Mining? What? (Guide For The Common Guy)

[Lobbe]

nice guide really helps thanks

 

[raeky]

LOL, you said Jehova!

Really, wonderful guide.

Regards,
DD

HAHA, can you tell what other games I play?

 

[raeky]

Hi,

a very good guide me thinks - Rep added.

[...stuff...]

Anyway, thanks for the great guide & have fun!

I'm pretty sure the location is predetermined, and the type and ped-value of it is determined when you "find it." If that wasn't the case if you double bomb you'd find things CLOSER then previous claim ocassionally due to rolling a deeper depth on that bomb... This has NEVER happend to my knowledge? They're always futher away, which would seem to indicate the finder finds the closest deposit and that it finds ALL deposits in it's range.

As for not finding lyst or oil or nexus on higher end finders, i find them with TK120 and Tik300 and Z20's.... Low end stuff like that is findable at all depths from 1-1000m generally... What is happening is that with low end finders you can ONLY find these low end ores, so every deposit is blam Nexus, or blam Lyst... With a higher end finder deposits that WOULD of been lyst or nexus has turned into something better.

If you WANT lyst or nexus or whatever (nexus isn't bad) whip out a low end finder and go mining there. If you want to avoid the low end stuff use a better finder...

 

[raeky]

Very good guide! +rep

I strongly agrea with your random theory and I think many people missunderstand random, and the human brain is constructed to find patterns so it's no wounder we keep "finding" them even where they don't exist.

The only thing I disagrea on in the guide is the extractors. Kosh sums it up preety well.

Some people don't mine in taxable areas cause they don't want to part with that 4-5% (Although I don't really notice it, I find better finds in them personally)... Some people don't use TP chips because of the tiny amount of cost they add (I find that it's usually LESS THAN 2 peds a trip)... Some people don't use armor because it adds extra costs (I find that decay on my ghost set and 1a plates is less then 2 ped a trip)... Some people don't use higher end extractors because it adds a little extra to your trip...

It's up to you, personnaly the little extra expense is made up for by the skill gains and faster extracting... *shrug* But like I said, I carry both. I just tend to use the better ones most. The decay is minimal.

 

[Flapman]

Thanks for the great guide

This is precisely what I was looking for.

 

[Defender]

Very nice guide. But mining isnt random...

Example:

Skillgains:

If i gain no skills and run XX seconds a straight line (yes the XX is censored because its my technic ) You wont gain skills again...

With and without amp... so where is the randomnes?

And yes i will publish that technic soon. If it is proofable (becauce i have not so much peds to make constant runs)

I know some ppl say: "Pff bullshit that skillgain tricks wont work." But you see a system in them...

 

[Ionar]

Very nice guide. But mining isnt random...

Example:

Skillgains:

If i gain no skills and run XX seconds a straight line (yes the XX is censored because its my technic ) You wont gain skills again...

With and without amp... so where is the randomnes?

And yes i will publish that technic soon. If it is proofable (becauce i have not so much peds to make constant runs)

I know some ppl say: "Pff bullshit that skillgain tricks wont work." But you see a system in them...

I belive the size of the find is random, the amps only magnify the find by a set percent. So I don't see how amps would be prof of none randomes.

Skillgains... There are thous who belive and there are thous who don't. I've seen no prof one way or the other. I attended a minaclass by Widswept some time ago, and he tought one skillgain theory. After trying it out for my self some time I don't much belive in it, no offence Windswept.

As stated earlyer, humans have a very selective memory and an urge to find patterns. When you combine the two it's easy to "see" patterns that aren't realy there.

But as allways, only MA know for sure and can sitt back and chuckel at all our attempts to figure it all out.

 

[raeky]

Very nice guide. But mining isnt random...

Example:

Skillgains:

If i gain no skills and run XX seconds a straight line (yes the XX is censored because its my technic ) You wont gain skills again...

With and without amp... so where is the randomnes?

And yes i will publish that technic soon. If it is proofable (becauce i have not so much peds to make constant runs)

I know some ppl say: "Pff bullshit that skillgain tricks wont work." But you see a system in them...

It's random, random locations, random everything. Sorry too burst your bubble.

 

[raeky]

I belive the size of the find is random, the amps only magnify the find by a set percent. So I don't see how amps would be prof of none randomes.

Skillgains... There are thous who belive and there are thous who don't. I've seen no prof one way or the other. I attended a minaclass by Widswept some time ago, and he tought one skillgain theory. After trying it out for my self some time I don't much belive in it, no offence Windswept.

As stated earlyer, humans have a very selective memory and an urge to find patterns. When you combine the two it's easy to "see" patterns that aren't realy there.

