Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Almost Impossible Mining Hypothesis - Butterfly Effect

R

R4tt3xx

I want to believe
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
2,174
Location
South Africa
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Alexis Sky Greenstar
Greetings

It's your friendly mining whackjob here with another almost impossible mining hypothesis using a pre-crysis absolute mining fact.

First the mining fact, I called it shadow-mining back in the day. It required very little setup, one miner as the scout and other miners as the followers. The scout would find deposits within a 1km cell and would relay the coordinates of hits to his / her followers in the form of the last 3 digits of the hits coordinates, they would goto those coordinates and find resources there, relaying the hits coordinates back to the scout, who would go to those coordinates and find even more loot, creating a cycle of literally cycling probes.

As of now 05:40am 2016-10-05, I have not been able to successfully use "shadow-mining" to find claims. But as a hypothesis I think it is a pretty good idea that would use avatars activities as the "random" element in the game.

The concept is really simple, drop a probe, the value of that probe is then displaced to another location within range and the original coordinate set is placed on cool down. Another participant is able to literally "pick up" the value of my probe by spending another probe, sending the value of their probe into the "pool".

What would the difficulty be regarding testing this ..

If it still works, the biggest challenge would be to figure out the size of the grid and the distance and direction of the initial "displacement"

Thanks for reading, please comment ...
 
I love the fact that you still are around Rattexx :yay:

Good luck with the mining :)
 
strakkan said:
I love the fact that you still are around Rattexx :yay:

Good luck with the mining :)[/QUOTE

I am on and off, when I get bored with other games, I mine.
Click to expand...
 
this sounds interesting.. basically a more complex notion of what we already know..

That ped input = ped output... just not always to the same person. same reason you see bigger hofs when more ped is being put into the ground..

how to actually test where the ped input goes and how to effectively pull it back out sounds complex, but interesting.
 
i dont know if i understood correctly but you want a person A to drop a bomb on a location and then a person B who drops on exact same spot to get the money back?
i thought its quite clear that this doesnt work as ressources are not predetermined to actual locations... that would mean the system would need to log every drop of every person on every coordinate... that would be by far too much cpu power needed for basically useless stuff. its a lot easier to program it without logging that information
 
According to this theory, value would build up at coordinates where probles are not dropped often? If so, you would do very well just dropping where it is less likely or more difficult for others to drop probes, like rough terrain. I've already tried that when I used to mine, doesn't work. :)
 
Me Really Never said:
i dont know if i understood correctly but you want a person A to drop a bomb on a location and then a person B who drops on exact same spot to get the money back?
i thought its quite clear that this doesnt work as ressources are not predetermined to actual locations... that would mean the system would need to log every drop of every person on every coordinate... that would be by far too much cpu power needed for basically useless stuff. its a lot easier to program it without logging that information
Click to expand...

Ur right, and that is a dumb idea. However that is not what I am suggesting...

Say person A drops in the middle of a 1km cell, ie at coordinate 500,500. If Person B looks at the same offset ie coordinates 500,500 they can find the resources that player A spent. This worked perfectly pre cry engine.

To make it easier to understand only the coordinates 000 to 999 exist in a 1km cell..
 
Xen said:
According to this theory, value would build up at coordinates where probles are not dropped often? If so, you would do very well just dropping where it is less likely or more difficult for others to drop probes, like rough terrain. I've already tried that when I used to mine, doesn't work. :)
Click to expand...

The type of terrain does not matter, ingame areas are "compressed", they overlap each other. It's like taking a deck of cards from laying next to each other to form a square, to stacking them on top of each other.

And this is not a theory, its just a hypothesis.
 
doesnt that mean you just get the stuff back that player A did spend anyway? as both work together that would mean player a and b both spend 1 ped and get back 2 ped ressource... without the team player a would spend 1 ped and gets 1 ped back (i wanne hold it simple here) so there is not really anything gained from it... like some players play roulette and place 1 chip on every number and place another chip on a few numbers... ive seen that very frequently in casino but for me that doesnt make any sense... it would be the same if you just place 1 chip on the numbers with 2 chips and leave the rest empty...
 
