Question: How do I prove there is or is not a personal loot/expenses pool/tracker?

[Nisha]

I think we were offered a choice yesterday.

I think I'll have both

 

[mrproper]

I just don't know what is so hard about understanding that a fixed rate of return is very easy to program.

Much easier, might I add, than having the loot system constantly "watching you."

Not to mention the fact that MA would gain NOTHING from lying to us in this case.

How can we be sure that's how it works when there are clues and experiments that appear to say otherwise?

MA often gives contradicting and confusing statements over the time and different people.

I don't imply that MA is clearly lying, but to accept a statement just because it's from authority without any kind of proof or demonstration to weight in and then laugh at others for disagreeing requires ridicule. Sorry, that's how I work. Simple affirmations can be dismissed with simple affirmations. Should you have some proof, I'm listening.

 

[Fifth]

How can we be sure that's how it works when there are clues and experiments that appear to say otherwise?

MA often gives contradicting and confusing statements over the time and different people.

I don't imply that MA is clearly lying, but to accept a statement just because it's from authority without any kind of proof or demonstration to weight in and then laugh at others for disagreeing requires ridicule. Sorry, that's how I work. Simple affirmations can be dismissed with simple affirmations. Should you have some proof, I'm listening.

Actually, Rob already dismissed your simple affirmations with his simple affirmations.

 

[mrproper]

Very well then...

Good ideas guys, I'll be away for a while, keep them coming.

 

[remontoire]

I think someone else did this and showed that not looting the mob is somewhat a stupid thing to do. We can at least try to limit ourselves to looting the mob but killing it in stupid ways.

Also I tried to do this style with punies and MF chips but I'm an obsessive looter

Well, if you will always get 50% of the loot if you only loot 50% of the mobs, you will have proven that there is no personal loot pool But you won't know about other kinds of memory in system.

If doing empty drops in mining is easier for you than not looting, the following might work for mining:

* make a grid with exactly 200 drop points
A) drop a bomb at all the points, doing 5 runs each on a different day
B) drop a bomb at all the points, doing 5 runs each on a different day. Whenever you get a NRF, drop another bomb at the same location

There are problems with both tests I have proposed, namely in one case people can claim that the system is blind to costs to mobs that are not looted and in the second, that the system does not compensate for srops to "blacklisted" locations. However, I think the utility of the tests trumps such concerns.

 

[billairboy]

One thing that can confuse testing is that it's possible that we have diffrent loot pools for each type mob and maybe even server. Lets say the mob Atrax have a "Atrax pool" that are filled up hunters when hunting the Atrax. If you do a test to see if you have a "personal loot pool" (of course we don't have that), and you are the only hunter hunting the Atrax you are in a way filling up your own "loot pool", because you are the only one hunting the Atrax. That would be even more true if seperate "server loot pools" are existing and you are hunting at the same server all the time.

 

[mastermesh]

How can we be sure that's how it works when there are clues and experiments that appear to say otherwise?

Flip a coin one time and the odds are highly likely that it will land one one face or the other. With one flip it could be said that that one flip resulted in a 100% proof that the coin will land on whichver face up that ended up... That's the problem with tests in game... statistics works that way. Change population size, change the results of the test. You can try any test you want, it'll still only have partial results. You can claim to proove or disprove anything, but honestly, you can't ever prove anything ever... because there's always some possibility that the stats are wrong as you didn't get big enough population size, etc. Too many random factors to make any test work 100%... because loot pool is a black box. MA has started to show us the inside of the black box with the dev notes, but it's still a black box... and we have a very distant view of it.

 

[remontoire]

One thing that can confuse testing is that it's possible that we have diffrent loot pools for each type mob and maybe even server. Lets say the mob Atrax have a "Atrax pool" that are filled up hunters when hunting the Atrax. If you do a test to see if you have a "personal loot pool" (of course we don't have that), and you are the only hunter hunting the Atrax you are in a way filling up your own "loot pool", because you are the only one hunting the Atrax. That would be even more true if seperate "server loot pools" are existing and you are hunting at the same server all the time.

Hence recording all loots. There are other possible causes, both caused by memory, those caused by periodic variation and so on that can throw off an experiment. Which is why we need to control as much as possible, and have enough observations to eliminate other noise.