But as allways, only MA know for sure and can sitt back and chuckel at all our attempts to figure it all out.

Good point, theres a lot of theories with skill gains...

I'm 100% sure skill gains are not linked to anything, they're just random. You have a random chance of gaining skill in one of the relevant skills (it's weighted, you get more of some then others by a weighted percent). But skill gains have NOTHING to do of finding deposits.

Only way to prove these things requires SIGNIFICANT cost and loss. If you drop a bomb say 1000 times in the same spot, you'll probably get hardly any finds a couple maybe. But I bet you'll get the same skill returns as if you dropped bombs in 1000 random locations.


I've *NEVER* seen any evidence skill gains are linked to deposits. Ever.

It's easy to link those into some "theory" someone has built up in their head because they're falling into the false belief MA is dumb enough to not make the system random.

 

[Ironheart]

Good point, theres a lot of theories with skill gains...

I'm 100% sure skill gains are not linked to anything, they're just random. You have a random chance of gaining skill in one of the relevant skills (it's weighted, you get more of some then others by a weighted percent). But skill gains have NOTHING to do of finding deposits.

I agree with a lot of what you say in your original post, one point about skill-gains though ...

Go into an area full of mobs, equip your gun, now shoot into the air, making sure you dont have any mobs in or near your sights.

How many skill-gains did you get? (none will be the answer)

If mining is like hunting invisible mobs (and I believe it is), then you wont get skill-gains unless your 'aiming' at something. Which suggests that skill-gains do have a general relevance, but not necessarily a direct relationship with finds (ie the Perception theory).

I've mined a lot during nearly 4 years in-game, and I do find that areas without skill-gains, tend also to be very dry of deposits. This is especially noticeable at CND.

 

[raeky]

I still haven't seen any evidence to prove that conclusively. It's best to stick with the null hypothesis until evidence makes me lean the other way. Less gains could be because your amp'd up there or your using finders that are out of your learning period or they could be tied to density as your saying, less skill gains but more per gain, like less deposits but bigger.

The null hypothesis being that they're not connected is the safe bet until enough evidence proves another theory. IMHO.

 

[Ironheart]

Yes, of course I have considered all those things ... but the theory is easily proveable when hunting, if you're not aiming at a lootable target you will not get a skill-gain.

Given your theories hold that mining uses the same basic methods as hunting, I dont see why the skill-gain method should be different.

 

[raeky]

Yes, of course I have considered all those things ... but the theory is easily proveable when hunting, if you're not aiming at a lootable target you will not get a skill-gain.

Given your theories hold that mining uses the same basic methods as hunting, I dont see why the skill-gain method should be different.

Just because we both believe that deposits are invisible mobs doesn't mean the analogy has to extend fully into all the hunting mechanics. Theres no reason to think that dropping a bomb is the same mechanic as shooting a gun.

I'd treat each system separate, deposits=mobs sure, finders=guns is more of a stretch IMHO.

I'd like to see a way to extract meaningful data out of regular mining to apply to these theories.. I'll give it some thought.

 

[chevrons]

One comment on the amp section:
Use amps in areas that you know what resources you will find, and only if the markup of the resources is higher than the markup of the amp. This is consistent with the fixed % return approach you use in the guide.

Sorry, but this cannot go unchallenged. If you are in a field, using an amp will increase your return whatever the resource.

The real argument about attaching and detaching amps is whether you should attach it before you are sure that the field exists. The problem is, there are many false positives, where there are just one or two finds surrounded by desert, so I don't think this works either.

But fundamentally, no-one should use an amp until they have acquired enough knowledge of fields and judgement when to start and stop bombing that they already make a consistent profit. Then it's a question of being happy with the increase in stake, and not overpaying for the amps.

Once you decide to use an amp, do it all the time, or you will regret it when you hit an unamped global.

 

[chevrons]

As a new miner the first thing you should learn is that mining isn't something you can't easily support without depositing. The smaller runs you do the more likely you are to end up loosing big. All the best miners mine with 200-500+ bombs/probes per trip, minimum. I consider 100 bombs/probes a MINIMUM for a trip, anything less and your far more likely to loose, imho.

What I mean that you have a higher chance of loosening out with smaller runs is that if you run into an area thats been mined out recently you're going to get a lot more misses then normal, without a large run that loss will not be balanced out easily or at all, making that run abnormally bad. Thats one of the reasons I recommend larger runs.

