Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Mining related questions

O

odh

Young
Joined
Feb 15, 2021
Posts
22
Avatar Name
Ordinary Decent Human
Hi fellow miners. I've been thinking about some questions, and unless answers exist and are somewhat well documented, I'm planning to test these.
But before I go down the rabbit hole, I'd rather ask first:

1. UL Finder + enhancers vs L Finder => which is less MU? I'm guessing in the end it might be about the tier of the item, but is there any math already on this? Preferably still applicable to 2023

2. Is finder decay a factor in the resources you can find, or is it just about depth? Is there any benefit to running with a low decay finder (F-106 or old En-matter finder). Here I'm thinking it might be that some ores might be "better/closer" multiples of raw cost of probes vs probes + Finder. If that would be true, F-106 would be a better finder than TM3GR, otherwise TM3GR is the better finder.

3. Do Ares rings influence the Finder in anyway? Do they influence the Excavator speed in any way? If so, by how much?
 
1. L finders breaks less enhancer compared to UL most of the situation using L finder is better than UL

2. Not sure about if decay of finder is included in loot but you should choose finder not for decay but for depth needed.
 
MikeH said:
1. L finders breaks less enhancer compared to UL most of the situation using L finder is better than UL

2. Not sure about if decay of finder is included in loot but you should choose finder not for decay but for depth needed.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply:
1. What I meant was using TerraMaster 6[L] vs F-106 T5 (5 depth enhancers). Is the MU of T6 less than the cost of running with enhancers?
2. I'm not always going for depth, as it's not always needed. My question was about if the finder decay is included at least in part in drop cost (amp cost gets included, so I'm guessing finder cost is as well)
 
I don't have the numbers at hand right now but I came to the conclusion that using L finders was cheaper for the most part. Naturally this depends on current market values, but as I recall the difference was significant enough that I came to the conclusion that I would just run limited finders instead.

I haven't run any tests on finder decay myself but I seem to recall @kingofaces posting something about finder decay being returned in claims. I recall seeing numbers supporting it.

If this is the case, you could potentially come across inefficiencies in using certain finders in certain areas with certain resources, depending on how the system handles this. This is very difficult to test, and even harder to account for im day to day mining.
 
Ferial said:
I don't have the numbers at hand right now but I came to the conclusion that using L finders was cheaper for the most part. Naturally this depends on current market values, but as I recall the difference was significant enough that I came to the conclusion that I would just run limited finders instead.

I haven't run any tests on finder decay myself but I seem to recall @kingofaces posting something about finder decay being returned in claims. I recall seeing numbers supporting it.

If this is the case, you could potentially come across inefficiencies in using certain finders in certain areas with certain resources, depending on how the system handles this. This is very difficult to test, and even harder to account for im day to day mining.
Click to expand...
Correct, I have a link in my sig to that post on claim size increasing with decay. It's part of the TT in / TT out calculations.

After that testing, I basically figured what the equivalent cost of using an F-106 with enhancers to match each L finder that was deeper than a base F-106 would be with known break rate, etc. As long as an L finder was in the 110-120% range, they typically were cheaper than using enhancers. With that in mind, there's no point most of the time of using depth enhancers on an L finder, especially due to increased costs, breakage, etc. Just use the next step up in L finder if you want to go deeper instead.
 
Last edited:
odh said:
3. Do Ares rings influence the Finder in anyway? Do they influence the Excavator speed in any way? If so, by how much?
Click to expand...
Yes for all activities, by the percent written. Can do real cheap thorifoid helmet and ares...imp?
 
Actually Im pretty sure faster reload does not affect excavator speed. You need a yog for that. :) i think it does affect how fast you can drop the next probe but not as sure about that as I am abt the excavating speed.
 
TerraMaster 5 (L) needs 3 depth to reach 1000m avg (sells for 112% or +25).

TerraMaster 6 (L) needs 2 (sells for 112% or +30).

F-106 needs 10 (one just sold for +3820).

1000m avg opens up more chances at uncommons like Dianthus, Erdorium and rares like Redulite and Rugaritz (find them more often than you do with less than 1000m avg -- at least from what I've noticed, read and been told).
 
Thank you all for the replies.
Seems the answer is pretty unanimous regarding enhancer usage (in the sense that deep L finder + few enhancers is the way to go)
Aklia said:
Actually Im pretty sure faster reload does not affect excavator speed. You need a yog for that. :) i think it does affect how fast you can drop the next probe but not as sure about that as I am abt the excavating speed.
Click to expand...
I've heard that before, I used to have ring + hat, now I have a Yog for when I global (since I mostly mine un-amped).

