Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Depth enhancers worth it?

Bear

Bear

Stalker
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Posts
1,698
Location
Germany
Society
Shaolin
Avatar Name
Georg Bear Mavel
Probably asked a few times now by others, but I still have no clue what depth actually does. I have the feeling it is pretty much useless, ecpecially in Pyrite mining.

Has anyone some real data about what the difference is between (for example) 200m and 1400m?

Thanks a lot!
 
Some resources are only found at extremely deep depths. Usually these are higher markup resources so depth enhancers are added to finders to reach these depths to get these rare resources.

Depth enhancers can also be used to take a shallow finder become a medium depth finder without owning two different finders.

example on LA #61 finding gazz is hard with shallow depth finders but if you used depth enhancers to get to around 700-800+ meters you will find it more often.
 
Bear said:
Probably asked a few times now by others, but I still have no clue what depth actually does. I have the feeling it is pretty much useless, ecpecially in Pyrite mining.

Has anyone some real data about what the difference is between (for example) 200m and 1400m?

Thanks a lot!
Click to expand...
100% worth it. You wont be able to find redulite, rugaritz, kanerium, gazz in some areas, gold, dunkel plastix ect ect. There is many ores you will never see if you are only searching shallow.
 
aztec said:
100% worth it. You wont be able to find redulite, rugaritz, kanerium, gazz in some areas, gold, dunkel plastix ect ect. There is many ores you will never see if you are only searching shallow.
Click to expand...

well or you could just use a finder at that depth without using the bullshit enhancer. economically is nearly every enhancer bullshit.
 
Cheaper to chip up and use a decent finder.
 
Bear said:
Has anyone some real data about what the difference is between (for example) 200m and 1400m?
Click to expand...

Probably not, people either just go on with the thing that works for them, or they take it to the forums. :) Few do real tests these days.

For me, unenhanced F-105 works well enough, I rely on area/timing knowledge.
 
aztec said:
100% worth it. You wont be able to find redulite, rugaritz, kanerium, gazz in some areas, gold, dunkel plastix ect ect. There is many ores you will never see if you are only searching shallow.
Click to expand...

Thats a lie. It's been proven to be inefficeint
 
I never understood what depth does. Amps increase depth also (it is a mining Amplifier, not a size builder). 800m finder with ta4 I get resources at 500m and 1200m. I never figured it's purpose.
 
i guess that is the reason why it is called average search depth. iirc the depth goes somewhere from average search depth +- 50% of it approx. maybe a bit more. and there is not really a difference... if i go deeper then i find rarer stuff with higher markup, though im giving up on the frequency of claims.
 
atomicstorm said:
I never understood what depth does. Amps increase depth also (it is a mining Amplifier, not a size builder). 800m finder with ta4 I get resources at 500m and 1200m. I never figured it's purpose.
Click to expand...

I don't use enhancers as I been recommended from some top miners they a waste. Depth is important you can find most stuff with f105, but I find theses days you need a decent finder like Ziplex VRX2000 Seeker (L) or my new MILF finder. I have personally found I find betters stuff with theses finders and less lyst. To me, this is the difference, like say if I mine in PVP I have a better chance at finding pyrite compared to using an F105. Also, I find big amps will also give me less chance at finding the good stuff. That's why I prefer the MILF 900m depth and has built-in L1 amp in.
 
golddude said:
Thats a lie. It's been proven to be inefficeint
Click to expand...

So if im wrong that means im lying? :/ Prove to me they are inefficent and Ill take it back. :scratch2:
 
aztec said:
So if im wrong that means im lying? :/ Prove to me they are inefficent and Ill take it back. :scratch2:
Click to expand...
Well, if you go to Little Big Mining Log you can see that no resource has an avg over 1000m using their data. Of course, there are a couple of problems with this: 1. we do not know how comprehensive this data is; i.e., is it based on 100 drops or 1 million drops? And 2. the data does not give any information about frequency of depth. For example, Dianthus has an average of 702m but a max of 1137. Without knowing frequency of depth, it could be true that you find 3x more Dianthus at 1137m vs. 702m. There is no way to know without testing, and even just testing one resource would require thousands or even tens of thousands of drops.

So yes, I cannot prove you right, or wrong, but I do think LBML is an okay starting point. :)
 
RobBuona said:
Well, if you go to Little Big Mining Log you can see that no resource has an avg over 1000m using their data. Of course, there are a couple of problems with this: 1. we do not know how comprehensive this data is; i.e., is it based on 100 drops or 1 million drops? And 2. the data does not give any information about frequency of depth. For example, Dianthus has an average of 702m but a max of 1137. Without knowing frequency of depth, it could be true that you find 3x more Dianthus at 1137m vs. 702m. There is no way to know without testing, and even just testing one resource would require thousands or even tens of thousands of drops.