Learning that an area is bad and you need to move is something that comes with experience, I believe. The more you mine an area the better you'll be at judging if its returning like it should. If your getting bad returns MOVE, I do, so you should as well. ;-)

The first and third paragraphs are excellent advice, but I'm afraid your justification in the second paragraph is statistically wrong. Over the long term, your return will be identical whether you do several short runs, or one long one, unless the extra bombs are used intelligently. The real reason for taking a lot of bombs is so that when you find a field, you can exhaustively bomb it and not run out part way through. A more trivial reason is that areas near TP's are more likely to have been recently bombed, and it's a waste of time to run a long way from a TP just to drop 20 bombs.

 

[chevrons]

ENERGY OR ORE OR BOTH?[/COLOR]

Both.

I find it doubles my chance of getting a good result in my mining run, since losses in ore can be made up for a nice find in the energy department.

I suggest you consider carefully what you have written, and then remove it.

And then add some real reasons for your choice.

With which I would disagree, because I favour choosing either Ore or Enmatter, not both.

 

[Kosh]

Sorry, but this cannot go unchallenged. If you are in a field, using an amp will increase your return whatever the resource.

The real argument about attaching and detaching amps is whether you should attach it before you are sure that the field exists. The problem is, there are many false positives, where there are just one or two finds surrounded by desert, so I don't think this works either.

But fundamentally, no-one should use an amp until they have acquired enough knowledge of fields and judgement when to start and stop bombing that they already make a consistent profit. Then it's a question of being happy with the increase in stake, and not overpaying for the amps.

Once you decide to use an amp, do it all the time, or you will regret it when you hit an unamped global.

I think you misunderstood me, or I was not clear.
I agree, taking the amp on and off is a bad idea. I take 5-10 amps on a run and all bombs dropped are amped.
What I meant is that you should know that the markup of the resources that generally spawn in the field is higher than the markup of your amp. Not whether or not you will find resources on this specific run.

 

[chevrons]

AMPS?[/FONT]

Amps are simply a way of upgrading your slot machine from nickel slots to dollar slots or beyond. You're putting in more, your finds will be adjusted, but your payout % will remain the same (still only get back say on average 80%), and your odds of getting a HoF and winning more (then that 80% return) MOST LIKELY is the same with or without amps.

Thats my thoughts on amps, they're a way to see bigger finds, but I don't think they increase your odds of profiting much, in fact they have a MUCH MUCH better chance of drastically reducing your profits.

I use 101 amps every so often, but I don't believe amps will increase my odds of profiting, so I don't use them very often. But if you use amps on every bomb, your return % will likely be the same as if you didn't use the amps.

Absolutely right here. I don't believe amps affect your return on monetary investment either, but it's important to note that they do affect the return on your time. Mining is a long and tedious activity, and if you know how and where to mine profitably, using an amp will give you a faster return, and also give you faster skill gains. To some extent, the markup on an amp could be seen as paying for time saved.

 

[chevrons]

I think you misunderstood me, or I was not clear.
I agree, taking the amp on and off is a bad idea. I take 5-10 amps on a run and all bombs dropped are amped.
What I meant is that you should know that the markup of the resources that generally spawn in the field is higher than the markup of your amp. Not whether or not you will find resources on this specific run.

No, I understood your point. I was attempting to refute it. I use an OA-102 all the time, which has a markup of about 114%, and I certainly use it where I know there is usually a Lyst field.

Markups on rarer resources are higher for the good reason that you get more misses when you look for them. I would say that one should not pay a higher markup for an amp than justified by your RL skill in using it. The resource markup is irrelevant.

 

[onyx oZ Zombie]

very nice thread, +rep

@ chevrons: will you please consider learning how to use the forum's tools so we don't have to look at post after post of yours right in a row ... for instance, there's a button called "Edit" that works wonders, and another in the bottom-right of every post called "Multi-quote" that can greatly consolidate your postings

*EDIT* ahh, i see that you already know how to use edit

 

[raeky]

Sorry, but this cannot go unchallenged. If you are in a field, using an amp will increase your return whatever the resource.

The real argument about attaching and detaching amps is whether you should attach it before you are sure that the field exists. The problem is, there are many false positives, where there are just one or two finds surrounded by desert, so I don't think this works either.

But fundamentally, no-one should use an amp until they have acquired enough knowledge of fields and judgement when to start and stop bombing that they already make a consistent profit. Then it's a question of being happy with the increase in stake, and not overpaying for the amps.

Once you decide to use an amp, do it all the time, or you will regret it when you hit an unamped global.

I do agree that one shouldn't use amps until they're comfortable with their regular mining spots, what they yield and all that jazz. But I don't agree that amps give you a better ROE yield then no amps. So if you only get say (purely a random example) 90% on average return on spent TT, and your paying 120% markup on your amps, your going to LOOSE money if you only pull up zero markup ores according to my theories of how things work.

