Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    Old
    Joined
    Nov 01 2010
    Posts
    68
    .........................................
    Last edited by Norbert; 07-22-2011 at 06:28.

  2. Sponsored Links
  3. #12
    Hatchling DoubleWolf's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 02 2010
    Posts
    3
    I think the loot system the way it is now undoubtedly lends itself to gambling. I have my own thoughts on whether or not the system is truly random, but I don't think anyone would disagree that the loot variance is much too high.

    It seems that everyone agrees that changing the loot variance is a good idea and would attract more players, and in turn keep them around. I can't believe that Mindark doesn't realize this as well. It just makes sense. So then it would appear that they've chosen to keep this loot model for a reason.

    I think a lot of it comes down to server space. If you figure there's maybe 1 million accounts created at this point, I highly doubt that the Calypso servers could handle all those accounts at the same time. If the loot system was more favorable, and there were more players capable of profiting off of other participants, it's not likely that anyone would ever leave. The system would continue to grow and there wouldn't be room for everyone. They may have chosen this loot system to keep some players away and reduce the server load. For the time being, they may have found a loot setting that keeps the active player base at a desired level. Something where they can collect a lot of money from a small player base by appealing to the gamblers.

    Well if server load is a problem, it would make it tough to really grow without more servers. This game is different from any other MMO as the entire world plays on the same virtual server. But each actual server is a different piece of land, so to add more servers would mean adding more land. And they would need funding for these new server areas. In comes the idea for new planets, and requiring a buy-in from the planet partners. With the profit sharing model that encourages them to try hard to get players to come to their particular planet, it should do a reasonable job of spreading out the player base across all servers.

    So the fact that they are losing money and players right now may very well have been part of the plan, or at least expected at this stage of the game as the planet partners start coming on line. It'll be curious to see what happens once we have a few planets up and running strong and seeing some real competition start happening. Mindark might be waiting for this as well, so they can change the loot to a more favorable system that will attract and keep lots of players.

    One can only hope...

  4. #13
    Mature falkao's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 02 2010
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleWolf View Post
    ...
    It seems that everyone agrees that changing the loot variance is a good idea and would attract more players, and in turn keep them around. I can't believe that Mindark doesn't realize this as well. It just makes sense. So then it would appear that they've chosen to keep this loot model for a reason.

    I think a lot of it comes down to server space. ...

    Not sure if all this might be server related.

    Nevertheless, high variance in loot is needed for item drops. Otherwise a mob that costs 10 PED to kill will only drop something close to that 10 PED. Atm we do have in more than 95% of occasions something close to 6 PED, and in 5% something quite higher, say close to 75 PED. With ava based loot this is not problematic, but when they drop in a purely random fashion then it is.

    Not sure what reasons do exist that MA believes that this loot model is good. One reason might be that ava based loot is quite difficult to implement and quite different from what theyíve implemented so far. Furthermore, there are quite some players that do like the actual system and the system will always need many new players. Hence, losing some players is not something that MA is worrying about.

  5. #14
    Hatchling
    Joined
    Nov 01 2010
    Posts
    9
    I agree that it are the higher loots that drop the L gear (mostly globals). But if i look at the amount of L gear in auction that does not get sold or that crafters take it easy because the market is weak and they do not want to collapse the price to much by providing to many items. I would think that there is no real danger in making the variance smaller. One would see an increase in crafted L gear if the amount of L gear dropped in hunting decreases a bit.

    Giving the UL SIB items such a big TT value was a big mistake in my opinion. The same with making only 50% usable. This while some of the low end UL SIB items have to small an TT value causing one to need at least 2 or 3 to do decent hunts. Just the fact that some UL SIB items can and will drop kept the market on some of the high end items from getting completely out of control.

    Like said before if we have less of those 5k and higher loots we can have some more 300 to 600 ped loots. And those have enough place for L gear in them. If one would have a bit better chance on globals and small HoFs. So one would profit another say 1 in 10 hunts for a lot of people that would mean that their average loot return over 10 hunts would increase with 10% or more. It would also be nice to get rid of 90% of the no looters. Just having 10 to 20 pec oil would already be an improvement.

    Cheers
    Siam

  6. #15
    Mature falkao's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 02 2010
    Posts
    31
    If I cross-check the recently published financial report, then I have to conlcude that there is something that doesn't fit.

    From June 2009 to June 2010 net sales was 36,000 kSEK (deposited – withdrawn PED, First Planet). Unconsumed user holdings were at 58,000 kSEK in June 2009, this is TT on items and PED card. If I add the 36,000 kSEK that came in minus some decay of 3,000 kSEK and 3,000kSek from Space Station sale, unconsumed user holdings should amount to 88,000 kSEK. In the financial report 63,700 kSEK are given for June 2010. So I’m wondering where the rest is, as user holdings did increase only by 5,7 kSEK as given by the report.

    Maybe somebody can cross-check. Have there been others sales not ending in TT on items or PED card?


    If the above finding is true, then from about 30,000 kSEK that came in only 19% (5,7 kSEK) have been bound in TT. This percentage is quite smaller as in previous years. For instance, unconsumed user holdings at Dec 31 2008 were 51,000 kSEK. From Jan-Jun 2009 23,000 kSEK came in minus some dacy, say 2,3kSEK. In the same period user holdings did increase by 7,000 kSEK leading to 58,000 kSEK in total. 7,000/20,700 is about 34%.

    The relative increase in user holdings should reflect return rate. Up to now we have estimated it as something about 90% or 95% not accounting for fees.