Me Really Never said:
doesnt that mean you just get the stuff back that player A did spend anyway? as both work together that would mean player a and b both spend 1 ped and get back 2 ped ressource... without the team player a would spend 1 ped and gets 1 ped back (i wanne hold it simple here) so there is not really anything gained from it... like some players play roulette and place 1 chip on every number and place another chip on a few numbers... ive seen that very frequently in casino but for me that doesnt make any sense... it would be the same if you just place 1 chip on the numbers with 2 chips and leave the rest empty...
Click to expand...

Exactly ... But you are forgetting markup and other players. The pair still has access to the spent probes of them
 
I have been doing a bit of playing round with the idea and refined it a bit more, please note that this is not an idea any more and can be verified thru maths and actual results.

I will explain using another game.. Battleships.. The main objective of the game is to sink your opponents ships before he can do the same to you. In Entropia the "Battleship board" opens when you switch to a tool, the grid is circular with the squared coordinates 1,1 2,2 3,3 etc facing away from you at the range of the tool in the direction you are facing.

This happens when all players switch to a mining tool. All the locations that the tool's owner has mined on, store spent peds and can be reclaimed by simply bombing on the relative coordinates. The interesting part comes in when these boards or fields overlap. If you mine on a location that several players have mined on, you would essentially claim their spent peds as a mining claim and add the expense of your own probe to your "pool" essentially.

I know that Mindark has said that there is no personal pool and yes it is partially correct, when you choose to mine by switching to a finder, you are exposing your own spent peds to others and it becomes a literal game of battleships where I have to predict where you used that juicy, juicy amp.
 
wasnt it clear that this is wrong?
i thought quite a lot of people confirmed this to be not true... its easy testable. get someone to drop 50 bombs on the same spot per autouse tool and then go there and get a global. wont happen.most likely it will end with NRF.
 
Me Really Never said:
wasnt it clear that this is wrong?
i thought quite a lot of people confirmed this to be not true... its easy testable. get someone to drop 50 bombs on the same spot per autouse tool and then go there and get a global. wont happen.most likely it will end with NRF.
Click to expand...

How are you going to stop all mining activity on the server ?

Lets run thru your scenario. Player 1 switches to a tool and drops a probe. His coordinate is 0 ie the origin.

The actual physical location of the probe is black listed, not allowing anyone to get a claim from that point.

Player 2 does the same and takes player 1's peds.
Player 3 does the same and takes both player 2 and player 1's peds..
Player 4 .....

You get the idea ...

However if you can get every player to drop a probe when they switch to a mining tool and it consistently hits in theory that should prove it, unless point 0, ie the origin gets or has been universally black listed by Mindark...
 
Last edited:
I think we're overthinking here.

This game is like this: drop a probe/craft an item/ kill a mob and MA will take a cut. They do not give any information about the cut size, so it might as well be 50/50.

Whatever is left it distributes back to the player base according to an algorithm that really does not matter when compared with the size of the cut they take upfront.
 
Wisdom said:
I think we're overthinking here.

This game is like this: drop a probe/craft an item/ kill a mob and MA will take a cut. They do not give any information about the cut size, so it might as well be 50/50.

Whatever is left it distributes back to the player base according to an algorithm that really does not matter when compared with the size of the cut they take upfront.
Click to expand...

Mindark takes durability that's it.

Another fun little discovery ..... Durability shrinks the grid ..... Less points = loot compression, you are almost guaranteed to get your peds back if you use up a tool and no one has found the points first ....

Hell this may not even involve other players ....
 
did you know that when searching for hints to verify your theory that you are creating the validation yourself?
for example you want to proof that veins exist so u get 2 hits and follow them in a direction. u get more hits and think its a vein but well... you are following a direction and get hits... if u would just walk random u would get the same hits the pattern would look different..
i can create any pattern you want easily. i can prove that drops come shaped in arrow forms... but that still doesnt change fact that its random...
 