I rarely, if ever, use amps, and I don't recommend them until you wallet can easily afford them and are knowledgeable and comfortable about your mining locations.

But I don't believe you get better return with them, just larger finds to equal the larger expense.

The first and third paragraphs are excellent advice, but I'm afraid your justification in the second paragraph is statistically wrong. Over the long term, your return will be identical whether you do several short runs, or one long one, unless the extra bombs are used intelligently. The real reason for taking a lot of bombs is so that when you find a field, you can exhaustively bomb it and not run out part way through. A more trivial reason is that areas near TP's are more likely to have been recently bombed, and it's a waste of time to run a long way from a TP just to drop 20 bombs.

You are exactly correct that statistically in the long run short runs will equal out to long runs. But generally the justification for doing short runs is cause your playing with limited funds, so losses hurt more, and very poor returns on a run is a hit to the morale... If you do large runs and do them intelligently your losses are going to be less per run on average or profitable more often, making you less likely to get discouraged mining and give up.

I'll be sure to change that in next edit...

I suggest you consider carefully what you have written, and then remove it.

And then add some real reasons for your choice.

With which I would disagree, because I favour choosing either Ore or Enmatter, not both.

You may favor it, but I'm not changing my position on mining both. There is NO evidence one interferes with the other, so it's only a good idea to do both, imho.

Absolutely right here. I don't believe amps affect your return on monetary investment either, but it's important to note that they do affect the return on your time. Mining is a long and tedious activity, and if you know how and where to mine profitably, using an amp will give you a faster return, and also give you faster skill gains. To some extent, the markup on an amp could be seen as paying for time saved.

Yes but if you mine intelligently with the amps in fields that have higher markup ores you can midigate the losses of the amp markups. Also i don't think theres any conclusive evidence skill gains are directly proportional to peds spent, so its POSSIBLE amps give you less skills then the amount of peds spent. I'd like to see some good exhaustive data on that...

I do agree amps can allow you to mine faster.

No, I understood your point. I was attempting to refute it. I use an OA-102 all the time, which has a markup of about 114%, and I certainly use it where I know there is usually a Lyst field.

Markups on rarer resources are higher for the good reason that you get more misses when you look for them. I would say that one should not pay a higher markup for an amp than justified by your RL skill in using it. The resource markup is irrelevant.

The markup clearly can't be irrelevant. I don't believe lyst is more profitable then other ores, it's just easier to find. If your just finding lyst and using 115% markup amps I'm sure your loosing money on your runs if you calculate them out, excluding any abnormal large finds (jackpots). If you wasn't targeting lyst and went after decent fields with other ores you probably wouldn't be loosing on the same calculation.

 

[chevrons]

I do agree that one shouldn't use amps until they're comfortable with their regular mining spots, what they yield and all that jazz. But I don't agree that amps give you a better ROE yield then no amps. So if you only get say (purely a random example) 90% on average return on spent TT, and your paying 120% markup on your amps, your going to LOOSE money if you only pull up zero markup ores according to my theories of how things work.

I rarely, if ever, use amps, and I don't recommend them until you wallet can easily afford them and are knowledgeable and comfortable about your mining locations.

But I don't believe you get better return with them, just larger finds to equal the larger expense.

I didn't say that amps give a better ROE, in fact further down you will see I agree with you on this point.

You may favor it, but I'm not changing my position on mining both. There is NO evidence one interferes with the other, so it's only a good idea to do both, imho.

The reason you gave which I quoted doesn't make sense because its opposite is equally true - bombing both types can also double your losses. And I didn't say they interfered with one another - you did, by implying that a bad result with one could be balanced out by a good result with the other. I don't think you have put forward any convincing arguments for bombing both types, whereas my arguments for choosing one type are in this thread

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/mining/116243-minig-ore-enmatter-same-time-2.html

Yes but if you mine intelligently with the amps in fields that have higher markup ores you can midigate the losses of the amp markups. Also i don't think theres any conclusive evidence skill gains are directly proportional to peds spent, so its POSSIBLE amps give you less skills then the amount of peds spent. I'd like to see some good exhaustive data on that...

I do agree amps can allow you to mine faster.

The markup clearly can't be irrelevant. I don't believe lyst is more profitable then other ores, it's just easier to find. If your just finding lyst and using 115% markup amps I'm sure your loosing money on your runs if you calculate them out, excluding any abnormal large finds (jackpots). If you wasn't targeting lyst and went after decent fields with other ores you probably wouldn't be loosing on the same calculation.

