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

[mrproper]

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.

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).

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

Excuse me for a moment, but how can you use the same observation to be against the personal loot theory, while I can use it to support personal loot theory?

We both see the same effects, I explain that the hofs are there to return the 55-60% difference to expenses, counted agains the personal history, you say that loot is consistent.

I have an experiment in preparation that can I hope I can prove that I can hunt 2000 mobs worth around a ped, without a single global, or the same mob, 2000 mobs worth around a ped, with many globals, depending on my explicit desire to get globals or not. Would that convince you of the model of personal loot theory?

 

[Spinage]

Excuse me for a moment, but how can you use the same observation to be against the personal loot theory, while I can use it to support personal loot theory?

We both see the same effects, I explain that the hofs are there to return the 55-60% difference to expenses, counted agains the personal history, you say that loot is consistent.

I have an experiment in preparation that can I hope I can prove that I can hunt 2000 mobs worth around a ped, without a single global, or the same mob, 2000 mobs worth around a ped, with many globals, depending on my explicit desire to get globals or not. Would that convince you of the model of personal loot theory?

Not sure, you would have to rephrase that. Are you saying you think you can influence how often you global?

Not sure how it relates to personal loot pool.

Anyway, Just so your clear, I actually started this whole line of thinking with the sole idea of figuring out a way in which personal loot pool is actually possible with the info we have. I found it to be very tricky, if not impossible to prove possible, never mind probable. So it's not like I'm trying to prove it wrong, I just failed at proving it possible... so atm I consider it highly unlikely to impossible.

I'm not sure how we both used the same argument to prove opposite things lol, but I don't see how my argument fails. No matter which way you look at it, if personal lootpool exists, you HAVE to be given more loot on average if you are playing uneco. So far, I don't see any experiment proving this... this is the experiment I will be taking when I get on EU; although I'm reluctant coz I just see complete ped waste using uneco weapons.

Also, on a more simplistic level. I don't see MA making a game where the same result is possible from using an unmaxed gun with no laser scope etc e.g 5/10HA as using it maxed.

 

[Kerham]

No matter which way you look at it, if personal lootpool exists, you HAVE to be given more loot on average if you are playing uneco. So far, I don't see any experiment proving this... this is the experiment I will be taking when I get on EU; although I'm reluctant coz I just see complete ped waste using uneco weapons.

Like this, you mean?

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/158400-50-katsuichi-honor-runs-drones.html

And PLEASE read this thread

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/101842-some-utterly-insane-tests.html

As for Excel, man I dunno how to put it: your arguments resides in "if X would be true, than my Excel formula shows that this Y factor would develop like this, which I don't believe is true". Well, lol.

 

[Witte]

Like this, you mean?

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/158400-50-katsuichi-honor-runs-drones.html

And PLEASE read this thread

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/101842-some-utterly-insane-tests.html

1500 PED is not so meaningful. And the other tests are about something totally different. In another thread someone suggested a reasonable test: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/176579-cleric-challenge-weapon-vs-loot.html

Now all we need to do is wait until somebody has the balls to take it on .

 

[mrproper]

Not sure, you would have to rephrase that. Are you saying you think you can influence how often you global?

Not sure how it relates to personal loot pool.

Yes, I can.

Yes, it does.

Also, on a more simplistic level. I don't see MA making a game where the same result is possible from using an unmaxed gun with no laser scope etc e.g 5/10HA as using it maxed.

That's what I thought for about 3 years. But recent data and model confirmation shows that it's personal, and (what we already know) it's not random.

Like this, you mean?

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/158400-50-katsuichi-honor-runs-drones.html

And PLEASE read this thread

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/101842-some-utterly-insane-tests.html

Yeah, those insane tests show that personal loot theory is a more indicative model of why you would get extra loot in the same mob, even if your eco is total crap.

Maybe this is a way to test what is the real decay MA takes, by seeing how much loot drops in percentile when you kill fast-regen mobs and calculate decay.

 

[Spinage]

Like this, you mean?

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/158400-50-katsuichi-honor-runs-drones.html

And PLEASE read this thread

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/101842-some-utterly-insane-tests.html

I've read the second link already :/ and all it does is reinforce the theory of NO personal loot pool...

