Tibia Loot Split Math Explained: Why You Owe (or Are Owed)

1. Where the prices come from (this is the big one)

Before any split math happens, Tibia has already assigned a number to every item that dropped. That number is what feeds into your Loot, Supplies, and Balance totals. The Loot Type setting in the Party Hunt Analyser decides how those numbers are picked. There are three options:

The default is Market. The Loot Type: Leader line in the Hunt Analyzer's "Copy to Clipboard" output tells you which mode produced the numbers in that log.

Why this matters more than the split math

Market prices in Tibia can swing wildly because they're controlled by other players. A common situation:

• NPC under-prices. An item the NPC buys for 5,000 gp may be selling on the market for 1 gp because one player listed it ridiculously low. Using Market, the analyzer values that drop at 1 gp — and your split math is missing 4,999 gp of real value per drop. Switching to NPC recovers the real floor.
• NPC over-undersells. The reverse: an item the NPC pays 100 gp for might sell on the market for 5,000 gp. Using NPC under-values the drop; Market is more accurate.
• NPC doesn't buy at all. Many high-end items are market-only — no NPC accepts them. Under NPC they show as 0 gp, which is also wrong.

There's no single right answer. Most parties go with Market for convenience because it auto-tracks supply costs (potions, runes) accurately. Premium parties hunting for rare drops often switch the leader to Leader mode with custom prices for the specific rares they expect, then leave everything else on market.

Important: for the split to be fair, every party member's in-game analyzer should be using the same Loot Type. If you're on Market and your friend is on NPC, your logs will disagree on what the hunt was worth before the math even starts. Talk it out before the hunt.

Once the in-game analyzer has produced its numbers, the rest of this guide is the math TibiaPlan applies on top. The math is simple; the prices are where the actual money hides.

Can someone cheat the prices?

Yes — there are three real attack vectors party members should be aware of:

1. Leader-mode price abuse. If the party leader sets Loot Type to Leader and uses custom prices, they can under-value items they pick up themselves. Their Balance in the log looks small, so the split moves less gp away from them — yet they still walk away with the under-priced item, which is worth its real market value in their depot. Net effect: they steal the spread.
2. Market manipulation (anyone, not just party). The Market mode pulls live world prices. If a random player listed an item ridiculously cheap, that pushes the world average down for the duration of the hunt. A friend of one party member doing this on purpose can skew the split. Thin markets (few listings) are most vulnerable.
3. NPC-mode rare under-valuation. NPC mode looks innocent but under-values rares and market-only items (which show as 0 gp when NPCs don't buy them). If the leader expects rare drops and chooses NPC mode "because it's stable", they're banking on receiving the rares physically while the split sees a cheap hunt.

How to spot it (or pre-empt it)

• Compare visible drops mid-hunt with the analyzer numbers afterwards. If you saw a clear rare drop and the leader's loot total didn't jump, ask why.
• Cross-check any high-value item against the in-game Market or a fansite price tracker before accepting a split.
• Watch for big disparities between players that don't match the hunt: if everyone fought equally and one player ended with massively more or less, the prices are usually the cause.

The honest approach (by trust level)

The single most-honest default is Market mode with everyone on the same setting. It's not perfect (market manipulation exists) but it's verifiable by every party member without trusting any single person. If a leader pushes hard for Leader mode without a clear reason, that itself is a flag worth pausing on.

What loot split actually does

A loot split has one job: equalize everyone's profit from a shared hunt. After you transfer the gp the calculator tells you to, every party member ends the hunt with the same balance. Not the same loot, not the same supplies — the same balance.

This sounds simple, but Tibia adds two wrinkles:

• Each player's supplies come out of their own pocket — knights burn potions, paladins burn ammo, mages burn runes/mana potions. So balance isn't just "what you looted" — it's loot − supplies.
• Loot is random. One player can pick up a 50,000 gp rare while the other got vials. The split smooths this out.