I didn't say skill gains are proportional to peds spent, merely that using an amp increases your skill gain (which I can prove, though it's generally accepted)

But as to resource markup, I see I have to explain more clearly why I think you are both wrong.

If ,on average when you bomb a Lyst field you get 50 Ped TT, and when you bomb a Belk field you also get 50 Ped TT, your argument would be true, but that's not what happens. When you bomb the Belk field you only get say 40 Ped TT because you miss more. If you were to bomb a Gold field, you might get 25 Ped TT. In all three cases you would average about 55 Ped after markup, and clearly it would be uneconomic to pay more than 105% for an amp in any of the three cases. (by your argument, you would pay over 200% for an amp to mine the Gold field)

Then consider the cases of a good miner who regularly gets 60 Ped after markup, and a bad miner who only gets 45 Ped. In the first case an amp would be economic up to 120%, in the second, no amp is economic.

So no, the markup you should pay for an amp depends on your own skill, not on the resource markup, because markups are so balanced that the return after markup is approximately the same for all resources.

 

[Netaquel]

Agree in 99%

Hi all, hi Raeky

Very nice post, good material for some actual mining guide! But as i practically very agree, scientifically sometimes not... Especially when you say "something NEVER!" - ofc it can be pure and only truth but i prefer to be more carefull and test and see, like with any other theory... Especially skill gain theory. I observe one thing: i got skill gain in some area, move and back, again, same skill an that area... Not always but sometimes... So thing to wonder - maybe there is some system behind it ? And, as i read somewhere, hacking is normal human brain activity, ex. jurnalists, lawyers, policemans, computer hackers, cooks, etc so it is natural to look for some system in near anything But ofcourse ancient Egiptians and other ancient ppls do that too Sun was god, moon, water, becouse they look for some system "how it is working"... Normal human activity and looking for sense in life... And if mining is pure random it will lost 50% of romantic of this occupation! Will be plain and boring

But i have additional reason that skillgains can mean something - becouse it is easy to implemant. So some function can be just fired up after every dropped probe/bomb. Example function from MUD called ROM (code licence in short: you do agree to not make any money from that code).


void update_character( CHAR_DATA *ch, bool hide )
{
char buf[MAX_STRING_LENGTH];
int add_hp;
int add_mana;
int add_move;
int add_prac;

ch->pcdata->last_level =
( ch->played + (int) (current_time - ch->logon) ) / 3600;


add_hp = con_app[get_curr_stat(ch,STAT_CON)].hitp + number_range(
class_table[ch->class].hp_min,
class_table[ch->class].hp_max );
add_mana = number_range(2,(2*get_curr_stat(ch,STAT_INT)
+ get_curr_stat(ch,STAT_WIS))/5);
if (!class_table[ch->class].fMana)
add_mana /= 2;
add_move = number_range( 1, (get_curr_stat(ch,STAT_CON)
+ get_curr_stat(ch,STAT_DEX))/6 );
add_prac = wis_app[get_curr_stat(ch,STAT_WIS)].practice;

add_hp = add_hp * 9/10;
add_mana = add_mana * 9/10;
add_move = add_move * 9/10;

add_hp = UMAX( 2, add_hp );
add_mana = UMAX( 2, add_mana );
add_move = UMAX( 6, add_move );

ch->max_hit += add_hp;
ch->max_mana += add_mana;
ch->max_move += add_move;
ch->practice += add_prac;
ch->train += 1;

ch->pcdata->perm_hit += add_hp;
ch->pcdata->perm_mana += add_mana;
ch->pcdata->perm_move += add_move;

if (!hide)
{
sprintf(buf,
"You gain %d hit point%s, %d mana, %d move, and %d practice%s.\n\r",
add_hp, add_hp == 1 ? "" : "s", add_mana, add_move,
add_prac, add_prac == 1 ? "" : "s");
send_to_char( buf, ch );
}
return;
}

It is not exactly what we have in EU and this function is fired only when player make lvl but few things is good shown:

- after/during action you can gain something: skill, hp, mana, ...
- character gain random value of smthing from some range: UMAX(min_hp, max_hp) for example
- skillgains can be just additional if conditions in analogic function:
if( distance_from_deposit < 80 ) { gain_calypso(); }

or

if( bomb_fired && nothing_found ) {
// Means: need to deposit 1k peds in 10h to find anything
gain_geology();
gain_int();
}

acording to "negative skill gains meaning" theory.


