Help: Invest in Level 5-7 UL Mining amp, yey or ney?

I would not go for the 7 if you plan on mining planetside. That big of an amp cuts off your average MU by a decent margin in many areas.

The 5 is better, but you can buy these at 102% easily so not worth it at all IMO unless you find it for like 20k PEDs.

If you plan on gambling indoors the 7 is fine.
 
I would not go for the 7 if you plan on mining planetside. That big of an amp cuts off your average MU by a decent margin in many areas.

Are you saying that in not in terms of extra MU paid for L amps, but that bigger amps limit certain resources you can find (that also tend to be high MU)?

I've had a few streaks with D-class in some high MU areas where I where I've gotten nothing but junk now. I've heard a few other people mention things like this, and I'm a bit less skeptical of the idea now (though I'm planning some formal testing to really see soon).
 
bigger amps limit certain resources you can find (that also tend to be high MU)?
.

Yep.

A few off the top of my head that have problems with 7+

Solis
Devils Tail
Gold
Langotz
Dianthus
Typo
Kanerium
Megan
All the ultra rares such as ruga/triden/etc

And on top of that, the ones you can still hit I believe are reduced in frequency by a small or possibly even a significant margin.

The logic appears to be slightly different indoors, though. I've hit Dianthus with a D Class in AU, which I've never managed to do planetside.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty much in line with what I've noticed. Dianthus is actually the one I espsecially noticed with the D-class. I actually do hit it with that amp planetside often enough, but I've noticed more of an all or none effect. Sometimes I won't hit a single claim of it, and other times it's back to what I consider normal for that area. I remember one time having almost an entire amp of nothing but Dianthus and Devil's Tail on a D-class.

It could be that higher level amps do alter the average find rates for specific resources that results in an lower average MU. I'm seeing a trend like that right now, but these resources also tend to be variable over time anyways, so it could be we're just seeing that effect and need to burn a lot more amps over time (e.g. many days or weeks). When we're using bigger amps that don't last as long, it's also a lot easier to see trends that might just be part of randomness or a current swing in loot.

I might start another set of runs to run statistics on like my finder decay affecting claim size experiment (still no difference there after 1000 claims). I'm eyeing something like three identical finders having a level 2, 5, or D-class and rotating between each of those after each find. Calculate average MU for each amp's claims and see if there are any statistical differences.
 
I'm seeing a trend like that right now, but these resources also tend to be variable over time anyways, so it could be we're just seeing that effect and need to burn a lot more amps over time (e.g. many days or weeks).

It's just takes one bomb to notice. When you forget to put an amp, and boom: typonolic. And 500 other bombs with amp before and after: nada.
 
It's just takes one bomb to notice. When you forget to put an amp, and boom: typonolic. And 500 other bombs with amp before and after: nada.

I've had that same problem just completely unamped from the start too though, which is why I mentioned that this resources just tend to be highly variable in short-term spurts independent of an amp effect if it exists. Being careful about correlation not being causation is why I'm setting up the tests the way I am.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top