Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Mining efficiency and the predicted 95% return

R

R4tt3xx

I want to believe
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
2,175
Location
South Africa
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Alexis Sky Greenstar
It is better to probe using entmatter and ore to find deposits...

Want proof ? Here's the idea..

The most common deposit size for mining is a class 3 which ranges between 1 and 1.99 ped (here) With the average value being 1.495 ped.

Lets say that I have to pay for that class 3 probe using just straight up ore probes, so thats 1 ped.

Is 1 greater than 1.495 ? No it is not, so you can't pay for that deposit size, Lets probe again
Is 2 greater than 1.495 ? Yes it is.... But I just paid 2 ped for a 1.495 ped deposit ... That's only a 74% return .... And at least 2 uses of my finder....

Entmatter is 99.6% efficient but uses the finder 3 times

Ore (1ped) and Entmatter (0.5 ped) so 1.5 ped total, is the most efficient for finding class 3 deposits. 99.6% efficient 1 use of the finder ...

The same math can be applied to all resource types to check the amount of attempts needed and how efficient they are ...

The above is nothing, just math and the ramblings of a mad man...

Thanks for your time...

Added an Excel sheet showing what I mean (here)
 
Last edited:
R4tt3xx said:
It is better to probe using entmatter and ore to find deposits...

Want proof ? Here's the idea..

The most common deposit size for mining is a class 3 which ranges between 1 and 1.99 ped (here) With the average value being 1.495 ped.

Lets say that I have to pay for that class 3 probe using just straight up ore probes, so thats 1 ped.

Is 1 greater than 1.495 ? No it is not, so you can't pay for that deposit size, Lets probe again
Is 2 greater than 1.495 ? Yes it is.... But I just paid 2 ped for a 1.495 ped deposit ... That's only a 74% return .... And at least 2 uses of my finder....

Entmatter is 99.6% efficient but uses the finder 3 times

Ore (1ped) and Entmatter (0.5 ped) so 1.5 ped total, is the most efficient for finding class 3 deposits. 99.6% efficient 1 use of the finder ...

The same math can be applied to all resource types to check the amount of attempts needed and how efficient they are ...

The above is nothing, just math and the ramblings of a mad man...

Thanks for your time...

Added an Excel sheet showing what I mean (here)
Click to expand...

this would only be true if only you would be paying into the loot pool as you count in zero input from others. but MA stated there are no personal lootpool so this is bullshit again. you overthink everything far too much... this is like believing in ufos. there are far easier and better explanations for all your "observations" and your "math" especially when i see that you dont use all factors and base all your theories on wild assumptions.
 
in layman's terms...


single drop - tons of variance
double drop - less variance
triple drop - least variance


I think it has more to do with looting events/hour than anything, but i do know that double/triple dropping will reduce your variance (likely because of more looting events)

figuring out the math behind it is not exactly advantageous or even a worthwhile use of time since every miner will get at least 95% TT
 
Rocket192 said:
in layman's terms...


single drop - tons of variance
double drop - less variance
triple drop - least variance


I think it has more to do with looting events/hour than anything, but i do know that double/triple dropping will reduce your variance (likely because of more looting events)

figuring out the math behind it is not exactly advantageous or even a worthwhile use of time since every miner will get at least 95% TT
Click to expand...

Over time yes... Problem is getting to that point...
 
Me Really Never said:
this would only be true if only you would be paying into the loot pool as you count in zero input from others. but MA stated there are no personal lootpool so this is bullshit again. you overthink everything far too much... this is like believing in ufos. there are far easier and better explanations for all your "observations" and your "math" especially when i see that you dont use all factors and base all your theories on wild assumptions.
Click to expand...

OK, lets apply a little piece of game theory... What is the worst scenario ?

Would it not be an empty pool ?

If this is the case, then surely you would want to put the least amount of ped into the loot pool. while extracting the most ?.. The same thing can be said of other players..... OH ... Reverse psychology...

Shame on you sir..... :)

With regards to over thinking things..

The new sheet has only 1 point on it and takes a split second to calculate so yes, I am using occam's razor and looking for simple answers.

Explanations for my observations, let me guess it's a random number generator .... Again, bleep bleep I'm a sheep...

Explanations for math.... Math is just math, it works independent of explanations.
I do not think that there would be "my math", it's just math. 1+1=2 m8


Using all the factors, would not be a "simple" solution.

Wild assumptions... OK

New x=Current X+(sin(theta)*distance)
New y=Current Y+(cos(theta)*distance)

The above math works and shows you where a claim rod will spawn.

I would like anyone to show me a more efficient and logical math formula than the above.

The fermat spiral that I am currently using is a simple derivative of the above but it is more complex.
 
Last edited:
R4tt3xx said:
OK, lets apply a little piece of game theory... What is the worst scenario ?

Would it not be an empty pool ?

If this is the case, then surely you would want to put the least amount of ped into the loot pool. while extracting the most ?.. The same thing can be said of other players..... OH ... Reverse psychology...

