PoE Footguards given to PoE owners

[Avery]

Originally Posted by Metatron

Avery,
Next time please take the time to read my post(s) in the correct context. More protection is better, obviously, and that is what a 7th armor part adds. I was merely pointing out to Ironheart that, technically, MA does profit more from a 7th foot guard.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I just read the last couple posts, as there's just too much text to read everything from the last couple pages.

Re: decay dropping proportionally according to TT; I'd love someone to do conclusive tests on this. I'm not sure if Witte maybe has? The reason I am not 100% sure on this is from initial tests I did when armour decay was changed. But I was only testing to try discover the armour decay formula; not testing to see how decay changed as TT of the armour dropped.

It makes sense that the decay would only be dependent on how much damage was absorbed; but I'll not take that as fact until I can see some test results.

And now we can return to our regular programming

[TimUnleashed]

Originally Posted by Ironheart

decay is the only way MA make money on anything in EU.

Alright, it seems to me that the source of the confusion is about how MA makes its money.

I can see that Marco has clearly stated that MA's only income comes from decay, but this isn't enough for me. It might be a wonderful explanation from his perspective, but surely their income source is when people deposit money?How can they get income from someone clicking a few buttons in a computer program?

I cannot escape the fact that actual cash goes to them when people deposit actual real life money, and anything that encourages this to happen will generate income for them.

Ironheart, can we get this bit out of the way first before we discuss anything else? When you say that decay is the only way MA makes money on anything, what part of my "depositing money is how MA makes money" do you disagree with, and what do you mean? To me, it's just clicking in-game, but credit card transfer involves the actual payment of money to MA.

Let's get to the bottom of this before we discuss how a seventh armour part has anything to do with it.

Ironheart, I see you are happy to take what Marco says on face value, but where in the above am I going wrong?

Thanks.

[TimUnleashed]

Originally Posted by Avery

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I just read the last couple posts, as there's just too much text to read everything from the last couple pages.

Re: decay dropping proportionally according to TT; I'd love someone to do conclusive tests on this. I'm not sure if Witte maybe has? The reason I am not 100% sure on this is from initial tests I did when armour decay was changed. But I was only testing to try discover the armour decay formula; not testing to see how decay changed as TT of the armour dropped.

It makes sense that the decay would only be dependent on how much damage was absorbed; but I'll not take that as fact until I can see some test results.

And now we can return to our regular programming

To Avery and others who want clarification of the decay vs protection issue, can I suggest having a read of the following thread, where Doer's done a bit of an experiment and he and I have had some quite constructive debate on the issue?

(L) Armors: Decay

That said, I guess the main thing is this:

For limited armour: Protection is 100% until it breaks, decay rate is directly proportional to tt value of armour piece (as it decays, decay rate decreases).

For non limited armour: Protection is directly proportional to tt value (as you get hit, the armour decays, tt value drops, protection level drops, decay rate drops).

Hope that makes sense.

[Ironheart]

Originally Posted by Metatron

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you are in this thread with the sole intention of instigating. You come here throwing false claims around and insulting people who voice genuine concerns. I assumed you would have quit posting here after getting numerous -reps from people, but I guess that isn't the case.

Since you admitted that MA will profit more from adding the foot guards to existing sets, could you please state the point you are trying to get across to the people reading these posts? Or are you just here to instigate because the issue doesn't affect you like it does most of the people here? If you can make a legitimate point as to why everyone should stop arguing the case that implementing foot guards was bad for most players, then I'll stop questioning you. Also, you have to point out why it is fair for PoE owners to get foot guards when no one else does (and not use the excuse that they were "awarded", since many of the set owners bought their sets just like anyone else).

I cant believe how happy you are to keep making a fool of yourself.

OK, lets deal with the -reps first.
How do you know how many I have received on this thread?
Did you ask other people, friends of yours, who havent made any posts in this thread, to -rep me simply because you disagree with my opinion? (We both know the answer)
Isnt that a bit childish ... ?