Does going deeper (avg) unlock more resources, or is it enough to simply have the minimum depth needed to find that resource and then the waves play a much bigger role than the depth?
 
odh said:
Thank you all for the replies.
Seems the answer is pretty unanimous regarding enhancer usage (in the sense that deep L finder + few enhancers is the way to go)

I've heard that before, I used to have ring + hat, now I have a Yog for when I global (since I mostly mine un-amped).

Does going deeper (avg) unlock more resources, or is it enough to simply have the minimum depth needed to find that resource and then the waves play a much bigger role than the depth?
Click to expand...
You want more than minimum depth, though honestly 1000m is a bit overkill unless you’re targeting redulite, etc. There’s a point where more depth has diminishing added returns.

Also remember that enhancers break quicker on L items, so you’re usually better off not using them if you’re going to use L finders.
 
kingofaces said:
You want more than minimum depth, though honestly 1000m is a bit overkill unless you’re targeting redulite, etc. There’s a point where more depth has diminishing added returns.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example and define what diminishing returns means in relation to mining depth and resource availability?

On the flip side, I can run in an area with a 500m avg finder and run the same area with a 1000m avg finder. I find more uncommon/rares with the 1000m than I do with the 500m.

These types of things are seemingly coded using the same logic as "crit chance", "block chance" and the likes. It's not a guarantee that you'll find more desirable resources but you increase your "chance" by going deeper. As an example, you can find Redulite with an F-105 but you'll have better chances when you breach 1000m avg.
 
The Great Adventurer said:
Can you give an example and define what diminishing returns means in relation to mining depth and resource availability?
Click to expand...
The range depends on the specific resource, but there's a point where depth doesn't help you gain significantly more of that resource (i.e., diminishing returns). Let's take Ignisium as an example. The minimum depth it was last found on LBML was 311m. As you go deeper past 300m, depth helps a lot in increasing the chance of hitting that because you are getting fewer and fewer claims that fall outside above that minimum depth.

If you're averaging around 800m with your finder though, going to 1000m isn't going to really increase your chances of igni because you're already not really having claims that would be outside igni's range, or would have a vanishingly small percent that would do that. If you are paying more MU either in terms of enhancers or a more expensive L finder to go deeper, you really aren't gaining anything in that case and likely falling behind a bit due to extra costs.

Most resources, outside of ones like redulite, rugaritz, etc. aren't really that deep. If you're going for most higher MU enmatters for instance, using a TM6-8 is going to give pretty similar results compared to how much change in resources you see as you progress through lower-level finders.
 
kingofaces said:
The range depends on the specific resource, but there's a point where depth doesn't help you gain significantly more of that resource (i.e., diminishing returns). Let's take Ignisium as an example. The minimum depth it was last found on LBML was 311m. As you go deeper past 300m, depth helps a lot in increasing the chance of hitting that because you are getting fewer and fewer claims that fall outside above that minimum depth.

If you're averaging around 800m with your finder though, going to 1000m isn't going to really increase your chances of igni because you're already not really having claims that would be outside igni's range, or would have a vanishingly small percent that would do that. If you are paying more MU either in terms of enhancers or a more expensive L finder to go deeper, you really aren't gaining anything in that case and likely falling behind a bit due to extra costs.

Most resources, outside of ones like redulite, rugaritz, etc. aren't really that deep. If you're going for most higher MU enmatters for instance, using a TM6-8 is going to give pretty similar results compared to how much change in resources you see as you progress through lower-level finders.
Click to expand...

What you're saying is pairing a finder avg depth to the avg depth of a resource you're targetting is best?

Let's say you have a finder that is 1000m avg thus the shallowest claim you'll find is somewhere around 500m (it seems to be similar to weapon damage ranges) and the deepest you'll find is around 1500m. Resources found on avg @ 1000m will be what you find most often vs resources that are found at 1200m or resources found at 800m?

Ignisium's range is 311min 871avg 1624max.
From min to avg = 560m
From avg to max = 753m

Best to use a finder that has a range in the min-avg or avg-max to increase your chances?

If your finder is 750avg depth around 375 min and around 1125max you'll have best chances?