His expenses aren't paid back to him, his average loot varies way less than his expenditure, and he gets better returns with more eco set-ups. Also in the same thread, he kills and doesn't loot, then loots some later and get's normal returns, not boosted returns to compensate.

Which side are you on?

Also, I do understand that all his tests are extremely short and don't say much either way, but ti certainly doesn't even imply personal loot pool :/ but the opposite.

First link is without fap/armor decay and yet he still get's a 94.6% return. Most long term logs I've read show around a 99-100% return on ammo alone, which I would say means the 5.4% he is missing is coming from bad eco. Bad eco wouldn't effect loot if personal loot pool was real...

So both threads seem to reinforce personal loot pool being.. wrong. Both are relatively small experiments though and none record the median loot of each mob, which as far as I can see will be the most accurate way of seeing if loot varies dependant on eco.

Also, I've just read a variation on skippies log, where someone did the same thing but not quite as eco.. his returns were less, reflecting this. (it was on that thread you were on a minute ago myproper).

To mrproper: I'm not sure where you stand on this whole subject. You say on other threads that you believe eco can effect your return %s, but you say here that personal loot pool exists, which would mean the same overall % no matter what.

 

[mrproper]

1500 PED is not so meaningful. .

Ahem...

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/gallery/files/1/3/8/7/9/overview_run_1_tm_50.jpg

Please explain how the frequency of globals increased in the second part of the experiment, to account for the increased tt loss experienced by the hunter?

It would actually look better as a chart...

I've read the second link already :/ and all it does is reinforce the theory of NO personal loot pool...

His expenses aren't paid back to him, his average loot varies way less than his expenditure, and he gets better returns with more eco set-ups. Also in the same thread, he kills and doesn't loot, then loots some later and get's normal returns, not boosted returns to compensate.

Why does loot vary then? Why is the loot suddenly different, when he obtains less loot per expenses? Isn't this the whole concept of "personal activity effect"?

 

[Spinage]

Ahem...

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/gallery/files/1/3/8/7/9/overview_run_1_tm_50.jpg

Please explain how the frequency of globals increased in the second part of the experiment, to account for the increased tt loss experienced by the hunter?

It would actually look better as a chart...


Why does loot vary then? Why is the loot suddenly different, when he obtains less loot per expenses? Isn't this the whole concept of "personal activity effect"?

His globals seem fairly sporadic throughout :/

I don't see his loot varying (talking about the second link I assume) to any marginable degree.

If you like I can post the example table I asked you to do yourself as you clearly haven't lol (no offence, you don't have to do things you don't want). The loot would need to be very different indeed.

All I see from his thread is that when he overspent, he didn't get it back, resulting in less % returns

ALso, the whole experiment is flawed, in the first case, he does 50 ped hunts and averages his loot (mean). In the second case, he kills a few and gives exact loot of each mob.


If the median loot was the same as the second set of loots, and one big loot came, it boosts your mean but not median. SO looking at what is effectively the median in the second lot of results, and comparing it to a mean of the first set is.. well, it's just retarded, you can't get anything from it.

 

[Witte]

Ahem...

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/gallery/files/1/3/8/7/9/overview_run_1_tm_50.jpg

Please explain how the frequency of globals increased in the second part of the experiment, to account for the increased tt loss experienced by the hunter?

It would actually look better as a chart...

Even though I suck at statistics I can tell this is statistically insignificant. 1 or 2 more globals in the start and it would all have been even.

The same arguments you used with Strykers results also apply here of course. It seems to me you are cherry picking the data that fits your theory. Still an experiment would be nice. If you can proof you global a lot more with inefficient weapons that would be one hell of a find. So good luck with it.

 

[Spinage]

Even though I suck at statistics I can tell this is statistically insignificant. 1 or 2 more globals in the start and it would all have been even.

The same arguments you used with Strykers results also apply here of course. It seems to me you are cherry picking the data that fits your theory. Still an experiment would be nice. If you can proof you global a lot more with inefficient weapons that would be one hell of a find. So good luck with it.

