Their profit is 1% less then last year. Though, it's still 99% of last year's profit, the second highest so far.
What it means is that in accounting terms a target revenue figure was entered, the system works to produce the target figure in a fair manner.
A baseline revenue figure is also entered, one which is not to be gone below.
(Ofc in terms of as little tolerance as possible 1% in this case)
Obviously this baseline value was set to the total revenue of last year to ensure that company overall did not look bad as far as negative growth is concerned. Instead the worst case scenario is set at the stagnation value.
After all the general costs & revenue streams for the company are added into the system, all the accounts payable and accounts receivable;
The system then works by
CALCULATING the loot percentage return to balance what is required to AT MINIMUM reach the baseline target figure if things are not going so well to put them on a natural path to surpass this figure.
You find a reflection in the complain level of participants with crap loot returns, huge loses when the system is working to this degree.
In normal operation, or when participation and decay levels are very healthy, the system works at more natural rate to provide good returns, and when in extremely good health for an extended period will likely to dish a fair bit back out to the internal economy (ie. Use a much lower
CALCULATED fee, or better put higher
CALCULATED loot return rate)
This has been no secret for quite some time,
Yes it is speculative, though it is how a lot of automated accounting based systems in the market place work;
Having come from a background where least cost routing other such values needed to be set in telco data accounting systems, baseline target revenue points and tolerance points all needed to be checked regularly to make sure the telco was generating a profitable target return over and above their TCOs, Total Cost of Ownership & Operation of the inherent services provided and infrastructure used by the Softswitch.
Some references to that which triggered this to being in place:
so I just asked MA ...
................. what we can reveal is that we have not implemented any changes in the distribution of the loot or in the general loot system. The return calculated as a percentage today, is no different from before ........
^^ This means the percentage returned is based on what I described above, the no different from before means that this is always how the system has worked based on the information entered as the targets which must be achieved throughout its day-to-day operation over the fiscal period.
A lot of the return rate is out of the control of the Balancing managers hands in the general automation of the system as far as TT value goes (Ofc this does not mean the team can put something worthwhile in loot
)
Hello crew!
Here are the Balancing Manager's responses to the Q&A.
Post 79
I believe that the return rate (the "cash/ped" that the users are getting from the system as loot) should be increased. Why shall I play this game and not play on a casino where the odds are much more for me to gain some money?
Submitted by Niovara
I agree, everything we do aims for a better return rate for the users, but must still pay for the systems and us at MindArk. I think you should participate in Entropia because it’s a virtual universe and nothing else.
Market prices are at work, services are up for trade, socializing and training pays off. Opportunities are there all the time for the observant and hard working participant and not just at the same place everyday.
The universe isn’t static and predictable instead it’s built on natural laws and the goals of the users in it and that’s what makes it intriguing and full of possibilities.
The response here in blue is what is important.
The remainder of the answer is based around, you will manage to make up for the extra we have taken to meet our targets set in the automated accounting system by selling off valued loot to others who deposit more to acquire it.
Which ofc is a very intelligent way to ensure revenue generation targets are met.
I have spoken in the past about Cost of Participation balancing, paying markups out to others and from general decay activity where once you have paided out more (
This also includes that which is out of your control, paying a higher % than others to pay the bills & generate the revenue targets set by MA) the system will eventually spit items of a much higher markup to make back the additional cost you have paid for participation.
Both in the higher overall fees taken from the provider over the period, and highly likely the markups you have paid out to others to keep the internal economic engine running (Flow of the economy)
So in summary, the result was not unexpected to be the baseline value (Within acceptable tolerance +/- a few %) upon last years total revenue result to ensure the viability/worth of the organisation on paper (fiscal reports) as time progresses.
That is just how business operates in regards to automated accounting systems of such nature for the most part.
This is not the first, nor the 10th, nor the 30th such automated accounting system I have seen around the world with my past career of installing the orginal Ascend SS7 Softswitch interfacing directly with the cost/revenue management systems into telco cores.
Furthermore,
This is also why it is bad to log off when loot is bad, or when someone has got a large ATH or whatever, someone still needs to pay in participating to reach the target figures set in the accounting system;
Those who can afford to and/or are willing to press on are generally those who will be rewarded with more valuable loot over the long run for paying slightly higher service provider related fees (and those who continue to make the contributions to the internal economy as far as keeping the internal economy flowing by paying markups out to others - loot doesn't sell itself magically after all).
The system is fair and balanced
in working to this degree, as all the information as a whole is accounted for and worked with to determine outcomes to making it fair for everyone involved in participating based on their contributions to both revenue and to the continued flow/operation of the internal game economy's engine.
Time will tell 