FWIW LBML is showing a ton of great resources with avg depth of 1000m. Are the main page depth ranges accurate to date?

It still seems like unlocking depth up to avg 1000m is worth it. One could argue going deeper is where you start to experience those diminishing returns as not only does it open up the full breadth of resources to you but it also allows you to then specifically target shallower depths.
 
The Great Adventurer said:
What you're saying is pairing a finder avg depth to the avg depth of a resource you're targetting is best?
Click to expand...
Nothing like that. Average and max aren’t really meaningful on LBML because those aren’t the true average or max depths of resources. Those are biased by the types of finders most people use, and most people using LBML are using deeper finders that push that average down. It’s just showing what depth most people are mining. Max depth is also affected in a similar manner and should not be assumed as a cap for resources. It’s really moreso just an artifact of just how deep finders go in general. The only known meaningful metric there is minimum depth.

As long as I’ve been helping on LBML, the stats on that page don’t really change much. They used to show claims for the last 90 days, but the updater hasn’t been working for a bit now. The only variability though is really for rare resources that have a low sample size in that 60 day window. The minimum depth listed for those is typically deeper than the true minimum just because there aren’t enough samples to get a closer estimate of what the minimum is.

I would also caution about making assumptions/comparisons with hunting mechanics.

Tl:dr, minimum depth is the only known bound, there is no maximum where a resource cannot be found, and not really a true average with that in mind either.
 
Last edited:
People lose on high amps and P160/P85 etc. Specially noobs which pay well into the game and choose mining.

Apparently there is newcomer HOF and the message on Entropia site talking about ~95% return which all in all can mislead noobs. At least it is lack of informing well.

Suggestion 1: There should be a note in the auctions that MU is lost (in a corner of the auctions window) such that noobs can know and are reminded.

Suggestion 2: there can be more chance of getting UL items for those who have much mining MU deficit in the long run (spend more MU than gained). A partial return of that deficit, such as 50% in the long run. After all they have fed the game economy MUCH.

Suggestion 3: all the tokens should be made lootable in mining as well. The mechanics can be different, and there can be mining items (UL and L) to buy with the tokens.

Suggestion 4: the high value ore/enmatter which are used in building high amps are not mined with high amps, making the high amp use a very bad loss. This logical bug should be addressed by MA and those who lost much using high amps and P160/~P85 etc should get something in form of UL items or Apartments or etc in their mining finds in future. I know the game ecosystem is complex but I am sure something can be done (innovated) in this line.
 
odh said:
2. Is finder decay a factor in the resources you can find, or is it just about depth? Is there any benefit to running with a low decay finder (F-106 or old En-matter finder). Here I'm thinking it might be that some ores might be "better/closer" multiples of raw cost of probes vs probes + Finder. If that would be true, F-106 would be a better finder than TM3GR, otherwise TM3GR is the better finder.
Click to expand...
I have done some testing (with only UNL finders for now) and can say that the finder decay is a factor for higher TT recources and claim size cause (without amps) you will get more tiny's instead of VP and less high TT value recources with about the same HR.

Going deep is not always the key and you best make your own sheets with data and do not rely to much on LBML.
I know it's time consuming but in the long run, you'll benefit from it.

As for depth enh and for instance dianthus mining (on ark) you need to reach a minimum depth to get dianthus AND the deeper you go, the more decay the more you get, but as this is Ark ... you need to know the waves also.
Testing proves I can even mine dianthus with a F-101 T6 BUT with an average of 1 enh breaks/100 drops when using T6.
I count 1 break 0,50 ped cause you get TT value back.
Still need to test more and all these results are unamped
F-106 has a lesser decay than the F-105 so will give lesser results.
Cost for this test : 1561 ped
TT return : 1437 ped
After sales : 1771 ped
Hope this helps :)