I would also like to see the experiment, although I will say now with no hard feelings that I will be highly skeptical. It does seem you do (maybe not on purpose) 'pick' stuff that suits. It's better to start an experiment with a 'hypothesis' and a 'null hypothesis' so you are proving one of two things. E.G

"hypothesis: this will increase global rate"
"null: this will not effect global rate"

that way, you are proving SOMETHING either way, and won't be tempted to.. say, for example, not inlclude some 'unimportant' runs because the globals didn't really fit. I just hope you don't do the typical EF experminent where instead of having 'hypothesis' you have 'hopes' or 'aims'; which basically say from the start "I will record this data to prove this point"

Also: post the results in a new thread for general discussion, everyone likes an experiment.

 

[mrproper]

His globals seem fairly sporadic throughout :/

I don't see his loot varying (talking about the second link I assume) to any marginable degree.

If you like I can post the example table I asked you to do yourself as you clearly haven't lol (no offence, you don't have to do things you don't want). The loot would need to be very different indeed.

All I see from his thread is that when he overspent, he didn't get it back, resulting in less % returns

ALso, the whole experiment is flawed, in the first case, he does 50 ped hunts and averages his loot (mean). In the second case, he kills a few and gives exact loot of each mob.


If the median loot was the same as the second set of loots, and one big loot came, it boosts your mean but not median. SO looking at what is effectively the median in the second lot of results, and comparing it to a mean of the first set is.. well, it's just retarded, you can't get anything from it.

I didn't hunt recently. But I will hunt soon and I will go as far as to record individual loot window drops. If you have recorded data that supports your ideas, it is fair to post it in this discussion.

We all know how much an ambu loots, don't we? How do you explain the extremely large loots in the second run compared to the control run?

I mean, you must agree those loots are not equal in average or mean to the previous loots. We can compare this without expenses. And yes, they don't meet expenses yet, because the process is too abrupt and extreme.

But again, how do you explain that he got more loot, when he spent more, doesn't that negates the concept of eco?

 

[mrproper]

I would also like to see the experiment, although I will say now with no hard feelings that I will be highly skeptical. It does seem you do (maybe not on purpose) 'pick' stuff that suits. It's better to start an experiment with a 'hypothesis' and a 'null hypothesis' so you are proving one of two things. E.G

"hypothesis: this will increase global rate"
"null: this will not effect global rate"

that way, you are proving SOMETHING either way, and won't be tempted to.. say, for example, not inlclude some 'unimportant' runs because the globals didn't really fit. I just hope you don't do the typical EF experminent where instead of having 'hypothesis' you have 'hopes' or 'aims'; which basically say from the start "I will record this data to prove this point"

Also: post the results in a new thread for general discussion, everyone likes an experiment.

I'm currently in a mining prospecting project, but will switch to hunting, because this is too important.

I have recently opened a topic asking for how a loot experiment should be conducted so that it is agreed upon as having demonstrated models, by offering a fair prediction and testing the falsifiability of the theory.

I'm open to suggestions if you have any. I intend to prove personal loot theory, or not, eco is useless, or not, decay counts more than eco, or not...

 

[Spinage]

But again, how do you explain that he got more loot, when he spent more, doesn't that negates the concept of eco?

To be blunt-ish:

In the first control group, he cycles 300ped alone in ammo, in the second, he cycles just under 40ped.

In the first, he records average loot and in one run, he globals.

In the second, he kills 12 mobs and records individual loot.

There is no conclusions to be made.. he killed 12 mobs :/. Imagine one of them had been a hof, or a no loot, or 2 minis or whatever.

Also, just to be clear... his loot was actually higher % wise in the second experiment, and he was being more eco (less costs per kill).

His TT return to expenditure was god awful in the first round where he was purposesly being as uneco as possible.

So:

1) There is not enough data for anything conclusive
2) If you WERE to take it as conclusive (stupid), it would say "personal loot pool is not real", so what is the argument?

This experiment cannot be used to say personal loot pool is real... it doesn't even imply it.

 

[Spinage]

I'm open to suggestions if you have any. I intend to prove personal loot theory, or not, eco is useless, or not, decay counts more than eco, or not...

This sounds good, I will look for post now

 

[Witte]

We all know how much an ambu loots, don't we? How do you explain the extremely large loots in the second run compared to the control run?

I mean, you must agree those loots are not equal in average or mean to the previous loots. We can compare this without expenses. And yes, they don't meet expenses yet, because the process is too abrupt and extreme.