    Are those missing PEDs bound in loot pool?
    Last edited by falkao; 11-17-2010 at 18:35. Reason: corrected net sales

  7. #16
    Hatchling
    Joined
    Nov 01 2010
    Posts
    9
    They changed the EULA some time ago.

    They now only guarantee the amount of peds that you deposited in the last 6 months.

    So if i understand it correctly in the theoretical case MA would go bankrupt only people that deposited in the last 6 months can get money returned but only up till the amount they deposited.

    The big loots are definitely not helping with this since a lot of people that ATHed since VU10 was introduced decided to pull at least 75% or more out. This causes a big cash out strain on the economy and probably on MA. They need depositers to be able to pay out since not all is covered any more.

    Cheers
    Siam

  8. #17
    Mature falkao's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 02 2010
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    They changed the EULA some time ago.

    They now only guarantee the amount of peds that you deposited in the last 6 months.
    This is only related to incidents.

    Here a list of the decrease in increase of user holdings.

    Code:
    		Jun2010	Dec2009	Jun2009	Dec2008	Jun2008
    User holdings	63700	62000	58000	51000	39000
    Increase		1700	4000	7000	12000	
    Net sales	9152*	26927	23737	32118	34507
    					
    Inc/NetSales	18.58%	14.85%	29.49%	37.36%
    Not sure what the decrease of Net sales for Jun 2010 is (only 9152). In contrast to other years there are 8,455 kSEk Other income. Also Rocktropia started 2010. Net sales for group are still at 20,805 kSEK. So maybe this is the right figure to use.
    In this case ratio would be 8%.

    Not sure if what I did is correct in all details, but it clearly shows that increase of user holdings diminished.

  9. #18
    Mature falkao's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 02 2010
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by falkao View Post
    ...Not sure if what I did is correct in all details, but it clearly shows that increase of user holdings diminished.
    I did think about it and I guess I have found one reason.

    Active users do cycle PEDs and per run user holdings do get diminished by decay. User Holdings is the amount of PEDs ingame that do cycle. Atm there are something like 60000 kSek money ingame and in terms of PED this would be something like 100 Mio PED.

    If those PEDís get cycled, say a quarter of this capital per day, i.e. 25 Mio, then user holdings will decrease by 1.25 Mio a day, assuming a payout percentage of 95% (=5% decay). Letís assume further that there are 150 days per half year, then in half a year user holdings would decrease by 25 Mio PED. Hence, one quarter of the initial capital will disappear due to decay. Those 25 Mio PED do correspond to about 15,000 kSEk.

    Net sales for FPC was 9152 kSEK in the first half year of 2010. If FPC is treated like other planet partners by MA, then this should be half of the decay produced on this planet. So on Calypso there was decay of about 18,000 kSEK which is close to my above mentioned figure. This would also explain why net sales was lower in 2010 for FPC contrasted to 2009, as theyíve got all decay before.

    Moreover, we do know that in 95% of cases return rate is only about 60%. Only on the long run youíll see 95% payout. Hence form the cycled PEDís, 40% is withhold by the system diminishing further PEDís ingame. Given user holdings do already reflect this. For new cash this must be considered. So letís a further calculation.

    If there are
    60,000 kSek ingame
    -15,000 kSek decay per half year,
    + 30,000/2 kSek deposits (corresponds to what was given as cash received from customers and is the same as in the half year of 2009, I used half of this ammount as I due assume that only half of the peds will get cycled)
    =
    60,000 kSek

    This shows, that if a certain level is reached then user holdings will remain constant if activity level remains constant.

    The main conclusion is, that due to the heavy right tailed loot distribution MA is able to limit risks as PED ingame are immediately reduced by 40%. I guess this might be the main reason why MA is not willing to change.

  10. #19
    Old Alpha
    Joined
    Nov 08 2010
    Posts
    732
    In my humble opinion i feel that unlimited SIB should have a lower min condition, and a lower maximum tt.
    I agree with you 50000%! Super High level UL swords have super low MU because no one wants to tie up that many peds... It's ironic it works that way... It makes the UL melee weapons a sort of "savings" in game for various participants because if they ever find a need to get rid of the weapon, some have no qualms about TTing the swords, which is rather tragic when you think about it.

    Another oddball part about the loot cycle... when you get ammo back, it's very annoying to loot ammo of a different type then the gun you are holding. Would be nicer if they at least put some effort in to giving you back ammo that you could use instantly instead of having to find a TT to exchange it for another type of ammo. I guess with explosives that's ok, but with the TT types of ammo loots, it makes no sense to me... for folks that have one of every type of gun, sure it might be ok, but for folks that just use opalo, or blp, why? Us melee people get the raw end of that since looting ammo is useless for us unless we have a gun for tagging on hand... otherwise it's all just tt food. Would make more sense to give out something that can be used instantly... maybe some sort of "repair kit" that you can use to repair the ul ammo in a way similar to the repair terminal, etc.

  11. #20
    Mature falkao's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 02 2010
    Posts
    31
    Thx for the contributions so far. Although, there are less replies as on the old EF, quality of them is much better.

    Why not eliminate item drops at all. Instead of that it would be possible to drop only components without much variance in loot. And, instead of using another slot machine to craft items from them, it should be more challenging in terms of time and knowledge to craft an item. A puzzle-like thing or a creative system like ďLegoĒ might be an improvement over what we have so far. Iím quite sure, when the system enables creativity, then we would have more cycled peds.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •