UL vs (L) finders?

ZPF

Stalker
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Posts
1,988
Location
NYC
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Zelos 'Playboy' Fargen
Could someone explain the pros and cons?

I notice a lot of people are using UL Finders even though their skill is high enough to use a finder with twice the depth range. Why is this?

I can't find any recent posts about this but from the old posts I read imply it has to do with either
1) Tiering
2) Because UL Finders are more eco
3) UL finders sometimes search higher than their stated depth range (this annoys me profoundly)
4) SIB on finders doesn't seem to make a big difference to skill gain

Is this all still true? Should I sell off my eMINE FS (L) and buy a F-105?

Please help me :dunce:
 
Its because depth means shit all in most areas as deep ores aren't always high markup any more.
 
Its because depth means shit all in most areas as deep ores aren't always high markup any more.

Well, low TT ore is better than no ore, and with higher depth don't you have a better chance of finding SOMETHING rather than nothing, because you are searching a larger depth range? :confused:
 
Well, low TT ore is better than no ore, and with higher depth don't you have a better chance of finding SOMETHING rather than nothing, because you are searching a larger depth range? :confused:

not necessarily. a finder finds stuff in a range below and above the average depth. deep finder may miss shallow claims
 
I use only pre-amped finders (Ziplex A, B and D series) and DSEC L30.
Depth is important for most ores.

I'll have no future plans to use UL - it slash my options for choosing ores by depth

Miners who knows, how works mining system never use one finder.
 
Your "chance" of finding something. I.E. the probability of finding something (think of this as success rate) is determined by range of the finder, not depth.

So if you have a finder that is 1km in range, you will probably find something nearly 100% on each drop.


If you can find a particular ore at 100m, you will still find it at 1000m depth.


Rares, (if they are worth it), are found deeper than most ores. And all have a probability distribution.

So if you are using a tt finder in a lyst, dainum, gold area, you will find nearly all lyst.
If you are using a 1000m (depth!) finder you will finder, 5% gold, 10% dianum rest lyst....as an example.


Why some prefer UL over L;
Some don't like to pay markup.
Some areas there is no point in going deep.


You need to pick the mining style and budget that suits you and, more importantly, what can be found in what area with what finder.



Rgds

Ace
 
Limited finders actually tend to be better eco, even when you adjusted for markup. I've always wondered why people use UL instead.

One is that you can make better use of enhancers, though a lot of people don't find them worth it. You definitely don't want to waste enhancers on L finders though since they'll burn out quicker.

The second reason I've been looking into lately is that some think finder decay increases your claim size similar to an amp. I don't really buy that not seeing data to back it up. I personally figure finder decay goes to depth instead of claim size, but that's just me.
 
using only items with 100% MU (usually UL), you are guaranteed a 90% TT return, based on millions of peds cycled amongst multiple accounts on mining log threads.

Less peds wasted in MU the better; you can find plenty of high MU ore using f-105, high MU being the only way to compensate for the 10% loss in TT return.

It's a slot machine, trust me I've played EU for half of my life, hunt/mine/craft for MU.
 
using only items with 100% MU (usually UL), you are guaranteed a 90% TT return, based on millions of peds cycled amongst multiple accounts on mining log threads.

Less peds wasted in MU the better; you can find plenty of high MU ore using f-105, high MU being the only way to compensate for the 10% loss in TT return.

It's a slot machine, trust me I've played EU for half of my life, hunt/mine/craft for MU.

You did not fully understand how works mining in EU, with changing to different finder (with amps or without it) in different areas with expensive or low-cost resources, and how to search with several finders with different depth and different amplifiers, need to have in one mining run. Note: I always have in my inventory 4-5 different finders. Miner must always use brain, not the EU slot machine algoritm with 90% return.

Added: Search everywhere - and you will find a bunch of shit that does not cover the costs, even at 90% return.
 
Last edited:
Limited finders actually tend to be better eco, even when you adjusted for markup. I've always wondered why people use UL instead.

The have not worse eco they turn over more ped per drop instead :laugh: In hunting high decay does not drive my % back down, why it should be different in mining?
 
The have not worse eco they turn over more ped per drop instead :laugh: In hunting high decay does not drive my % back down, why it should be different in mining?

Eco in EU mining activity in general does not matter.
What is important - only the ratio of MU of the search attempt to the MU of ores that can be found in this location.
 