But again, how do you explain that he got more loot, when he spent more, doesn't that negates the concept of eco?

Are you talking about Jimmy B's test? If so, it is obvious the loot is difference because of damage done. That was the whole point of the test. Has nothing to do with the used weapon, as later was shown by Pham. Who BTW also showed how large variation in loot can be between runs using the same weapon.

 

[Spinage]

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

O.k, I can't believe you just negative repped me "you seem to read all but my posts". That is childish to the extreme. I am sorry if I didn't answer your post. TBH, I did read your post, I just... what am I supposed to reply to it?

Your post basically says you think an experiment should be conducted... but I can't do that experiment for you? Are you asking for volunteers? If so, I can't get on EU atm so I still can't help.

Then your post has lots of I thinks and They says and I believes ec, that in all honestly, I don't have any opinion on either way, I've never really considered most of them much. Then you say "flame on". I don't have anything negative to say either, since as your just stating a bunch of opinions.

Of all the posts in the thread, yours was about the only one that didn't get a reply because it was just 'one of those posts' that you can't really reply to.. I had no arguments, or no support, or no real opinion on anything you said.

So neg repping me for "You seems to read all but my posts." is just confusing. Did you neg rep everybody whos active in this thread and didn't respond?

Whatever 1 negative rep out of two controversial threads is ok with me, I expected worse. Just don't know how I specifically offended you.

 

[mrproper]

Are you talking about Jimmy B's test? If so, it is obvious the loot is difference because of damage done. That was the whole point of the test. Has nothing to do with the used weapon, as later was shown by Pham. Who BTW also showed how large variation in loot can be between runs using the same weapon.

So would that be supportive or dismissing of a personal loot model?

 

[Witte]

So would that be supportive or dismissing of a personal loot model?

Neither. It does dismiss certain types of personal loot models. The test Pham did showed one run with an non-maxed weapon with unusual results. But in the next run with that weapon the loot was very similar to a run with a maxed weapon. This variation make these kind of tests very difficult. Still, I think hunting a long time with a very uneco weapon, like the 3C dagger, should show much lower returns. But then you can be lucky and hof and its all even again. The theory can then be that the hof was payback for uneco. Or you can hof later, and the theory is the payback came later. It is all too easy to fit in the model you like.

Anyhow, you said you can consistently get many globals with one weapon, and almost none with another weapon, hunting the same mobs with about the same killrate? If you can show that to be the case, and somebody else can reproduce your result, then we have a winner.

 

[mrproper]

Neither. It does dismiss certain types of personal loot models. The test Pham did showed one run with an non-maxed weapon with unusual results. But in the next run with that weapon the loot was very similar to a run with a maxed weapon. This variation make these kind of tests very difficult. Still, I think hunting a long time with a very uneco weapon, like the 3C dagger, should show much lower returns. But then you can be lucky and hof and its all even again. The theory can then be that the hof was payback for uneco. Or you can hof later, and the theory is the payback came later. It is all too easy to fit in the model you like.

Anyhow, you said you can consistently get many globals with one weapon, and almost none with another weapon, hunting the same mobs with about the same killrate? If you can show that to be the case, and somebody else can reproduce your result, then we have a winner.

Yes, that would be the case...

Now, could we have individual daggers logged? Like stop hunting when one breaks, log the data, and present it? Because we can then see the mean and average loot returns, and compare to regular hunting with eco gear, where the return is usually better than 75%....

I'll have to go through my boxes and find some old UL weapons, but again, your points are valid, we need to have a clear experiment that is repeatable at least, and allows for enough variation, while taking place in a sufficient time period, that also includes globals, which is a bit difficult to say the least...

 

[sdragonfire]

Great thread! I always thought it was
Int((HighestLoot - LowestLoot + 1) * Rnd) + LowestLoot
But each avatar has his or her own unique seed at avatar creation
Where highest loot cannot exceed a certain % of input and not counting global and hofs of course

 

[Jambor]

O.k, I can't believe you just negative repped me "you seem to read all but my posts". That is childish to the extreme. I am sorry if I didn't answer your post. TBH, I did read your post, I just... what am I supposed to reply to it?

