Can two claims of different depths be found in the same drop spot?

Scurvy Sityl

Stalker
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Posts
1,620
Society
Calypso Rescue Team
Avatar Name
Scurvy Sityl LaRoux
Firstly, it's sometimes possible to get two claims from the same drop spot, but the second drop will always be further away than the first drop was. That is unrelated to my question, and I really wouldn't recommend that as a mining method, since it's going to cost you ped in the long run.

Give that, my question is, if you drop a probe at 900 feet, and find a claim, say 50 yards away, and then you whip out an F-101 and drop in the 150 foot range, can you find another claim, even closer than the first drop? That is to say, are low depth finders going to miss claims that are higher up?

Cheers.

-Sityl
 
well u can find claim atleast that close that the 2 claim markers are touching each others.. so does that answer ur question?
 
No, claims only have X and Y coords, not Z. This has been tested before.

So perhaps the depth of the finder can have an impact on the likelihood of what ore will be found, but it doesn't impact the chance of finding a claim?
 
Yes, depth is Z. As Pyhä Antero said, the claims are "in the ground" (at X,Y coordinates) but don't have a depth coordinate assigned until you use your finder. When you drop, the system uses your finder's search depth to determine what mineral you will get from the claim (and its depth).

So to answer your question: no, you're not missing any claims if you use a deep finder only.

Search radius, on the other hand, does have an impact on your TT return, so I'd avoid finders with a search radius under 55m as much as possible.
 
Yes, depth is Z. As Pyhä Antero said, the claims are "in the ground" (at X,Y coordinates) but don't have a depth coordinate assigned until you use your finder. When you drop, the system uses your finder's search depth to determine what mineral you will get from the claim (and its depth).

So to answer your question: no, you're not missing any claims if you use a deep finder only.

Search radius, on the other hand, does have an impact on your TT return, so I'd avoid finders with a search radius under 55m as much as possible.

for those who are too busy to calculate themselves, if you are only taking into account your increase in search area, you are running at 96.39 % efficiency when comparing 54m to 55m (i.e. comparing circle surface areas) . So guess in the long run this could add about 1% extra return as your hitrate would ideally be close to 1/3, taking into account the 3.74 % increase in area covered. So in all, the extra 1% is not really significant in my oppinion as markup can easily overcome the 1% loss from using better finders. My point being if distance between drop & hit and the hitrate were ideally distributed you would get 1 extra hit at the 55m range in a run of about 300 drops. But are these things ideally distributed? e.g. If population of hit vs drop distance has a median of 10 instead of 27.5 i.e. skewed towards closer distances your percentage could easily drop to a fraction of a percentage.
positiveskewcurve.gif
for those not too familiar with curves, this would mean you amount of hits in the extremities would be lower compared to a symmetrically distributed curve ( just grabbed this to illustrate

Conclusion: 3.7% increase in area covered in 2D from 54m to 55m, Increase in hitrate ? possibly negligable
 
Last edited:
Depth determines type of find. For most people, this means lower tt, as the extremely rare finds are capped at IV-V (notice how no one has ever had an ATH on say dunkel or blood moss.) I believe the largest finds ever tracked on the super rares is 50-100 ped with the biggest amps.

Exceptions to this rule are lyst and oil, that can be found at any depth.
 
Depth determines type of find. For most people, this means lower tt, as the extremely rare finds are capped at IV-V (notice how no one has ever had an ATH on say dunkel or blood moss.) I believe the largest finds ever tracked on the super rares is 50-100 ped with the biggest amps.

Exceptions to this rule are lyst and oil, that can be found at any depth.

I have seen +600 redulite:
Off Hojlund TrailRedulite Ore688 PEDThu, 15 Jan 2015 21:43:45

and +2k Devils tails hof... tracker does not track devils tails for some mysterious reason.

Mining has changed a lot during last 6-9 months.

I know those are not super rares but before you coudl not see hofs on devils from what i noticed.

@edit:
watch closely redulite history and you will see what i mean:


Cyberius CYB The FirstRedulite Ore213 PEDThu, 02 Oct 2014 22:17:19


and previous global:


toe lonerstoner mossRedulite Ore57 PEDSun, 22 Dec 2013 13:01:01


So almost a year without a global? And as you can see from Oct they start to global quite regulary...

Falagor
:bandit:
 
I have seen +600 redulite:
Off Hojlund TrailRedulite Ore688 PEDThu, 15 Jan 2015 21:43:45

and +2k Devils tails hof... tracker does not track devils tails for some mysterious reason.

Mining has changed a lot during last 6-9 months.

I know those are not super rares but before you coudl not see hofs on devils from what i noticed.

Falagor
:bandit:

Also bigger amps. Before it was max 105 or 110 or something, now there are even bigger.
 
Also bigger amps. Before it was max 105 or 110 or something, now there are even bigger.

Lev 13 were avaible back in 2014 afaik ;).

But you might be right. Either way - minign system has changed a lot during past few years. Imo most of theinfo gathered and theories that were confirmed in the past must be verified.

Falagor
:bandit:
 
for those who are too busy to calculate themselves, if you are only taking into account your increase in search area, you are running at 96.39 % efficiency when comparing 54m to 55m (i.e. comparing circle surface areas) . So guess in the long run this could add about 1% extra return as your hitrate would ideally be close to 1/3, taking into account the 3.74 % increase in area covered. So in all, the extra 1% is not really significant in my oppinion as markup can easily overcome the 1% loss from using better finders. My point being if distance between drop & hit and the hitrate were ideally distributed you would get 1 extra hit at the 55m range in a run of about 300 drops. But are these things ideally distributed? e.g. If population of hit vs drop distance has a median of 10 instead of 27.5 i.e. skewed towards closer distances your percentage could easily drop to a fraction of a percentage.
positiveskewcurve.gif
for those not too familiar with curves, this would mean you amount of hits in the extremities would be lower compared to a symmetrically distributed curve ( just grabbed this to illustrate

Conclusion: 3.7% increase in area covered in 2D from 54m to 55m, Increase in hitrate ? possibly negligable

Hitrate and return are two different things, think about Indoor/Outdoor mining. In the longer run returns are similar.
 
It was dub's ruga find that made MA change the drop rate and capped them to todays %'s.

But there are not many that are capped, Ruga, Dunkle, Tri, i am not aware of any others.

Rgds

Ace
 
Back
Top