Eco in EU mining activity in general does not matter.
What is important - only the ratio of MU of the search attempt to the MU of ores that can be found in this location.

excatly my thinking! Was always profitable for me when:
MU*turnover (found) * 0,9 > MU*turnover (spend)

but as *0,9 means 90 % back it often needed a long time
 
excatly my thinking! Was always profitable for me when:
MU*turnover (found) * 0,9 > MU*turnover (spend)

but as *0,9 means 90 % back it often needed a long time

I agree that to have a 90% return is good, but in the case where at least half of the ores found is 130-180 MU%, you can afford return between 70 and 90%
 
Eco in mining does matter, since finder decay isn't returned to you in loot over the long term. Contrary to some of the comments in this thread, shallow and deep finders will find the same claims (they may be different minerals), so TT return doesn't change with depth. What varies with depth is average MU of a region. There's a balance between decay and depth... there's no point using a deep finder which adds 5% decay to your run if you only average 4% higher MU on the ores you find. After explosive-gate in december 2014, the average MU of most regions hasn't been much affected by increased depth, which is why most people are using low decay UL models. When and if markups return to healthy levels you'll see the deep finders become popular again.
 
Last edited:
Eco in mining does matter, since finder decay isn't returned to you in loot over the long term.

Sorry bud, but finder decay is included in tt returns, at least it use to be.

I have said this several times and will say again.

Did a competition, and one of the requirements was to find, tiny's. Me and someone else were using vrx2k's and for the life of us tinys were rare as they come.

The other guy used tt finder and smashed me in the challenge.

Finder decay is definitely, (or was) included in tt returns.

Don't believe me, test it yourself.


Rgds

Ace
 
Eco in mining does matter, since finder decay isn't returned to you in loot over the long term. Contrary to some of the comments in this thread, shallow and deep finders will find the same claims (they may be different minerals), so TT return doesn't change with depth. What varies with depth is average MU of a region. There's a balance between decay and depth... there's no point using a deep finder which adds 5% decay to your run if you only average 4% higher MU on the ores you find. After explosive-gate in december 2014, the average MU of most regions hasn't been much affected by increased depth, which is why most people are using low decay UL models. When and if markups return to healthy levels you'll see the deep finders become popular again.

Not fully agree. The composition of the ores, which can be found is different : by the areas where you are searching, depth of your finder (+/- 200 m from base depth), and time of day (week) , maybe now Ignisium or Alternative was replaced with Lysterium or Iron.... Composition will be almost always different. But there is areas where you can find a better MU. These areas are a sensitive information of any miner. Moreover, in order to get better MU, you need to use only one the depth of search, and also not the deepest finder. But enough secret info, you all can mine as you wish :)
 
Not fully agree. The composition of the ores, which can be found is different : by the areas where you are searching, depth of your finder (+/- 200 m from base depth), and time of day (week) , maybe now Ignisium or Alternative was replaced with Lysterium or Iron.... Composition will be almost always different. But there is areas where you can find a better MU. These areas are a sensitive information of any miner. Moreover, in order to get better MU, you need to use only one the depth of search, and also not the deepest finder. But enough secret info, you all can mine as you wish :)


And next week it changes, and then changes again. If you're playing EU for a week, get a crazy good L finder and level 9 amp, and go gamble, but if you're playing for 12 years like I have and think long term, the only option for profit is UL equipment in high MU areas.

You can have ''secrets'' and ''patterns'' and ''tactics'' just like gamblers have omens when they play black jack, bottom line is 90%. If you get burned long term, don't say I didn't tell you so m8 :wise:
 
And next week it changes, and then changes again. If you're playing EU for a week, get a crazy good L finder and level 9 amp, and go gamble, but if you're playing for 12 years like I have and think long term, the only option for profit is UL equipment in high MU areas.

You can have ''secrets'' and ''patterns'' and ''tactics'' just like gamblers have omens when they play black jack, bottom line is 90%. If you get burned long term, don't say I didn't tell you so m8 :wise:

Well, I do not believe that you have not understood for 12 years what I understood for 8 years + :)
Adapt for all changes, do not gamble, use brain and knowing and you will be happy, and in profit.
If you only brute force player (It seems to me) - it is a good tactics, but not very profitable.
 
Sorry bud, but finder decay is included in tt returns, at least it use to be.

Did a competition, and one of the requirements was to find, tiny's. Me and someone else were using vrx2k's and for the life of us tinys were rare as they come.

The other guy used tt finder and smashed me in the challenge.

Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, TT finders have always used fewer probes than the standard 20 / ore drop. That's more than enough to explain the claim size difference. If different probe numbers were used, someone would need to use two finders that have the same probe cost. If they were using the TT finder, they'd be using 2 probes per ore drop rather than 20.

