dunno the specifics, ask a colourer .

As for the 10% p5a decay thingy, this is why I think the model works, or there must be something like it. It is unreasonable to think that before even considering armor and fap decay, 10% from weapon is taken. So yes, obviously some of the decay from the weapon get's 'cycled'. That's one of the things that I would definitely say is 'spot on'.

The only logical way I've came with up to explain this is in OP. Personal loot theory would have to be falsified first though, which is why I say it needs some testing.

 

[mrproper]

So yes, obviously some of the decay from the weapon get's 'cycled'.

The question, is how much?

I will have a closer look the mining logs. In one of them, I see a 90.07% tt return on bombs...

However, in hunting, the number can go higher...

 

[Kerham]

What I don't understand is why you dismiss so easily the personal loot pool idea?

The problem, as I see it, is that every month MA has to pay salaries, energy bills, rents, maintenance, etc. They must be sure that they can spend monthly X sum out of the deposited money.

A personal loot pool with an averaged return of say 90% TT wise with few enough aberations to be failsafe on ATH withdrawing combined with the reciprocal pressure between players via markup sounds just perfect to me.

 

[Spinage]

What I don't understand is why you dismiss so easily the personal loot pool idea?

The problem, as I see it, is that every month MA has to pay salaries, energy bills, rents, maintenance, etc. They must be sure that they can spend monthly X sum out of the deposited money.

See first half of my OP. I tried to see a logical way of personal loot theory working without the median loot being very blatantly different. I saw it was impossible, so I dimissed personal loot theory.

Now when I get on EU, I will do tests to confirm it, noting the median loot of each mob with different weapons.

That's why I dismiss personal loot pool.

The way I see it atm is: MA need money, they take some for every time something is killed. Simples.

 

[aridash]

so looking at this 2% tax going to MA as Mrproper suggests, does this mean eco is meaningless? or, does the return you get reflect your economy while the remaining goes to others... a personal loot pool?

 

[Kerham]

See first half of my OP. I tried to see a logical way of personal loot theory working without the median loot being very blatantly different.

You misunderstand the idea of personal lootpool. That would work as a personal balance with the system in which you get registered with any expense, and something is payed back overtime, from various activities.

What has to do individual mob loot with such? We're talking rebalancing over hundreds of thousands of kills.

There's one big salad of asumptions there, will try to specify what got my eye:

1. ""My TT% will be loot=Expenses - Decay"

Eh? Why? And why is this tied ombilicaly with existence of personal loot pool? MA can take a % of your total expense nomatter if personal loot pool exists or not.

And if the TT result over these great guys who keep logs show 90% over the board, doesn't exactly this mean that loot is sensible to expense, not to a static cost/kill?

2. "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"

And why is THAT hard to believe you do have differences between various guns in what regards value of loot? Obvious you can't test 100% accurately this because each looting event is unique and irrepetable.

Again same problem with difference between ammo and decay. And check JimmyB's thread on killing ambu with weapons with different speed, there are some obvious differences there between different guns.

And your argument with "If personal loot pools existed, I concluded, we would know already, indefinitely" is just lolable, with all sympathy considered.

"We" who? 99% of active population has maximum 2-3 years of activity. Dinosaurs from beta period or gold can be numbered in the dozens which is nada over 20-30k active users.

Each player after getting 1 year old will think he knows how it works and won't be interested in experience of those "older". Your threads, as much interesting as them are, will get forget within less than 1 year. That happens with any kind of knowledge inside EU, save for stuff registered on websites, like wiki.

Besides, most of active players are intoxicated with SIB, they don't understand that SIB didn't existed since always and we had times when the weapons had only as visible stats just the TT and the maximum dmg. Go guess the reload with autoclicker, go guess the maximum possible minimum damage and actual minimum damage, etc.

You need this perspective to understand why some players are so loyal to some ways of thinking which might look mystic. We had to grow like that, finding "our" ways. As an application to your thread, some of us "know" that lootpool exist, while others "know" that eco works, while others "know" that dmg/sec works.

For me, it worked like personal loot pool, minus last year. It got to the point that I don't care how it actually works, the costs to continue could just not be justified vs. my wallet.

On the other side, apply your theory to mining

 

[Spinage]

You misunderstand the idea of personal lootpool. That would work as a personal balance with the system in which you get registered with any expanse, and something is payed back overtime, from various activities.

What has to do individual mob loot with such? We're talking rebalancing over hundreds of thousands of kills.