And last thing: we had VU lastly, maybe just skillgains stop meaning something in that VU ? Or maybe yesterday ?? IT IS SO EASY TO CHANGE SERVER CODE IN VERY SHORT TIME !!!

So if something seems to work it need to be tested or just used with cautions. But still that thing can not exists at all Nvm, have fun

And amps... How long takes to fire 200 bombs/probes ? And it is just 100 or 200 peds only. But crafters need resources, market prices can be high becouse of lack of resources on market. So it is why amps was invented. And this is good thing for me, just faster cycling of peds in eu "system". But still how exactly amps works and why i constantly make loses on anything over 101 is mistery for me... Probably need to invest few k peds into amps to see pattern Hope not just bottom of the wallet

Gl all miners

Net

 

[Kosh]

So no, the markup you should pay for an amp depends on your own skill, not on the resource markup, because markups are so balanced that the return after markup is approximately the same for all resources.

I think you assume too much importance for the RL skill of miners.

Unless you are getting a return which is over 100% of TT cost, markup is all that matters.

Bombing completely random will get you 80%-95% TT return on average in the long run, no RL skill needed except for taking note of where the better resources are and mining randomly in those areas. Therefore mining the right resources and paying the right markup for your amps will make all the difference for your net return.

 

[Netaquel]

If ,on average when you bomb a Lyst field you get 50 Ped TT, and when you bomb a Belk field you also get 50 Ped TT, your argument would be true, but that's not what happens. When you bomb the Belk field you only get say 40 Ped TT because you miss more. If you were to bomb a Gold field, you might get 25 Ped TT.

Yea, "miss more" on some ores. I generaly think every ores have build-in rarity on Calypso planet... Lyst v. common, belk common, blau not so common, narc uncommon. Just gradation example. And this rarity not changing very often - even copper "price drop" do not changed this system.. Theory, you know
And here we have market need - lyst is used in many recipes but it is SO COMMON that price only rare exceed 110% But with not so common ores eny market need makes beeg difference on % - when omps appears narc goes up 20-30% up (acording to my memory) and i do not observe better hit ratio on narc, even i look for it - so rarity was not changed imo.

What it gives ? Miners can try to find common-rarity-ores that are actually very needed on the market - belk for example. And it work for me lastly Or maybe using Tk320 for belk is totally stupid But again "rare" ores are SO RARE and marked need for it is very low so looking for example for gold, terrudite, quantium and kenarium is pure loss. That ores are just to rare finds. Err, or maybe i need better calypso ground knowledge in my mind Maybe it can help a little but still i think market of ores 170%+ is dead. Until you hof on it ofc :> But it is gambling - something all of us (players and developers) want to ommit... Or just declare it

And one more thing: miners should have memorised recipes/bp's for moust common crafting items, imo

Net

 

[raeky]

Lots of stuff to address...

chevrons, if you read my response to you on the 3rd page of that link.

If you simplify the math down to basic 50/50 odds (obviously it's not but for sake of example lets use that), you have a 50:50 chance of profiting or losing on ores in a trip, likewise in energy.

If you just mine ores you have a 50% chance of losing.
If you just mine energy you have a 50% chance of losing.
If you mine both, you only have a 25% chance of losing.

Losing being defined as not getting a return above TT spent, and winning being getting HoF or something that yields TT above spent in returns. Obviously it's not a 50% chance, but to simplify things in the example we used that.

If you mine both you have TWICE the odds of getting that HoF or big find that puts you over your TT spent, and into the winning category.

Getting 50 peds of a resource isn't difficult unless your playing with very limited resources. Sure it might mean you'd have to have maybe 1000 ped instead of 500 tied up in ore you can't sell yet or whatever. But those are small figures for people who regularly deposit... I think.

Either way, I personally don't try to squeeze every last percentage point in markup out of my ores, i find it easier to just bulk the common stuff to like Lebanner and anything rare or big qualities I sell directly to like Auktuma or another big crafter.

I don't agree that a "belk field" or "gold field" will return less in TT on average then a "lyst field." I believe ALL areas return equally. Some may be more mined then others, you should identify those. I also don't believe TYPE is predetermined and a field can have multiple types, from common to rare, so your not MISSING deposits by being less skilled, your just not getting as rare of resources as you could.

Either way, I think return is equal across the board if you take out other players mining before you from the equation.

Netaquel, I *SERIOUSLY* doubt the server's code dealing with skill gains has drastically changed much in the years since PE/EU has been out. Mining might have gone through a revision with the new finders and all that jazz but skill gains are likely the same. Just because you can do something (you can do about anything) dosn't mean it makes logical sense to do it.