If someone really wanted to test if finder decay affected claim size instead of just paying for depth/range, the two finders would need a decent difference in decay but have the same probe cost. To account for other potential unknown variability, I'd want to have them at similar depth (could be rounding error between cheap TT ores like lyst and something worth a few PED per stone), and ideally used by the same person switching between finders after each claim for as close as you can get to paired replications.
 
Use whatever finder suits the area you are mining. If its worth going deeper then use the appropriate finder. If depth means nothing where you are mining use a UL finder.

On a side note. Never listen to someone who speaks in absolutes and believes only there opinion is 100% correct. They are stubborn and not open to new ideas so they never learn.
 
Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, TT finders have always used fewer probes than the standard 20 / ore drop. That's more than enough to explain the claim size difference. If different probe numbers were used, someone would need to use two finders that have the same probe cost. If they were using the TT finder, they'd be using 2 probes per ore drop rather than 20.

If someone really wanted to test if finder decay affected claim size instead of just paying for depth/range, the two finders would need a decent difference in decay but have the same probe cost. To account for other potential unknown variability, I'd want to have them at similar depth (could be rounding error between cheap TT ores like lyst and something worth a few PED per stone), and ideally used by the same person switching between finders after each claim for as close as you can get to paired replications.

The fact TT finders nowadays are effectively newbie finders when they used to be in their own separate category (Using one tenth of the probes the big finders use per drop, so 1 probe for EnMatter, 2 for ore and 3 for treasure) is a relatively new development. There used to be "standard" finders available that used 10/20/30 probes as well, but around the time MA standardized TT gear and replaced much of it with (L) equivalents, they also got rid of the old finders.

That being said, I do think finder decay is factored in claim size. VRX2000 vs. F-101 claim size would be the definite proof if it were to work just like with amps as a multiplier. The additional PEC per drop would be enough to upgrade most EnMatter Tinies into Very Poors.
 
Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, TT finders have always used fewer probes than the standard 20 / ore drop. That's more than enough to explain the claim size difference. If different probe numbers were used, someone would need to use two finders that have the same probe cost. If they were using the TT finder, they'd be using 2 probes per ore drop rather than 20.

If someone really wanted to test if finder decay affected claim size instead of just paying for depth/range, the two finders would need a decent difference in decay but have the same probe cost. To account for other potential unknown variability, I'd want to have them at similar depth (could be rounding error between cheap TT ores like lyst and something worth a few PED per stone), and ideally used by the same person switching between finders after each claim for as close as you can get to paired replications.


Nothing to do with with no. of probes.

If one person went out with f101 and i went out with terramaster 8 (highest decay I know for same no. of probes.) Then the person using the f101 would find a LOT more tiny's than i would.

I challenged someone to do this, as lots of people were screaming at me I was wrong. And i even posted my results with high decay finder.....of course no one accepted my challenge, cause I was bloody right.

I have absolutely no wish to justify my statements. Time and time again, people don't believe me, even when I have proof. I like maths, and take very little for granted, but fed up with having to always prove myself to people who don't even know their own tt returns and don't record anything themselves.

So, enough is enough. I am always willing to give advice, and I am always willing to help. Don't believe me, fine, I don't care anymore.


Rgds

Ace
 
To comment on OP's question, I would say convenience. UL breaks and can be repaired L breaks you spend time looking for another L finder.

I myself usually run L finders, I craft my own so finding one isn't a problem for me.

Other then that there are a few deep finders that people dump depth enhancers on to mine deep and it is inconvenient to re-tier a L up to get to that depth again. So again matter of convenience.
 
i test MD-50 , F106 , TM8
over 10k drop in last moth

one thing i wish to say? i going stick in TM8 , sold again MD-50 and dump my F106 in storage
why? go ahead and figure out guys

Ofcourse enhacer to me are useless.....
I still expect TM9(you hear that mindark?)
 
I still expect TM9(you hear that mindark?)


I would love that, but i half expect that 1000m is the maximum depth MA programmed for any changes in ores. Above 1000m i suspect depth makes no difference....so you would possibly be looking at a major mining overhaul.

But i only suspect, i have no proof this is the case, as i have done very little mining over 1000m (average), as i don't use enhancers.


Rgds

Ace
 
I would love that, but i half expect that 1000m is the maximum depth MA programmed for any changes in ores. Above 1000m i suspect depth makes no difference....so you would possibly be looking at a major mining overhaul.

But i only suspect, i have no proof this is the case, as i have done very little mining over 1000m (average), as i don't use enhancers.


Rgds

Ace

There is a little difference, for example (though perhaps subjectively) I can find more claims of redulite having a finder with a working depth of 1200 instead 1000. I've tried, and I also think that the need TM9
 
Back
Top