Question: what's your return rate?

[GoNi]

Originally Posted by Dorsai

I got a "dynamic reply" from MA.
Puts me back to about 70%.

Thats the way it works
Gratz to the global

[Immortal]

Originally Posted by Dorsai

By return I meant: "Avi used up 100 peds of ammo, and got x peds-tt in loot." I am not even including decay.

In that case it would vary. With p5a - might get back 80-90%
manis -120%

But manis decay is a lot higher and a key component in eco, so looking only at ammo is a bit shortsighted.

On the other hand if you made a poll "i receive XX% back on ammo using YY weapon" and repeatedly polled it fro every weapon, it would give you meaningful data.

[Snuggins]

Originally Posted by Leona

Yes, the "close to 100% tt-return thingy" is where most people disagree. Actually just had an discussion in socchat .

It is easy to explain though. Let's agree on some terms first:

Active costs: Everything that decays direct to damage. Ammo, weapon decay and amp decay for an ranged hunter in example.

Passive Costs: Fap, Armor "basedecay" (w/o L markup)

Lack of Economy Costs: If you use an unmaxed weapon

Markup Costs: All markup you "decay" on your run, your L gun, L amp, L Fap, L Armor, L whatever

Extra Expenses: Teleport costs, LA-taxes...

So what i claim is: 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. That would be pretty much how MA claims that it works, surprise surprise.

The Markup Costs, MA's part of the Passive Costs and the Extra Expenses however, it is your job as hunter to earn it back by markup in loot.

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.


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%)?

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.

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.

[ruskea]

i use to hunt with h400 or p5a+a103, ek2600, no armor.. fap decay aint much.. alot less than armor decay would be.. and on decent mobs.. i still dont usually get even 50% of the wasted ammos back.. i dunno how some ppl claim that by hunting economic u do get 80%+ on most of the runs... economic aint shit if u hunt 3 days in row without getting a loot above 10peds.. and ammo wasted per day is 50-100k.. and on estos who dont even give no looters LOL

its not the economic that matters.. its the loot...

[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.

[Snuggins]

Thanks for your reply Leona. Definitely some things for me to consider.

I can see how both our models of calculation could give data that fits our results. Which is the one MA uses? I don't think we can tell for now, but I guess the safe bet is on yours (requires less bankroll anyway).

My personal hope is that MA wouldn't put such a negative incentive towards skilling in less violent means of burning tt. I do only play with an amount of money I can afford to lose outright, so I guess for now I will continue to play in the way that is fun and rewarding for me even if it comes at a cost in the final results.

Thanks again for taking the time to consider my post and reply so clearly.

[Freelancer_Main]

Over 80%, under 90%

if you have any questions then theres simple answer:
Foul (Young to Scout)
bones
900% markup

[Doer]

Originally Posted by Leona

Yes, the "close to 100% tt-return thingy" is where most people disagree. Actually just had an discussion in socchat .

Pretty golden posts, but i am not at all sure that the 100% tt thing is a reality. For one, that would make actual weapon eco irrelevant, and i'm not sure that's the case.

Here are my results in hunting since Dec 06:
Active costs: 154,154 PEDs
Passive costs: 7,740
tt return: -13461
market return: 5722

So that's a 91% return on tt of active costs, 92% return of total costs, and 103% return in market value on total costs. Before my first two uber HOFs last month i was at slightly less than 100% overall return.

Counting crafting and mining (both of which have been, with only one small exception in mining, tt losses for the last year), i'm below 100%, too.

If i were to sell all the skills i gained i'd probably be up 10k additional value.

[Miller]

Factoring in the cost of decay as part of the overall expenditure I'd say 90-110% return almost all the time (not including the anomalous hunts where you get several globals or a hof etc). I can honestly only remember having one truly awful hunt but I can't even remember what it was on...

Saying that, the average return is much lower if I do wreckless hunts on mobs that need too much fapping etc but I expect that before I start. I didn't count them among the overall average because for me those wreckless hunts are things I do every now and again to let off steam and don't expect much return.

[Dorsai]

I realise that not taking into account decay etc does not give a fully accurate picture.
However, if one spends 10,000 peds on ammo, and got back 10% (1k, IE 10%) in loot (with nothing worth more than 105%), you would not really care what your decay bill was, as unless you used items that went up in value as you used them, you have clearly failed to make any sort of return at all.

If i were to get back 70-90% of the cost of my ammo (which, incidentally, I get crafting, TT value of materials V's TT value of results/residue), I would think "this is ok", as at that rate, all it will take is a glow, one ESI or such high markup item, and you have got back your costs in full. Add in skills gained, and I am happy.
As a result, the past 2 weeks I have done little but craft low level textures. Return rate, 75% + skills and a few BP's.

Any way, off for some more solo hunting. Perhaps the tide has turned.