Keep in mind, PE/EU is based on REAL WORLD CURRENCY. Therefore it is in MA's best interest to make it as unbeatable and unexploitable as possible. The best way to do that is a cryptographically strong randomizer used for virtually EVERYTHING. Keep your code simple, and use strong randomization and your 100% assured no one is going to "figure it out" to "beat the system" and gain an unfair advantage and take more money out then anyone else.

I look at any code that MA would implant as code that one would make for a casino gamming machine. It has to be secure. It has to be have a cryptographically strong random number generator (I'm going to bet they have them on their servers. This means any code dealing with giving out money (And skills are equal to money now) has to be simple and WELL tested. That also means it is pretty much set in stone once implemented. Changes to it would be practically unheard of. Thats why I think virtually everything (back-end wise) dealing with loots, mining, skill gains, etc.. has remained very much unchanged since the game came out.

This is where people get hung up on their "theories." They can't understand that to code something thats unbreakable (i.e. you can't discover a pattern or algorithm that will give you an advantage over it) is EASY to do. Randomization functions are simple and STRONG.

Entropia is about real money, think like a bank. Everything is going to be tight, secure and tested.

As for tieing skill gains to deposits, even if they where realated, it wouldn't garner you an advantage to get better mining results because of above.

 

[raeky]

Yea, "miss more" on some ores. I generaly think every ores have build-in rarity on Calypso planet... Lyst v. common, belk common, blau not so common, narc uncommon. Just gradation example. And this rarity not changing very often - even copper "price drop" do not changed this system.. Theory, you know
And here we have market need - lyst is used in many recipes but it is SO COMMON that price only rare exceed 110% But with not so common ores eny market need makes beeg difference on % - when omps appears narc goes up 20-30% up (acording to my memory) and i do not observe better hit ratio on narc, even i look for it - so rarity was not changed imo.

What it gives ? Miners can try to find common-rarity-ores that are actually very needed on the market - belk for example. And it work for me lastly Or maybe using Tk320 for belk is totally stupid But again "rare" ores are SO RARE and marked need for it is very low so looking for example for gold, terrudite, quantium and kenarium is pure loss. That ores are just to rare finds. Err, or maybe i need better calypso ground knowledge in my mind Maybe it can help a little but still i think market of ores 170%+ is dead. Until you hof on it ofc :> But it is gambling - something all of us (players and developers) want to ommit... Or just declare it

And one more thing: miners should have memorised recipes/bp's for moust common crafting items, imo

Net

I 100% believe that ore quantities are a fixed finite number. Meaning there can only be X number of lyst ingots in game at any given time. Once they're destroyed (crafting for example) then they can be refound. The game will not create resources infinitely.

Ore prices are driven by demand, some ores are used for virtually everything (like say Lyst and Oil) that one skills on crafting, therefore they're in CONSANT demand and used in massive quantities daily. Some ores are quite rare, but have no real demand in the crafting industry, so their value is low. Some are exceedingly rare and produce very valuable stuff that everyone wants (like say Ruga).

These "exceedingly rare" ores that produce crazy good stuff (Dunkel, ruga), I belive are artificially being kept rare, someone is stashing large quantities in their hangers (Although I bet it's not that large, due to the finite number that can exist at a time, it's probably only maybe 5-15k peds most worth).

Lyst at one time rose to a crazy high price, I know someone who had crazy amounts of peds of it stashed during that time. You can affect the prices of even common ores, remove a % of it from the market (doesn't have to be huge, 20-30% would be enough) to drive the market prices of a common ore pretty darn high.

And btw Belk is a pretty low end ore, HUGE quantities are found every day, look at the ATH's and uber HoF's on it. It's common. Being a low-end ore, you should find LOTS more of it if you use a low depth searching finder instead of higher end finders.

 

[Netaquel]

Other way possible too...

I 100% believe that ore quantities are a fixed finite number. Meaning there can only be X number of lyst ingots in game at any given time. Once they're destroyed (crafting for example) then they can be refound. The game will not create resources infinitely.

Generally agree. If overall TT value of resources in universe have priority.

Lyst at one time rose to a crazy high price, I know someone who had crazy amounts of peds of it stashed during that time. You can affect the prices of even common ores, remove a % of it from the market (doesn't have to be huge, 20-30% would be enough) to drive the market prices of a common ore pretty darn high.