(btw I have twice as many +reps for this thread as -reps )

Second, stop twisting things to score silly little debating points.
You know that I know about the decay spread issue, I was the first one to post anything about it on EF (as far as I am aware), you got the idea from me (even if you are not prepared to admit it).

BUT the amount of extra decay generated here is surely offset by the decay saved from having to FAP less, and as we know FAP decay is, in general, more expensive than armour decay.

And, in any case, its likely we are talking about miniscule amounts of decay here.

Thirdly.
The footguards issue affects everyone, some more than others of course, but everyone is affected to some extent. I will have my say on the issue, and I will argue it in my usual forceful manner. Sorry if you dont like that, but thats what forums are for.

As you know full well, I started my own thread to discuss these issues, so please dont try to make out I have no interest in this other than to cause trouble.

Fourth, back to the topic at last!
As I alluded to earlier in the thread, I believe the original competition winners should've got the free footguards rather than the current owners. I understand the fear of 'ransom demand' prices being put on them but I guess the new owners would always have the option of buying shadow instead, just like everybody else. I do though, believe MA was correct to give out PoE footguards free rather than put them in loot, and I'm 100% certain that I am not alone in that view, so I have no idea why you post that I am.

Mick, youre not going to stop me posting by abusing the rep system or making idle threats. Debate the issues, post your opinions, and enjoy a little banter! Thats what we're all here for isnt it?

[Ironheart]

Originally Posted by TimUnleashed

Alright, it seems to me that the source of the confusion is about how MA makes its money.

I can see that Marco has clearly stated that MA's only income comes from decay, but this isn't enough for me. It might be a wonderful explanation from his perspective, but surely their income source is when people deposit money?How can they get income from someone clicking a few buttons in a computer program?

I cannot escape the fact that actual cash goes to them when people deposit actual real life money, and anything that encourages this to happen will generate income for them.

Ironheart, can we get this bit out of the way first before we discuss anything else? When you say that decay is the only way MA makes money on anything, what part of my "depositing money is how MA makes money" do you disagree with, and what do you mean? To me, it's just clicking in-game, but credit card transfer involves the actual payment of money to MA.

Let's get to the bottom of this before we discuss how a seventh armour part has anything to do with it.

Ironheart, I see you are happy to take what Marco says on face value, but where in the above am I going wrong?

Thanks.

OK, fair question.

It might be better to 'get to the bottom of this' in another thread, but my view briefly ...

The only sensible thing to do is to take MA's statement at face value.

It may be simply an accounting question, ie MA only account for money taken as decay in their income, whereas deposits are accounted for as liabilities. I'm not an accountant, and even if I was I dont know if we have enough info. to make detailed conclusions.

They have stated publicy more than once, that they only take money from decay. I have a hard time believing they would be stupid enough to do that if it wasnt true.

(Maybe I have too much faith in human nature )

[Ironheart]

Originally Posted by TimUnleashed

To Avery and others who want clarification of the decay vs protection issue, can I suggest having a read of the following thread, where Doer's done a bit of an experiment and he and I have had some quite constructive debate on the issue?

(L) Armors: Decay

That said, I guess the main thing is this:

For limited armour: Protection is 100% until it breaks, decay rate is directly proportional to tt value of armour piece (as it decays, decay rate decreases).

For non limited armour: Protection is directly proportional to tt value (as you get hit, the armour decays, tt value drops, protection level drops, decay rate drops).

Hope that makes sense.

This is interesting, I do remember reading doer's original post in that thread, but theres a lot more in there I havent read yet (including some of your stuff).

I find this statement particularly interesting :-
For limited armour: ... decay rate is directly proportional to tt value of armour piece (as it decays, decay rate decreases).

I dont think that is correct, and I dont think the threads conclusions support that view either. I'm happy to be corrected on that if I have misread.

[kira-red]

Originally Posted by Ironheart

It may be simply an accounting question, ie MA only account for money taken as decay in their income, whereas deposits are accounted for as liabilities. I'm not an accountant, and even if I was I dont know if we have enough info. to make detailed conclusions.

yes, we do have enough information to make conclusions. we don't even have to detail our conclusions because the information is sufficientally detailed in itself.

look here - annual report.

from the above (page 16):

"Corporate revenue consist of the net amount between deposited and requested withdrawls supplied to Entropia Universe by the users. The net revenue are presented in the income statement after deduction of user requested reimbursments."

this makes it pretty clear what MA thinks it's income is.