There's one big salad of asumptions there, will try to specify what got my eye:

1. ""My TT% will be loot=Expenses - Decay"

Eh? Why? And why is this tied ombilicaly with existence of personal loot pool?

Personal loot pool would imply the system tracks your specific expenditure and returns you a %loot over time. You could say "my TT will be expenses -10%" or "expenses - decay" or "expenses - 1 ped", it doesn't matter, as long as you use one for an example. All assume that the system is tracking YOUR expenditure.

Now, considering you can decrease/increase expenditure to a non marginal degree when killing a mob, this would in turn HAVE to increase/decrease the loot to a non marginal degree.

DIY example:

set up an excel sheet, type in a few dmg/pecs of different weapons. Type in a random mob hp. Set up the sheet so it divides the mob HP by dmg/pec to get the pec/kill cost. Now set up a loot column that gives you 90%*Cost to kill. You will see that for each weapon the loot average will be different to a very non-marginal degree, especially on higher hp mobs.

Now, try and explain to me why there is any argument that loot pool exists/doesn't exists, if those obvious loot differences definitely exist. It doesn't make sense. This is from someone who originally was actually trying to see how personal loot pool theory 'could work' (even tho I don't believe in it). Maybe I'm biased and missing something important. Fill me in if I am.

 

[mrproper]

See first half of my OP. I tried to see a logical way of personal loot theory working without the median loot being very blatantly different. I saw it was impossible, so I dimissed personal loot theory.

With a personal loot pool, you will not be seeing any congruence in loot. This is the case. There is no way you can determine the frequency of a certain loot value, even if you use the same gear and hunt the same mob. When you happen to change gear and mobs, or mining tools and areas, or blueprints, you get a completely unpredictable result.

The personal loot theory works to keep you slightly below deposits/(income value + decay), but will make you jump up when you spend too much. There are 2 topics posted recently about the 2009 loot on personal avatars, that show that without the big loots, you get a guaranteed 40-45% return in tt value. This is consistent with the personal loot pool. The big loots pop up with random unpredictable values and try to raise you above the profit line, until they do, then they become less frequent. They are also based on different time intervals, so they are not extremely evident.

When things go bad, and loot goes to crap, but suddenly a hof appears, this is also consistent with personal loot theory.

Also, when some players (me included) log in and get a big loot on the first kill (like a global), this is also consistent with personal loot theory.

I so far don't see anything that goes against personal loot theory, except the special cases where you can uber twice in a short period of time, with no apparent reason behind it, but that depends on the activity.

so looking at this 2% tax going to MA as Mrproper suggests, does this mean eco is meaningless? or, does the return you get reflect your economy while the remaining goes to others... a personal loot pool?

Actually, eco is less important than believed. You can go with HL6 (L) or Merc, and you get similar loot returns in the long run. If eco were in action, then anyone using an UL weapon before lvl 50, would register massive losses, more than 40% of their expenses, compared to the L versions. With all the surplus from UL weapons, then anyone with an eco over 3, using L weapons would profit all the time. This is not the case.

Eco is just less important, it counts a lot in team hunting, where your loot is shared against a better eco player.

 

[Spinage]

With a personal loot pool, you will not be seeing any congruence in loot. This is the case. There is no way you can determine the frequency of a certain loot value, even if you use the same gear and hunt the same mob. When you happen to change gear and mobs, or mining tools and areas, or blueprints, you get a completely unpredictable result.

.

I find it impossible to see a consistent mean loot due to variance, but median loot is consistent, and will give you your 40-45% before globals/minis/hofs (dependant on lvl of mob).

Another DIY example:

To show how little median is effected by variance, set up a simple excel sheet and just type one line of random numbers around the same point (like with normal loot), e.g. 5.2, 6.5, 5.6, 0, 4.3, 8, 3, 4.55

until you have about 19 numbers, then add one large number to represent a global/mini/hof, e.g. 50, or even 100, even 1000 won't make any difference.

Now, type in a seperate box "=Mean(A1:A20)" and in a nother box =Median(A1:A20) and see the difference. Now play with the numbers. Add another 20 to the range without globalling, so just lots around the same as the first 19, or add another 2 globals. Your median will hardly change, where as your mean will swing greatly.

That is how you would conduct an experiment to log average loot. Recording each TT value and using it in the same type of table

You would only need a small scale experiment to prove that median doesn't change with using different guns which is enough evidence in itself. To prove mean doesn't change you'd need to kill thousands and thousands of mobs and I am still not sure how reliable it would be.