Mining Payout

I'm glad to announce that we were able to publish results about mining loot in the Journal of Virtual Worlds Research (JVWR).

Without data provided by Steffel, Noodles and Sawachika this wouldn't have been possible. Therefore, a big big thank you.

Furthermore, I want to outline that only due to EF it was possible to get in contact with other avas, sharing data and finally publish results.

impressive... (<<reading)

good reading

good reading about theories and virtual worlds (it's very difficult material for my simple brain, but i like many important sounding words there)

very interesting from what i have seen

Love this kind of stuff so ill get stuck in

Thanks

C

Will definately read this

Wow! Excellance info! (double checking re-reading again)

This is Mostly recommand for all miners and possibly good advice for newbies miners!

i found this very interesting ;D

An avatar will usually see loot from loot classes 1 to 2 and get back about 60% of its
investments, barring a below average find rate. In 4.5% of cases, loot will fall into one of the higher loot classes leading to a cumulative payout percentage of about 95% assuming a find rate
of 27%. As find rate is subject to sampling error, overall payout percentage would be 91% or
98% using the lower (26%) or upper (28%) confidence limits of the estimated find rate,
respectively.

Click to expand...

If one takes the old old way old straight ore veins they were aproximately 1km long, a deposit was found roughly every 67m and there was a good deposit in the start, center and at the end.

And if i have made the calculation right i found an interesting number

1000/67 = 14,925
14,925 * 0,03 ie 3 good finds in the vein = 0,4477 ie 4.47% chance.

that is if i did the math right. But not to good at maths

Legion said:

i found this very interesting ;D



If one takes the old old way old straight ore veins they were aproximately 1km long, a deposit was found roughly every 67m and there was a good deposit in the start, center and at the end.

And if i have made the calculation right i found an interesting number

1000/67 = 14,925
14,925 * 0,03 ie 3 good finds in the vein = 0,4477 ie 4.47% chance.

that is if i did the math right. But not to good at maths

Click to expand...

falkao said:

I'm glad to announce that we were able to publish results about mining loot in the Journal of Virtual Worlds Research (JVWR).

Without data provided by Steffel, Noodles and Sawachika this wouldn't have been possible. Therefore, a big big thank you.

Furthermore, I want to outline that only due to EF it was possible to get in contact with other avas, sharing data a finally publish results.

Click to expand...

LeWolf86 said:

Click to expand...

Damn that made me laugh out loud, core bless Legion and his veiny veins

+rep to OP and LeWolf86 for a laugh, and of course Legion for a giggle

Rgds

Ace

Legion said:

1000/67 = 14,925
14,925 * 0,03 ie 3 good finds in the vein = 0,4477 ie 4.47% chance.

that is if i did the math right. But not to good at maths

Click to expand...

.4477 is 44.77%

Was a nice and well written piece

Nice Work

I find it great that people are willing to publish this stuff and all, but guys it is a game (though people will argue that), I mean a bunch of guys wrote a program, why is there any need to do this stuff, there is probably just a bunch of functions which determine all of it, so I dont see what the big deal is

falkao said:

.4477 is 44.77%

Click to expand...

as i said not very good at maths

Zingking said:

I find it great that people are willing to publish this stuff and all, but guys it is a game (though people will argue that), I mean a bunch of guys wrote a program, why is there any need to do this stuff, there is probably just a bunch of functions which determine all of it, so I dont see what the big deal is

Click to expand...

Ok im going to apologize for my earlier comment, tho i still see publishing mining stats as basically a form of guide to the game, the Journal does have some great stuff in it, as i am currently reading, so thanks for the link man!

Just read the 20 page pdf......hehehe
Apart from the mind-numbing number crunching and the technical terms.
Think I've got some pretty interesting ideas about what's happening to miners when they mine. Thanks to you.

Glad to know that if we do things on the long run, the averaged payout is 95% of what we spent (Taking base-value).........assuming we do things correctly.......In EU terms......."Ecoly".

Just to sum things up in layman's terms....(Hopefully I've understood it correctly)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If we just interpret solely from Table 4 and 5 in the journal. It would be safe to assume that the most logical way of mining would be to go unamped when probing or mining. If you go amped, then you gotta go after ores/enmatts with higher markups as stated in the table.

Example:
If Probing with MA-102, if you are mining in untaxed area, you should go after enmatts with 20% or higher markup.....if you go after stuff with 5% markup.....you'll be in trouble.
If mining in taxed area (Assuming an averaged of 4% tax), you will need to go after resources with 25% markup or more instead.