Your post basically says you think an experiment should be conducted... but I can't do that experiment for you? Are you asking for volunteers? If so, I can't get on EU atm so I still can't help.

Then your post has lots of I thinks and They says and I believes ec, that in all honestly, I don't have any opinion on either way, I've never really considered most of them much. Then you say "flame on". I don't have anything negative to say either, since as your just stating a bunch of opinions.

Of all the posts in the thread, yours was about the only one that didn't get a reply because it was just 'one of those posts' that you can't really reply to.. I had no arguments, or no support, or no real opinion on anything you said.

So neg repping me for "You seems to read all but my posts." is just confusing. Did you neg rep everybody whos active in this thread and didn't respond?

Whatever 1 negative rep out of two controversial threads is ok with me, I expected worse. Just don't know how I specifically offended you.

Well since its all speculation about the loot there is no facts, right ? And the only way to get your attention seemed to be neg reping you. Only thing I wanted to know was what you thought about it, and if some way it could be tested. But since you only replied to everyone else I was kinda angry about it.

And if you dont think its likely at all then just point to what makes it not possible. Or maybe we could try it out somehow.

Sorry for the negrep, I will give you some positive when can. Cheers

 

[Spinage]

Well since its all speculation about the loot there is no facts, right ? And the only way to get your attention seemed to be neg reping you. Only thing I wanted to know was what you thought about it, and if some way it could be tested. But since you only replied to everyone else I was kinda angry about it.

And if you dont think its likely at all then just point to what makes it not possible. Or maybe we could try it out somehow.

Sorry for the negrep, I will give you some positive when can. Cheers

It could be tested I think, but you'd first of all need uber, near uber, average, complete noob. That in itself is probably too hard lol

Depending on what exactly you want to find out is what info you need to record. Invariably, all of the avatars will get a different return% just due to variance, so you would have to do quite a bit of statistical analysis to see if there is actually something out of the ordinary (sooto ^^).

 

[mrproper]

Bump for experimental process description at https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...174726-loot-system-cracked-2.html#post2258882

 

[Snuggins]

I've read the second link already :/ and all it does is reinforce the theory of NO personal loot pool...

His expenses aren't paid back to him, his average loot varies way less than his expenditure, and he gets better returns with more eco set-ups. Also in the same thread, he kills and doesn't loot, then loots some later and get's normal returns, not boosted returns to compensate.

Which side are you on?

Also, I do understand that all his tests are extremely short and don't say much either way, but ti certainly doesn't even imply personal loot pool :/ but the opposite.

First link is without fap/armor decay and yet he still get's a 94.6% return. Most long term logs I've read show around a 99-100% return on ammo alone, which I would say means the 5.4% he is missing is coming from bad eco. Bad eco wouldn't effect loot if personal loot pool was real...

So both threads seem to reinforce personal loot pool being.. wrong. Both are relatively small experiments though and none record the median loot of each mob, which as far as I can see will be the most accurate way of seeing if loot varies dependant on eco.

In regards to Jimmy's Insane Test, check out his good luck within one month after he did those (expensive) tests.

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/uberloots/104634-missed-these-little-fellas.html

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/uberloots/104689-fast-but-heavy.html

I think if one is going to evaluate the idea of a personal loot pool, you certainly can't expect the system to respond by increasing loots on avg. immediately.

I know that it seems convenient for personal loot pool theorists to claim that big hofs following big losses are "payback," but honestly how else would the system pay it back?

 

[mrproper]

I know that it seems convenient for personal loot pool theorists to claim that big hofs following big losses are "payback," but honestly how else would the system pay it back?

It is convenient for two single facts:
- EVERYONE appears to be losing. I don't know anyone that is able to get his tt return above what he spends.
- People that don't lose ped fast don't hof as often as those that do. Those that do lose ped fast, usually receive it back.

If loot were random, then on average everyone should global the same frequency when hunting the same mob for extended periods of time.

If loot were avatar-related, then only people that would spend more ped on hunting the same mob as above, would get bigger loots compared to someone that uses the most eco gear.

Again, I am trying to provide a test for this, see https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...174726-loot-system-cracked-2.html#post2258882

 

[Snuggins]

It is convenient for two single facts:
- EVERYONE appears to be losing. I don't know anyone that is able to get his tt return above what he spends.
- People that don't lose ped fast don't hof as often as those that do. Those that do lose ped fast, usually receive it back.

If loot were random, then on average everyone should global the same frequency when hunting the same mob for extended periods of time.

If loot were avatar-related, then only people that would spend more ped on hunting the same mob as above, would get bigger loots compared to someone that uses the most eco gear.

Again, I am trying to provide a test for this, see https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...174726-loot-system-cracked-2.html#post2258882

I am actually agreeing with you here.

My comment about it seeming convenient was really directed to others in the thread that have essentially dismissed this kind of evidence before it is even presented.

Checking your thread now.

 

[Spinage]

I am actually agreeing with you here.

My comment about it seeming convenient was really directed to others in the thread that have essentially dismissed this kind of evidence before it is even presented.

Checking your thread now.

I don't dismiss it, it's just not been presented . However, it would be very hard to actually present in a good way, but I can be swayed by imperfect ways.

The thing is, you wouldn't expect everyone to global equally due to my other thread (binomial distribution) + all the many unknown factors that we will never know of what it takes to get a global. I don't even wanna speculate on what they are/if they exist, just saying, it's hard to prove that someone is "globalling too much"

 

[Witte]

Maybe this one is interesting: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/176428-5-different-weapons-against-argos-test.html

Although the results may turn out not to fit a personal loot theory so in that case fell free to ignore

 

[Spinage]

Maybe this one is interesting: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/hunting/176428-5-different-weapons-against-argos-test.html

Although the results may turn out not to fit a personal loot theory so in that case fell free to ignore

Already looking through that one, im waiting for it to be done, so far, it just shows the typical, Loot = nearly 100% of total ammo +amp spent.

I'll post in his thread when he's finished all a little chart showing lots of in depth stuff, including loot per dmg (based on ammount spent and eco of gun you can work that out) for each run and average, armor pec spent per dmg dealt, cost of dealing one dmg point + cost of armor per 1 dmg point (so full cost of 1 dmg point dealt to mob).

For personal loot pool, we should see some increase in loot per 1 damage done as pec per damage done increases. For non- loot pool, it should stay reasonably even.

Problem is, I'm assuming based on his numbers he uses A104.. since as that fits it most, but the reported decay is actually off according to ammo spent, which means he's not recording properly at all.

So far the firs two guns he's used only have a slight, slight eco difference (0.035 dmg/pec), and due to armor usage being a large portion of the bill on the "more eco" gun, they have nearly the exact same cost per damage dealt after armor pec per damage dealt is added on.

In clearer terms:

His P5a is costing 0.351233 pecs per damage
His Korss400 is costing 0.351987 pecs

0.000754 pecs difference per damage, making korss more 'eco' despite having lower dmg per pec by 0.035 just because of armor costs. Considering he's dealing like 392087.85 damage so far (average) with korss and he's only halfway done, that should be 295.6342389 pecs saved.... or 2.95ped... over a1000 ped ammo, so it's virtually unnoticeable.

My point with all that is that when I say you should see a better return with more eco setups, it's not just dmg per pec you should consider... in that example, korss400 is more eco, despite having a slightly lower dmg/pec.

At the moment, I think his test will have too much variance, considering at the time of writing this, his two tests already show a 0.031794477 pec loot per dmg difference, in favor of the more eco set-up (korss400). (0.031794477*392087 = 12466.201103499 pecs (or 124.66ped)) difference.

All this shows so far is that with 3.2 dmg/pec and NO armor/fapping, you could breakeven on TT% - taken from his averages over just 30 runs (3000ped ammo, 4k ped with amp and gun decay... bit more with armor decay).

I'll add the rest to the chart when he's done and there might be some useful results considering he's gonna do a total of 10kped ammo. I doubt the differences between each run will show anything conclusive, as it's only 2k ammo each, but the averages over it all should be useful for anyone who doesn't believe in personal loot pool (like me).

 

[Witte]

The difference in amp decay is because Korss uses 8 ammo and P5A uses 9. I think this test will only be able to confirm there is variation in loot. Another interesting test I mentioned before:

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...t-vs-regen-adjusts-you-say-8.html#post1849203

You can see that even without globals and mini's the loot variation is almost 90%.