AlicAresBodiaDianthusGrowthQuilVornZolphic
MD-10
MD-10+1
F-10122,00%8,00%0,00%0,00%0,00%0,00%10,75%40,30%
F-101+117,47%32,53%0,00%0,00%3,65%0,00%25,60%10,86%
F-101+2
F-1028,27%23,80%0,00%0,00%8,48%38,35%7,74%12,63%
F-101+613,11%121,38%0,00%1,79%4,49%25,95%10,50%10,17%
F-10310,49%17,12%1,15%2,63%5,00%33,62%9,88%12,01%
F-102+310,30%14,94%3,34%3,68%8,07%12,87%0,00%43,15%
F-1048,53%18,97%0,74%6,10%8,83%28,38%3,07%13,53%
F-104+10,00%11,72%0,00%7,10%16,68%10,65%3,79%32,28%
F-103+40,00%21,64%6,48%11,11%15,70%12,06%0,00%9,35%
F-104+29,93%23,61%0,00%9,14%10,34%17,35%6,43%6,70%
F-1057,98%18,07%0,00%11,01%6,64%14,45%10,00%15,06%
F104+320,17%20,09%0,00%0,00%9,88%0,00%21,02%10,65%
F-105+19,90%15,36%2,52%6,19%6,21%18,11%6,23%22,07%
F-105+214,45%11,29%1,09%7,17%13,41%17,09%4,51%8,81%
F-105+3
F-105+4
F-105+514,89%9,30%1,79%10,94%3,21%11,97%25,53%3,83%
F-105+6
 
Last edited:
Aklia said:
Actually Im pretty sure faster reload does not affect excavator speed. You need a yog for that. :) i think it does affect how fast you can drop the next probe but not as sure about that as I am abt the excavating speed.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

If I use speed enh on my extractor (UL) eff goes up, so I pull a tiny bit more (and save on decay) but speed stays the same.

On the Exhumer MK1
Excavation eff : 6.8
Exc eff with 1 speed enh : 7.5
Ecx eff with 2 speed enh : 8.2

On the RE-101
Excavation eff : 7,2
Exc eff with 1 speed enh : 7.9

It goes up 0.7 / lvl on any extractor

BTW : the speed enh hardly break ... been doing thousants of pulls without breaking even 1 so Tiering here helps, but takes ages.

The yog is used to speed up faster drops.
 
Last edited:
Leeloo Miner said:
I have done some testing (with only UNL finders for now) and can say that the finder decay is a factor for higher TT recources and claim size cause (without amps) you will get more tiny's instead of VP and less high TT value recources with about the same HR.

Going deep is not always the key and you best make your own sheets with data and do not rely to much on LBML.
I know it's time consuming but in the long run, you'll benefit from it.

As for depth enh and for instance dianthus mining (on ark) you need to reach a minimum depth to get dianthus AND the deeper you go, the more decay the more you get, but as this is Ark ... you need to know the waves also.
Testing proves I can even mine dianthus with a F-101 T6 BUT with an average of 1 enh breaks/100 drops when using T6.
I count 1 break 0,50 ped cause you get TT value back.
Still need to test more and all these results are unamped
F-106 has a lesser decay than the F-105 so will give lesser results.
Cost for this test : 1561 ped
TT return : 1437 ped
After sales : 1771 ped
Hope this helps :)



AlicAresBodiaDianthusGrowthQuilVornZolphic
MD-10
MD-10+1
F-10122,00%8,00%0,00%0,00%0,00%0,00%10,75%40,30%
F-101+117,47%32,53%0,00%0,00%3,65%0,00%25,60%10,86%
F-101+2
F-1028,27%23,80%0,00%0,00%8,48%38,35%7,74%12,63%
F-101+613,11%121,38%0,00%1,79%4,49%25,95%10,50%10,17%
F-10310,49%17,12%1,15%2,63%5,00%33,62%9,88%12,01%
F-102+310,30%14,94%3,34%3,68%8,07%12,87%0,00%43,15%
F-1048,53%18,97%0,74%6,10%8,83%28,38%3,07%13,53%
F-104+10,00%11,72%0,00%7,10%16,68%10,65%3,79%32,28%
F-103+40,00%21,64%6,48%11,11%15,70%12,06%0,00%9,35%
F-104+29,93%23,61%0,00%9,14%10,34%17,35%6,43%6,70%
F-1057,98%18,07%0,00%11,01%6,64%14,45%10,00%15,06%
F104+320,17%20,09%0,00%0,00%9,88%0,00%21,02%10,65%
F-105+19,90%15,36%2,52%6,19%6,21%18,11%6,23%22,07%
F-105+214,45%11,29%1,09%7,17%13,41%17,09%4,51%8,81%
F-105+3
F-105+4
F-105+514,89%9,30%1,79%10,94%3,21%11,97%25,53%3,83%
F-105+6
Click to expand...

I assume it is not all Ark you can get 10% Dianthus in. Is it a secret where? Or it is well-known, like yellow zone in Caly for the rare caly ore?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top