Going probing with MA-108 or bombing with OA-109 would be practically suicidal as shown by the negative numbers in the said tables.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

One more interesting thing I should add on to mining would be this, but might probably not be related to the journal and more on mining in general. You've gotta look at your "Average Search Depth" when your using your finder to find ores/enmatts. Although mining after higher markup resources is advised, you must consider whether your finder or your skills are enough to allow you to find the resources.......if using an enmatt finder of average search depth of 200+, you will be more suited to find the shallower enmatts rather than those high markup, rare resources........If you do this, then you'll find that its easier to find claims and this brings you closer to the 26% to 28% find rate and thus closer to breaking even. IMHO.

Hope this sums up things.

AND

Falkao.

Zingking said:

I mean a bunch of guys wrote a program, why is there any need to do this stuff, there is probably just a bunch of functions which determine all of it, so I dont see what the big deal is

Click to expand...

Zingking said:

... tho i still see publishing mining stats as basically a form of guide to the game...

Click to expand...

Your thoughts are similar to a few of the reviewer's comments. So you are not off the mark.

However, the same can also be said about much of the study of the natural sciences. There are some natural laws (a "bunch of functions," if you will) and a lot of outcomes from these laws. We cannot determine the laws without experimentation and study, and even though studying them does not change them (so far as we know), it is still a useful endeavor.

In EU, it is true that some people know the "natural laws" (game mechanics), but they are not public information. So we are, in essence, trying to determine the "natural laws" of EU by studying the outcomes that result from the laws. Is studying the EU game mechanics a worthwhile activity? Good question.

There is, in my opinion, a difference between this work and studying the mechanics of other "games." This difference is the specific free-to-play (or pay-to-play) / real cash economy business model employed my MindArk, and the corresponding uncertainty and disparity in the real costs to play. This aspect of EU is (hopefully) of interest to the larger scientific community, and is the reason we took the time to go through the peer-review process. And should also be the reason that the paper was accepted for publication.

In other words, this paper is more than a mining guide. Most importantly, it is a study of the participation costs in a virtual universe employing a particular business model (opaque to the user, with a real cash economy). Secondarily, it also explores data collection and analysis methods that could be used in future studies of virtual worlds.

Big thanks to Falkao, Jimmy B, Steffel, and Sawachika for contributing to this work, and to Oleg for providing valuable feedback. Was a rewarding experience.

Grats on the publication guys

I'm not much of a miner but it was interesting to see your stats and read your analysis. Although the data is specific to mining, I think there's a lot here which would be of interest to non-miners too.

There was obviously a great deal of effort put into data collection and analysis, great work

Ok noodles you won me over man, I can relate to what your saying, considering how EU is in a league of its own. I read through some of it again, and its less of a guide (well it still is a guide in some sense) but more of an economical analysis of the Mining aspect of EU, surprising tho that you get such a return on your mining, mindark only gets like 10%.

PS if you havn't read it and are into the business aspect of MMO's (like I am), and plan on studying in business, I recommend reading World of Bizcraft, its an interesting piece.

Gotta come back to this, in a rush to the pub now

I'm a miner and I approve this publication. It was a very, very interesting read, and it's amazing how little I really knew about my chosen "main profession" within EU. Quite a great work collecting that mind-numbingly amount of data as well. Now excuse me as I try to find back my brain... dropped a probe over my head... but I keep getting "No Resouces Found..."

Penis envy?

Brooklyn said:

Whenever a bunch of guys get together
it's always about the numbers
how big? how long? how many? how far?...


and sometimes
it just might be about sports or games...​

Click to expand...

Great Work!

I don't mean to take anything away from it by saying this: Most miners worth their salt already knew that! It is great however to see it in such clear, carefully prepared statistical analysis.

I maintain that I learned to play EU at the poker tables. It is all about risk/reward, statistics and variance. The analogy that I used to describe the payout of EU to my Girlfriend is :

It is like a slot machine, but I know where to find a machine that gives back quarters that I can sell for 45 cents! She didn't get it!

very interesting read

Nice work guys, have followed this work for some time and have to agree.

The only real drawback is that these "natural laws" could be changed at any given VU. They could also have been changed for all we know during the gathering of all the data, although it seems quite consistent.

I am missing the influence of "knowledge" or mining locations and ore or enmatter type. I think these variables have some significant impact on the overall performance...

It's a great work, thanks for confirming some of my own thoughts.

Noodles said:

...Big thanks to Jimmy B, Steffel, and Sawachika for contributing to this work, and to Oleg for providing valuable feedback. Was a rewarding experience.

Click to expand...

I can only second this and Noodles was the one doing the tables with markup analysis. We had a very good team work and once again, without data and persons willing to invest spare time we wouldn't have any publication.