 

[RobBuona]

Flip a coin one time and the odds are highly likely that it will land one one face or the other. With one flip it could be said that that one flip resulted in a 100% proof that the coin will land on whichver face up that ended up... That's the problem with tests in game... statistics works that way. Change population size, change the results of the test. You can try any test you want, it'll still only have partial results. You can claim to proove or disprove anything, but honestly, you can't ever prove anything ever... because there's always some possibility that the stats are wrong as you didn't get big enough population size, etc. Too many random factors to make any test work 100%... because loot pool is a black box. MA has started to show us the inside of the black box with the dev notes, but it's still a black box... and we have a very distant view of it.

But flip that coin 1,000 times and chances are you'll have pretty close to 500 heads and 500 tails.

Outside of that, you are right. You can't prove anything. Now, you might say I can't prove MA to be telling the truth - but they gain nothing from lying about loot pools, so I don't see any reason to prove anything.

 

[remontoire]

Outside of that, you are right. You can't prove anything. Now, you might say I can't prove MA to be telling the truth - but they gain nothing from lying about loot pools, so I don't see any reason to prove anything.

I really wish people stopped with the "can't prove anything" nonsense.

 

[mrproper]

Flip a coin one time and the odds are highly likely that it will land one one face or the other. With one flip it could be said that that one flip resulted in a 100% proof that the coin will land on whichver face up that ended up... That's the problem with tests in game... statistics works that way. Change population size, change the results of the test. You can try any test you want, it'll still only have partial results. You can claim to proove or disprove anything, but honestly, you can't ever prove anything ever... because there's always some possibility that the stats are wrong as you didn't get big enough population size, etc. Too many random factors to make any test work 100%... because loot pool is a black box. MA has started to show us the inside of the black box with the dev notes, but it's still a black box... and we have a very distant view of it.

If someone is using a fixed coin to beat me in bets because his coin drops 60% of the time heads up, I can prove that with a certain degree of confidence. I don't need to flip it until infinity to show that the longer I flip it, the heads percentage is closer and closer to 60% instead of the expected 50%. Would some people agree that is a fixed coin? Nope, some people would not agree, unless someone with a fancy title or a fancy hat tells them to agree.

More information does not change opinion, unless the person is a rational being. I expect the results of any experiment to change opinions no matter which way the results indicate because I trust there are intelligent people playing Entropia.

Should an experiment validate or invalidate MA's statement, the results could only be helpful to people understanding them and using them for a better gaming experience.

 

[Droops]

But flip that coin 1,000 times and chances are you'll have pretty close to 500 heads and 500 tails.

http://comptop.stanford.edu/u/preprints/heads.pdf

 

[-Archangel-]

MA said there is no personal loot pool.

And you want to prove them wrong ?



First MA has created a game where some things don't work as they intended.

Therefore lets assume that you could prove them wrong

What would satisfy you ?


Lets start with the definition of personal loot pool ?

What is that for you
if it is something diferent from MA perspective both can be right


For example MA might say there is no personal loot pool that accumulates after X hours, but the data of the last X hours of game play is used to calculate the loot;
Some players say that after arround 8 hours of gameplay the loot gets different.


If you give aswers to the above I will try to elaborate more.

 

[mrproper]

And you want to prove them wrong ?

Maybe I try to prove them right. How do I know what I'm going to prove until I get the proof?

 

[Shadowsong]

... we don't actually have the variables available to us to determine what the storage and return mechanism IS: we only know that it works, and that it tends to work "consistently on average".
....

This.


We have no way to know which of the myriad variables MA are using in their loot algorithm. Any test conducted with a flawed or incomplete set of the relevant variables cannot produce a definitive result. After every action of the avatar, the total picture of that avatar "state" changes, and if that is part of the algorithm, then how do we compensate for that? Sure, we get messages when we gain skills, but what about those "non-gain" moments? How do we determine if there is not another mechanism, hidden from us, that is being added to the overall avatar state in those moments?

How can we prove that, for example, dumping stuff in the TT does not negatively or positively modify our loot return?

Can anyone definitively prove that the textures on your clothing at the time of looting has no effect on the algorithm? It's an extreme example, but the point is that MA has so many variables they can feed into an algorithm that it seems improbable that we could prove anything one way or the other. Hell, for all we know, the current phase of the moon over MA headquarters is one of the variables.

We cannot find even two absolutely identical avatars, much less a representative sample that would provide a reasonable baseline, so the test is destined to be flawed.

 

[-Archangel-]

Maybe I try to prove them right. How do I know what I'm going to prove until I get the proof?

The scientific method isn't about proving that something is right.
Is to show that so far nothing was found to contradict the hypothesis therefore it should be temporarely assume to be correct until a new evidence makes it incorrect.