Me Really Never said:
did you know that when searching for hints to verify your theory that you are creating the validation yourself?
for example you want to proof that veins exist so u get 2 hits and follow them in a direction. u get more hits and think its a vein but well... you are following a direction and get hits... if u would just walk random u would get the same hits the pattern would look different..
i can create any pattern you want easily. i can prove that drops come shaped in arrow forms... but that still doesnt change fact that its random...
Click to expand...

This little hypothesis has a fatal flaw, thanks for pointing it out, if this was true, one would be able to get hits all the time and that just does not happen.... Random mmm I will see what I can do.

Thanks for killing this idea... :)
 
Now that I think about it, a relative system may work, where it's origin is the activation coordinates of a tool...
 
I think I have a place where only 1 material (kinda unique there) drops for that area people fill the area with their loss. And if no one has got it I get a certain finder range and I have hit several big amplified(not normal IV-V) hits there of that material
 
A simple variation of this could work quite comfortably and actually appear to be random.

A typical miner drops between 1 and 30 probes per mining attempt at a set location so lets say that each one of these 0.05 ped probes distributes itself evenly in a square about the size of the server around that avatar's location.

Distance from probe to probe would be (8192/2)/sqrt(30) = 747m apart and would only contain 0.05 ped each. Obviously I would not be the only avatar that has dropped probes, so it would create a random like field of 0.05 ped points scattered round the server seemingly randomly. The server would obviously have to consolidate these individual points that are close enough to each other, into a larger size. This is not necessarily impossible to prove either, by performing a large enough mining run that will make the spent probes dense enough to find and by having other avatars ready to literally "catch" the probes as they are distributed this little hypothesis may be confirmed.

What say you miners of Calypso ?
 
i still think this is far too overcomplicated. there is no pattern. from a programming point of view this makes absolute zero sense. it would be far easier to have just a few random numbers + a checkup on available overall loot + a few checkups on which area coordinate wise the drop was to determine the possible ressource which is as well randomized up to a certain % degree. they just dont appear on certain fixed locations. as i stated a lot of times, use lbml, and only run in circles. you will think that all your claims appear in circles, run in a shape of an ape head and you will think ur claims appear in the shape of an ape head. carpet bomb and you will see that its dead simple. no pattern. at all.
 
Me Really Never said:
i still think this is far too overcomplicated. there is no pattern. from a programming point of view this makes absolute zero sense. it would be far easier to have just a few random numbers + a checkup on available overall loot + a few checkups on which area coordinate wise the drop was to determine the possible ressource which is as well randomized up to a certain % degree. they just dont appear on certain fixed locations. as i stated a lot of times, use lbml, and only run in circles. you will think that all your claims appear in circles, run in a shape of an ape head and you will think ur claims appear in the shape of an ape head. carpet bomb and you will see that its dead simple. no pattern. at all.
Click to expand...

From a programming point of view, locking out the coordinate that you probe on makes no sense. It would be far simpler to make the chance random and allow the same point to be probed multiple times...

See I can do it too...
 
theres just a list with coordinates / cooridnate areas. you drop a bomb and the first checkup is a coordinate checkup that checks the available ressources according to minder depth and availability (caps/waves), second checkup checks if you get a ressource (aka the pool is filled or not) and a third checkup checks for multiplier / amount of peds of the claim (depends on availability of overall peds to get but could also be a random multiplier with certain % chances dependign on what theory you believe -> slot machines)
the drop location gets into a database and the possible claim as well. so on a second drop the first checkup finds out that there has already been a drop and a ressource and if the lootpool is not filled enough / server is being hot then you wont find anything again. depending on the refresh rate of the servers the database may delete an entry again after 2 or 4 hours or whatever refresh rate it may be and u can find claims again. the claims and drops may also end up in a archive database to later verify their correctness.
the order of the checkups may vary but this is about the process i would do it according to the observations i made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top