2. The Hunt Analyzer log

Tibia's in-game Party Hunt Analyzer tracks five numbers per player during a hunt: Loot, Supplies, Balance, Damage, and Healing. The leader presses "Copy to Clipboard" and pastes it into the TibiaPlan Loot Split tab. A typical 2-player log looks like this:

Session: 02:00h
Session data: From 2026-05-15, 14:00:00 to 16:00:00
Loot Type: Leader

Loot: 285,400
Supplies: 178,200
Balance: 107,200
Damage: 142,580
Healing: 35,100

Plutarrch (Leader)
Loot: 165,300
Supplies: 95,400
Balance: 69,900
Damage: 82,400
Healing: 18,200

Bhaen
Loot: 120,100
Supplies: 82,800
Balance: 37,300
Damage: 60,180
Healing: 16,900

Each player's Balance is what they personally walked away with: loot minus their own supplies. The team total at the top is just the sum.

3. Step 1 — calculate the fair share

Sum every player's balance, then divide by the number of players:

In our sample log: 107,200 / 2 = 53,600 gp. That's what each player should end the hunt with after the split is applied.

Critical detail: this is based on balance, not on loot. The split already accounts for everyone's individual supplies because each player's balance subtracts their own costs. We'll come back to why this matters for knights vs mages.

4. Step 2 — surplus or deficit per player

For each player, compare their actual balance to the fair share:

• diff > 0 → surplus. You got more than your fair share. You owe the difference to the party.
• diff < 0 → deficit. You got less than your fair share. The party owes you the difference.
• diff = 0 → no transfer. You already ended at the fair share.

In our example:

5. Step 3 — the settlement

For 2 players the settlement is trivial: the one with a surplus transfers their entire surplus to the one with the deficit. Plutarrch pays Bhaen 16,300 gp. Both end up with 53,600 gp. Done.

For 3+ players, TibiaPlan uses a greedy matching strategy: the player with the largest surplus pays the player with the largest deficit first, transferring whichever amount is smaller. Repeat until all surpluses are zero. This produces the minimum number of transactions possible — usually one fewer than the number of players who owed or were owed.

6. Worked example (2 players)

Using the sample log from earlier:

1. Total balance = 107,200
2. Fair share per player = 107,200 / 2 = 53,600
3. Plutarrch diff = 69,900 − 53,600 = +16,300 → he owes
4. Bhaen diff = 37,300 − 53,600 = −16,300 → he is owed
5. Transfer: Plutarrch sends Bhaen 16,300 gp
6. After settlement, both have effective profit = 53,600 gp

The intuition: the hunt as a team made 107,200 gp. Half is 53,600 each. Plutarrch happened to find the lucky loot drops, so we shift gp to even things out.

7. Why supplies don't matter (directly)

A frequent complaint: "I'm a knight, I drank way more potions than the mage. Why doesn't the split account for that?"

It does — implicitly. Each player's Balance = Loot − Supplies, so their supply cost is already subtracted from the number we compare. Worked example:

Same balance → no transfer needed. The knight spent 3× more on supplies, but he also looted 2× more — they net out evenly. The split sees this and stays out of the way.

The split only steps in when supply cost and loot luck combine to produce uneven balances. Which is exactly when humans would argue about it anyway.

8. The "I lost money and still owe?" scenario

Some hunts are a bust. Sample:

Total balance is −100,000 — the team lost gold. Fair share is −50,000 each. Plutarrch only lost 10k, but he's supposed to have lost 50k. He's 40,000 ahead of his share, so he owes 40,000 gp to Bhaen, who was 40k deeper in the hole than fair.

After the transfer, both players are at −50,000 — equal loss. That's the principle: split equalizes profit and loss alike. Players who came out lighter on the bad hunt cover their share of the damage too.

This is the counter-intuitive moment for new groups. If you're playing with a friend who's never done a split, show them this section before the first hunt — it pre-empts the awkward "but I already lost money…" conversation.

9. Three or more players

For larger parties the math is the same — divide totalBalance by the player count, compute each player's diff — but multiple transfers may be needed. The settlement minimizes them:

Greedy settlement: A (largest surplus) pays C (largest deficit) until A is square or C is square, whichever first. Then the algorithm moves to the next pair. Result:

• A pays C: 30,000 gp (C now square; A has 10,000 surplus left)
• A pays D: 10,000 gp (A now square; D still owed 20,000)
• B pays D: 20,000 gp (everyone square)

Three transfers for four players — the theoretical minimum. Without the greedy algorithm you might end up with five or six transfers, each of which is a manual in-game trade. The calculator keeps the post-hunt admin short.

10. Common objections (and answers)