PED held by the participants (on card or in terminal value) are considered as a contingent liability (page 22):

"It is not possible to determine whether a certain amount in PED at any given time will be withdrawn from Entropia Universe or spent on activities within the virtual universe. Mindark therefore consider all unconsumed amounts in PED as contingent liabilities."

this means they'll pay you back, if you ask for it.

all of this is very clear. your deposit is income. decay is the mechanism to convert PED - that is to say: remove it as a liability. anything that is consumed or paid within EU is part of the decay mechanism to reduce the current contingent liability. anything recylced within the universe is nothing more than an internal transfer to offset (immediately decay) new deposits while maintaining the existing liabilty. the liability is important and must exist because it is, essentally, the so-called "loot pool".

[Ironheart]

OK, maybe my loose use of the term Income is incorrect.

Nevertheless, until the 'contingent liability' is removed (ie decayed) then MA dont (cant?) spend that money elsewhere.

In my way of thinking, that validates the claim that 'MA only make money from decay'.

But, as I said earlier, it might be better to take these philosophical debates to another thread.

[TimUnleashed]

Originally Posted by Ironheart

I find this statement particularly interesting :-
For limited armour: ... decay rate is directly proportional to tt value of armour piece (as it decays, decay rate decreases).

I apologise Ironheart, you're quite right. I'm not sure why I said that - I wasn't thinking hard enough, despite many a long previous post on that exact issue! One of the critical differences between the two armour types is indeed the fact that the decay rate IS different. Limited armour maintains full decay rate even as its tt value decreases.

Sorry for any confusion I caused here.

The argument then becomes, of course, that to compare limited with non limited you have to assume that the limited is always fully repaired (so that it protects the same amount - otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges) and that therefore the decay rates are the same). Anyway, that's a separate topic for another thread.

[TimUnleashed]

Originally Posted by kira-red

"Corporate revenue consist of the net amount between deposited and requested withdrawls supplied to Entropia Universe by the users.

Thank you for that kira.

I think this, in its most simplistic form, says that like for any other company:

Profit = Income - Expenses.

They wisely choose to refer to the difference as a contingent liability, but that's where the profit lies.

Perhaps then, this is where the decay comes in.

It seems logical to me that when someone pays for a repair, they will never see the money again and so the equivalent amount of contingent liability can be removed.

Here then, I agree with Ironheart, the loose term of "income" becomes confusing.

We could say that:
1) INCOME is the amount that is DEPOSITED INTO PE
2) EXPENSES is the amount that we pay back to Entropians when they withdraw
3) CONTINGENT LIABILITY is pool of funds that Entropians may at any time ask to withdraw
4) PROFIT is any money Mindark can legitimately remove from the contingent liability pool
5) Mindark can remove money from the contingent liability pool when it disappears from a user's account via decay.

If so, they I think we're all arguing the same point, with different semantics.

If so, then our argument, I believe, starts to become a little too philosophical for any practical use:


Depositing increases the size of the contingent liability pool, but does not directly become profit. However, when you deposit, you are more likely to spend ped on things that decay, and, then, indirectly, MA will take a profit.

So, it works two ways:
1) If MA can somehow increase how much decay happens, they will make more money.
2) If MA can somehow increase how much people deposit, then it is likely that indirectly, people will spent more on things that involve decay.


What does a seventh armour part have to do with this?

Well, a seventh armour part encourages a fair bit more activity, which probably has SOME kind of indirect influence on decay.

Does this depend on how the damage distribution works?

I accept Ironheart's point that any particular hit goes to one particular armour part, and so it's just spreading the decay around further. Perhaps, therefore, I'm wrong in my assumption that people are going to take on bigger mobs, and so it ISN'T a 16.67% increase switch.


Hmm....

I'd be interested to see what you all think about this.