But there is small hole in that lucrative and evil-for common-calypsian business oportunity New deposits. It means more peds in universe and more lyst, more ruga, etc. And other hole, big this time, called MA If someone want to destroy market (and if market destroing will be bad for this project) they bring something new to the market. It is SO SIMPLE for game developer Example: change bp recipe - no more lyst needed

But we do not talk about that... Total amount of overall TT of ores is very scientific subject. About skills - why CAN exists system in which skillagins can be related to deposits. I do not see any bad in pure random numbers generators if they exists and are used by MA But not see why system that allow to hunt invisible animal would be not smart and not secure... Skillgains can be like animals footprints... Belive me it is much more destructable system for players ped card, tested on myself... You stay in one area when you want to hunt deposit, fire 10 bombs, amped for example and then you hit IV lyst Or III Maked it few times when i "hunted" on skillgains. Even I get half year break from EU becouse i just know where tower will appear (becouse of skillagins and other signs) and tower appears there next day. But not i claim it. Near dropped EU. And that proofs that such kind of system is better for loosing peds

And additionaly such resources "footprints" are visible in very limited area (300 m ?) so it is near like random... And we will have few new planets in next VU so it will be even more close to pure random

But now we have better explanation of skillgains - "negative system", was on EF

And can be something like this in code:

if( dropped() ) {
....if( random(0,9) > 7 ) { choose_skill_to_gain(); }
}
if( ! claimed() ) { do_nothing(); }

But it can be too:

if( ! claimed() ) { choose_skill_to_gain(); }

And this too:

if( dropped() )
....if( deposit_close() ) {
........// Close in range or time
........random(0,9) > 5 ? choose_skill_to_gain(): do_nothing();
....}
}

And it can be easy extended to skill gain related deposits theory. It can be extended do not means it will be or is implemented. But it means too: it can be! Or it is... Do not understand why you are sure without proofs that skills are not related to deps ? I am not sure that they are. But so many times good skill gain area gives me claim that it is good idea to consider. And ore hunting could be sweeet and interesting and fun!

And one thing more: there is someting like Strategy pattern in programming enginiering what means: mining deposits claim algoritm can be tailored per avatar

And btw Belk is a pretty low end ore, HUGE quantities are found every day, look at the ATH's and uber HoF's on it. It's common. Being a low-end ore, you should find LOTS more of it if you use a low depth searching finder instead of higher end finders.

Yea, it was exactly my point - belk is low-end == very common ore and actually it have good markup (130%, 125%). So good target of run. Compared zinc, blau, cumb, megan are more mid-end and price is much worse... Rarity is one thing, market need other, all is dynamic

Just plan to tt tk023 and test something worse. Realy, tk320 is nothing special. Even 200% ores are rare hitted... Maybe gold is not real "200%-ore" but terrudite, kenarium and quantium probably yes... Thanx for advice, i switching to worse finder/seeker soon. Just after testing something else

Net

PS. Unhappily much important unknown in this dynamical universe are VU changes (new components bp's for example)... So any rationale investment is to no invest into calypso "technology"... Let Chikara Corporation invent Steam and we will know what will be in price until car engine will be invented. And maybe after that some crafter will invent laser technology or teleporting technology ?? Anyone in MA hear about Civilisation by Sid Mayers ?

 

[MaxArfPower]

my perspective

concerning skill ups, this is what i been noticing.

surveying: means something is north, east or west. what finder you use depends on what direction it will be in. i noticed that with differnet finders, this skill could mean any direction, have to find out what that is, and when you do thats the constant direction for that finder/time period.

geology: again something is behind you, or something is ahead of you. depends on the finder. same condition as above.

intelligence: something is really close, and it is over 20 ped.

perception: possibly found a vein line, or some person is within 200 meters. tends to be some person in range mostly though, but if you dont find anyone, then possibly a vein.


and again its different for each finder each time you use it, so have to test bomb to see how the skill ups work for that finder for that period of time. and then you can tell where things will be. though this only works 40% of the time
for me. but when it does, it does ))

this is my 2 cents on the matter.

 

[raeky]

concerning skill ups, this is what i been noticing.

surveying: means something is north, east or west. what finder you use depends on what direction it will be in. i noticed that with differnet finders, this skill could mean any direction, have to find out what that is, and when you do thats the constant direction for that finder/time period.

geology: again something is behind you, or something is ahead of you. depends on the finder. same condition as above.

intelligence: something is really close, and it is over 20 ped.

perception: possibly found a vein line, or some person is within 200 meters. tends to be some person in range mostly though, but if you dont find anyone, then possibly a vein.


and again its different for each finder each time you use it, so have to test bomb to see how the skill ups work for that finder for that period of time. and then you can tell where things will be. though this only works 40% of the time
for me. but when it does, it does ))

this is my 2 cents on the matter.

Um..... no. This is exactly the stuff I'm saying skill gains do NOT mean.