So yes, I cannot prove you right, or wrong, but I do think LBML is an okay starting point. :)
Click to expand...

My depth is enough to get most stuff but i would like to know more. I just mine they way that I know how. I didnt try and decieve anyone. I have a tier 5 105 and use depth enhancers and it doesnt steer me wrong with a level 2 amp in those "rarer" resources areas like miners paradise/gaeas cradle. LBML is the reason why I started looking deeper with a new finder :)
 
RobBuona said:
Well, if you go to Little Big Mining Log you can see that no resource has an avg over 1000m using their data. Of course, there are a couple of problems with this: 1. we do not know how comprehensive this data is; i.e., is it based on 100 drops or 1 million drops? And 2. the data does not give any information about frequency of depth. For example, Dianthus has an average of 702m but a max of 1137. Without knowing frequency of depth, it could be true that you find 3x more Dianthus at 1137m vs. 702m. There is no way to know without testing, and even just testing one resource would require thousands or even tens of thousands of drops.

So yes, I cannot prove you right, or wrong, but I do think LBML is an okay starting point. :)
Click to expand...

im pretty sure that the depth u stated is just a min and max depth to be able to find it. when u drop a probe there is a variable checkup that checks finder depth, area and possible outcome ressources. if it is within the depth of that ressource than you will find it. if you use a finder with 1100m average search depth than on average over a lot of finds it will make u think that most claims come at that size. but someone with a finder that has 800m average search depth will notice the same for his average search depth. its just a window to be able to loot something.
 
If you use an F-105 finder, the answer is YES. depth enhancers make the difference in good stuff finds.
 
RobBuona said:
Well, if you go to Little Big Mining Log you can see that no resource has an avg over 1000m using their data. Of course, there are a couple of problems with this: 1. we do not know how comprehensive this data is; i.e., is it based on 100 drops or 1 million drops? And 2. the data does not give any information about frequency of depth. For example, Dianthus has an average of 702m but a max of 1137. Without knowing frequency of depth, it could be true that you find 3x more Dianthus at 1137m vs. 702m. There is no way to know without testing, and even just testing one resource would require thousands or even tens of thousands of drops.

So yes, I cannot prove you right, or wrong, but I do think LBML is an okay starting point. :)
Click to expand...

100% Behind you

First I decide what I want to mine, then I check average depth.
Using a 105-106 finder with the enhancers needed to go as near as possible for that depth (I know I'll be looking for 200 above and under that average depth)
So I get what I want without any problems, and I never go mining without LBMB
 
LeelooM said:
100% Behind you

First I decide what I want to mine, then I check average depth.
Using a 105-106 finder with the enhancers needed to go as near as possible for that depth (I know I'll be looking for 200 above and under that average depth)
So I get what I want without any problems, and I never go mining without LBMB
Click to expand...

Could be a "self fullfilling prophecy".

I did a rather short check with a Finder on 400m Avg. and my 1400m Avg.... atlast in PVP4 I am finding the same crap now... 95% stuff with MU around 103%...

Interessing part, there is a description on some finders, explaining the idea of "Range" -> More but smaller finds.
If this is true for range, my guess would be that depth is nothing more than an other type of Amp -> Bigger but less finds.

But honestly, I still have no clue if depth mean anything - could as well be just "eye candy by MA"
 
Bear said:
Could be a "self fullfilling prophecy".

I did a rather short check with a Finder on 400m Avg. and my 1400m Avg.... atlast in PVP4 I am finding the same crap now... 95% stuff with MU around 103%...

Interessing part, there is a description on some finders, explaining the idea of "Range" -> More but smaller finds.
If this is true for range, my guess would be that depth is nothing more than an other type of Amp -> Bigger but less finds.

But honestly, I still have no clue if depth mean anything - could as well be just "eye candy by MA"
Click to expand...

the amped thing and the range is true. but not for depth. depth determines possible ressources what can be found and range determines the possible size you can find. go indoor -> smaller range = bigger finds. im using the md series finder and they have a slightly smaller range than the f -finder series but the claims tend to be a slightly bit bigger as well though
 
Me Really Never said:
the amped thing and the range is true. but not for depth. depth determines possible ressources what can be found and range determines the possible size you can find. go indoor -> smaller range = bigger finds. im using the md series finder and they have a slightly smaller range than the f -finder series but the claims tend to be a slightly bit bigger as well though
Click to expand...

95% you will find now in PVP is lyst for the moment after the VU
 
It's far cheaper and eco to use a deeper L finder, and if you don't have the skills, just to buy the skills.

Rgds

Ace
 
LeelooM said:
95% you will find now in PVP is lyst for the moment after the VU
Click to expand...

Its Lyst since I woke up from my yearly crypo-sleep 3 weeks ago...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top