[Leona]

Originally Posted by Snuggins

I think you are missing my point.

I am saying that according to my experience there is no difference at all between what you call active and passive costs as they relate to total tt return over time. Else I loot better than 100% on active cost (on the long run counting globals into the avg)...

I have high passive costs (focus chip, tp, fap, scanner) and low active cost (over 1 yr active playing and only ~1450 marksmanship) because I aim to be a more scientifically skilled avatar vs a Rambo. This style gives me lumpy returns as opposed to flatter ones of a very eco-minded hunter who maximizes damage out and minimizes damage in, but I agree that we all get about the same return in the long run.

Hmm, i think i got your point but i failed to work it out properly in my last post. There was supposed to be an larger text in my last post between the sentences: "But even your example of 92% is way of my results, so whats the reason?" and "People underestimate how small things sums up!"
So the second sentence now seems to direct refer to your 92%, but doesnt.

Then again, if you take my way of splitting things your situation fits perfectly in.

Lets, just for fun, make up an total silly calculation:

Let's assume my claim:

"Assuming you hunt with an maxed weapon, on the long run you get back 100% of your Active Costs plus an unknown part of your Passive Costs.
To me it seems that the system keeps an % of the Passive Costs."

is right.

And just for arguments sake let's assume MA's parts of the Passive Costs is 10%:

Player A and B both spend 100K Ped

Player A
Active Costs: 90000 Ped
Passive Costs: 10000 Ped

Return: 90000 + 9000 = 99000 (99%)

Player B
Active Costs: 50000 Ped
Passive Costs: 50000 Ped

Return: 50000 + 45000 = 95000 (95%)

Or let's assume MA's part is 25%:

Player A
Active Costs: 90000 Ped
Passive Costs: 10000 Ped

Return: 90000 + 7500 = 97500 (97.5%)

Player B
Active Costs: 50000 Ped
Passive Costs: 50000 Ped

Return: 50000 + 37500 = 87500 (87.5%)

Now i would not be surprised if what i call Passive Costs not only includes armor and fap (else i would call it "Defense Costs") but also includes other decay like scanner, TP chip...
But i never burned few hundred or thousand Peds with an scanner or something and checked if and how it comes back.

Originally Posted by Snuggins

I think that your 100% return on "active cost" is incidental and a result of the arbitrary division you made of "active" and "passive" costs as they relate to tt return. I do agree tho, that dividing your costs as you have and minimizing passive costs will give a flatter return rate.

I made two sentence bold in the two quoting blocks above because they make me think you missed the core of my claim, so i repeat:

"...on the long run you get back 100% of your Active Costs plus an unknown part of your Passive Costs..."

I agree, the way i divide costs might seem arbitrary and the above example calculations are flawed of course. You could explain quite any returnrate with that modell.
But then again, this modell doesn't come out of thin air. If you hunt different types of mobs, low decay for long time, then higher decay for long time, you get some data that calls for an modell like this.

No need to say that i do NOT claim the lootsystem works like this, that would be silly. There are at least 2 totally different modells that works quite as well.
And i do not like this theoretical stuff that much, but it is an "tool" that helps me to calculate my "markup goal" on an mob.

Originally Posted by Snuggins

You didn't answer my one question directly.

Is your passive cost at about 8% of your active cost (accounting for the difference between my 92% and your ~100%)?

My average Passive Costs are way lower then 8% of my Total Costs. I do hunt stuff with up to 10% and more Passive Costs regularly, but not without good reason (either markup or fun/teamhunt).
But the majority of my turnover is based on hunts that have 1 to 5% Passive Costs, even down to 0.45%
But again, that doesn't matter much, i do not focus on low Passive Costs all the time and i don't say it is the way to go.

Originally Posted by Snuggins

For a small bankroll that is a good thing, but if you have a big one... it might be better to go for the hofs.

Totally agree.