I mean you can't prove something is right outside the realms of mathematics (in which case you start with unprovable "truths" - axioms)


People have reported to have a 90% tt return during the argo event with M2100+e15

Lets assume that there is no personal loot pool that would "force" loot to get to 90% average in the long run


What could explain the above ?


Solution A
They haven't played enough to be called the "long run" ence the server still is calculating the loot to be received based on inputs from a limited set of time that hasn't been surpassed yet.

Test to see if A is valid
Try to surpass the time that the server uses to calculate loot.



Solution B
Althought there is no personal loot pool there is "server loot" pool and ence if he was the only one hunting there (other input were insignificative)
then the return would be tending to what the server loot pool was set to give

Test to see if B is valid
Hunt alone in a "server" and then compare results with hunting along with people with better(or worse) eco settings.


Solution C
He was lucky or didn't do proper recording of data

Test to see if C is valid
Get more data

 

[mrproper]

From noiseless' hunting log, first 50 samples:

http://i.imgur.com/DFkTY.png

I thought.... if the loot is tracked, then there should be a bias, after good loots there should be more bad loots and after bad loots there should be good loots, and the bias should be towards the cross-diagonal instead of the main diagonal which would show a random loot distribution.

So I plotted the above chart. To my surprise, there is no visual indication that the distribution is biased. However there might be a small bias that I'm trying to verify now.

 

[Uvas]

I thought of a possible solution.

Someone who has grinded the same critter for awhile and has a feel for the loot return, or even better, documented returns, can be used here.

Step one: Go on usual hunts for a month. But shoot half of your ammo in the air during each hunt. Record costs and loots.

Step two: Go on usual hunts for a month. Do nothing unusual. Record costs and loots.

Step three: Compare the loots and see if being wasteful affects returns.

If you have a personal loot pool, being wasteful shouldn't affect returns because all your expenditures are recorded and compensated.

If there is no personal loot pool, your returns should be markedly affected by the wasting of ammo in step one.

 

[mrproper]

Step one: Go on usual hunts for a month. But shoot half of your ammo in the air during each hunt. Record costs and loots.

Step two: Go on usual hunts for a month. Do nothing unusual. Record costs and loots.

Step three: Compare the loots and see if being wasteful affects returns.

Two problems here:
- Bleed-in effect
- Two months?!

 

[aridash]

you cant. two reasons, firstly the system will have been designed to prevent this. secondly there are just too many variables you cant hope to account for them all. same mob, same weapons, same area, same time... but you arent going to have the same other hunters on the mob or server, or history of lootsystem wide for the preceding period. this is the key to the loot system in Entropia, we are the random element.

the best you can hope for is to provide evidence that there is some personal loot factor.

 

[Terminator]

Interesting discussion...

I am thinking, since years, all tests have been done by individual players. But MA and their loot engine maybe don't see us as individuals, but "merge" us all together. (When we see ants in a forest, we see a group of insects, we don't care about any or each of them.)

Maybe that is the reason why they wrote that our tests were faulty. They may manage our loot on the global scale when we try analyze it at our tiny personal scale.

Something like an upper dimension we will never be able to reach since we are a groupe of individuals...

 

[mrproper]

you cant. two reasons, firstly the system will have been designed to prevent this. secondly there are just too many variables you cant hope to account for them all. same mob, same weapons, same area, same time... but you arent going to have the same other hunters on the mob or server, or history of lootsystem wide for the preceding period. this is the key to the loot system in Entropia, we are the random element.

the best you can hope for is to provide evidence that there is some personal loot factor.

What designs prevent us from discovering this?

How do I find evidence for personal loot factor?

Interesting discussion...

I am thinking, since years, all tests have been done by individual players. But MA and their loot engine maybe don't see us as individuals, but "merge" us all together. (When we see ants in a forest, we see a group of insects, we don't care about any or each of them.)

Maybe that is the reason why they wrote that our tests were faulty. They may manage our loot on the global scale when we try analyze it at our tiny personal scale.

Something like an upper dimension we will never be able to reach since we are a groupe of individuals...

Group testing has been proposed. Reaching that upper dimension little by little?

 

[Jimmy B]

Subscribing for now, looks interesting, I'll add some thoughts later.

 

[Uvas]

Two problems here:
- Bleed-in effect
- Two months?!

I don't know what you mean by bleed in effect...other factors dribbling into the results? You can never get rid of that...

And I picked two months randomly. I thought it would be long enough to keep people from saying the sample size was too small....

 

[Magix]

I don't think MA is using the same vocabulary. I think it's very obvious that there is a personal record of wins/losses, because returns are consistently 90% over time from all tests in all situations. Also, no one that I know of has hit two ath's within a short timespan. Therefore, we know for a fact that after hitting a big multiplier, you chances of hitting another are remote. Even hitting two 100X multipliers is nearly impossible in a 24 hour time span.

However, the way MA is using "loot pool" says to me that they define it as an account that the user fills up with decay/ammo/clicks/probes/etc. and after a certain point, is "drained" by a large hof. I know this definition is definitely not true. This past week, I lost about 3k peds on amps because my returns were capped at X1 multipliers at full condition, with nothing over 150 ped or so at 5-6 ped/click at full condition. However, a balancing hit occurred last night, therefore my belief in a personal record is strengthened. The balancing hit (~1k) occurred because of my bad week, but couldn't have happened during that week. By this definition of loot pool, I should have gotten the 1k earlier (say at 1.2k losses instead of 3k) and it should have been larger (2.8k instead of 1k.) To support my definition of personal record, I could safely assume that all my crafting since the beginning is right around 90% returns, including the 3k losses and the 1k hof.

Proof of a personal record:
1. Much more likely to miss right after a hit/Much less likely to miss after a miss. If this was truly random, double misses with a maxxed weapon should occur about once per 50 misses at a 20% miss rate.
2. Much less likely to crit after a crit. Back to back crits are extremely rare, but they should occur regularly if they are truly random. I don't know what the crit rate is, but at 10%, a double crit should occur every 100 crits.
3. All returns over time, in study after study, is right around 90%, maybe +/- 5%.

Proof against a "loot pool":
1. Smiligs, myself and possibly Joker too have all experienced being capped at X number of globals/hofs in a 24 hour period. Once you hit a certain number of globals, you just can't get any more, or the rate you get them drops off severely.
2. Studies on camping monsters have been largely random. In my experience, the best loots I ever were returning to a monster I previously camped after a few weeks or months, but there's plenty of examples of people who both hit big on their first 10 tries or those who hit big after their 10,000th.
3. Newbies who never deposited nor cycled a significant amount in the system hitting 4-5 digit ubers.
4. The "blessed": avatars (usually females living in Sweden ) who seem to hit 1k or higher multipliers almost monthly.
5. Double bombing results in lower returns. If a wasted probe filled up the loot pool, double bombing should result in the same returns as single bombing.

In summary:
There is no "loot pool," as MA would define it, and there's plenty of evidence against it.
However, there is clearly a personal record, and there's so much evidence there's no need to study it.

 

[Dab]

Too many unknown/uncontrollable variables to ever do any accurate test.

You can only test by comparing avatars against each other not by comparing one avatar (or many) against the system.

Any true test in hunting would require many avatars with the exact same Cost To Kill and only hunting one maturity of mob over a long period of time. All the avatars would have to make sure they did it at the exact same time as well since loot might fluctuate with player activity. This is impossible.

Even if you could do the impossible, there would probably still be too many unknowable variables for it to be meaningful.


The only way to know for sure is to go to Gothenberg and look at the code.

 

[Silvia Universe]

The only way to know for sure is to go to Gothenberg and look at the code.

 

[Serica]

... Also, no one that I know of has hit two ath's within a short timespan. Therefore, we know for a fact that after hitting a big multiplier, you chances of hitting another are remote. ....

You've not been around long enough then, I've seen it.

(I suspect part of the reason it doesn't happen more often is that after the first ATH, the person is in a lil shock and spends time working out how to spend it (and having a small scotch to settle their nerves), instead of continuing on with what they were doing )

 

[dr3w]

All right, my pedeegree chums! Time for me now not talk shit™, but show shit picture:

WTF is that? It's mining. Not me - friend of mine, but who cares - I can fake it anyway, right? So:

X: drops
Y: goddamned PEDs
black: ore-TT return
blue: enmatt- TT return
orange/dotted red and green it's MU and avg - we don't give fuck about it anyway.

Most funny shit: this is ROOKIE MINING. Guy made this from one ped or ten, I don't remember.

Come on, tell me now about randomness.

 

[aridash]

What designs prevent us from discovering this?

well, the second point i made really. its a bit of deduction really: if you were a developer would you make a system that could be "cracked" or one that wasn't by design? its not difficult to place enough layers and inputs in to the system to make it utterly impossible to "prove" anything, because nothing is ever repeatable.

How do I find evidence for personal loot factor?