Shame on you sir..... :)
Have a good day
Click to expand...

okay as you seem to have a masters degree in maths go ahead and explain to me the chance of the loot pool being completely empty (0 ped) so that your theory is valid at this exact point. ill be waiting.
 
Me Really Never said:
okay as you seem to have a masters degree in maths go ahead and explain to me the chance of the loot pool being completely empty (0 ped) so that your theory is valid at this exact point. ill be waiting.
Click to expand...

If there was only one active player ie yourself, would be the only situation that I can think of where the pool could be close to empty.

But still, why would you want to fill the loot pool for someone else ?
 
R4tt3xx said:
If there was only one active player ie yourself, would be the only situation that I can think of where the pool could be close to empty.

But still, why would you want to fill the loot pool for someone else ?
Click to expand...

you clearly dont get it... your whole theory is based on the assumption that the pool is empty. but it never is completely empty and never will be. and all that is based on the theory that loot pools exist at all. it might be totally different. and you are always filling the lootpool, if it exists, for someone else, when you go mining or hunting or crafting. and thats the same for everyoen else.
 
If you're a fan of mathematical concepts, look at quantum mechanics. Where every single event has a random outcome, but the chance of it going this or that way is determined and in large numbers this converges into the natural laws we can observe in the macrocosmos. "Entropy" is also a concept of nature. Does this word ring a bell? What is the origin of this simulation we like playing? Not simple stuff and often challenging intuition but studying it is truly rewarding.
 
R4tt3xx said:
New x=Current X+(sin(theta)*distance)
New y=Current Y+(cos(theta)*distance)

The above math works and shows you where a claim rod will spawn.

I would like anyone to show me a more efficient and logical math formula than the above.
Click to expand...

The part after the "+" is simply a conversion between cartesian and polar coordinates. The information content is exactly the same.
 
R4tt3xx said:
New x=Current X+(sin(theta)*distance)
New y=Current Y+(cos(theta)*distance)

The above math works and shows you where a claim rod will spawn.

I would like anyone to show me a more efficient and logical math formula than the above.

The fermat spiral that I am currently using is a simple derivative of the above but it is more complex.
Click to expand...

do you are saying you can predict with 100% accuracy where a claim will spawn? so your mining hitrate should be 100%, right? and i still havent seen a video proof of all this bullshit
 
San said:
If you're a fan of mathematical concepts, look at quantum mechanics. Where every single event has a random outcome, but the chance of it going this or that way is determined and in large numbers this converges into the natural laws we can observe in the macrocosmos. "Entropy" is also a concept of nature. Does this word ring a bell? What is the origin of this simulation we like playing? Not simple stuff and often challenging intuition but studying it is truly rewarding.
Click to expand...

Point taken... quantum mechanics is above my pay-grade....

My poor head San..... Thanks for that ...
 
Last edited:
Me Really Never said:
do you are saying you can predict with 100% accuracy where a claim will spawn? so your mining hitrate should be 100%, right? and i still havent seen a video proof of all this bullshit
Click to expand...

If you have the values for all the variables, why not ?
 
San said:
The part after the "+" is simply a conversion between cartesian and polar coordinates. The information content is exactly the same.
Click to expand...

See, here is someone that is whipping me with an actual good argument, yes San you are correct. I should send you the latest sheet so that you can rip it to pieces (mathematically speaking of course).

I did pick up something that I want to change, the sheet still works (and netted me a 78 ped global last night) but that is besides the point, the math must be logical and correct...

Perhaps placing this kind of math stuff is not a good idea on PCF.
 
R4tt3xx said:
If you have the values for all the variables, why not ?
Click to expand...

and you dont have all variables, right? so you are basically saying that you are saying that in this term: "2 + x = y"
you are able to predict the outcome of y without knowing x? thats just not possible and useless to debate about.

im just saying that this wild theory of yours is not working, unless you are able to show proof that its otherwise. and proof would be a longterm hitrate (more than 1k drops) of 50% or bigger. and i seriously doubt that you will ever be able to produce these results. it may even be impossible despite knowing the full loot algorithm.
 
R4tt3xx said:
If you have the values for all the variables, why not ?
Click to expand...

But we don't have them, they are at the core of MindArk's trade secrets. The moment somebody manages to figure them out, they'd have to change it and employ science well above your pay-grade to make damn sure it doesn't happen again. The changes to battle the infamous loot waves are clearly part of this effort, and it's even the players who demanded it the loudest for the sake of fairness.

This doesn't mean there are no more swings, and what you can still do is either react to them, much like daytrading in stocks or options works, or soldier through with a large enough budget. These are the polar opposites of recommendations made around here. Because these swings depend on the ups and downs in MA's income stream which gets redistributed and may take a longer time than you can stick out to come around.

On the level of individual loot events, you've already observed that every additional actor in your area influences the outcome. Every single one adds a dimension to the formula. Go to Wikipedia and study what a mathematical dimension actually is, rather than rely on popular understanding. This one is relatively easy. Then it becomes clear what this increase does to any concept no matter how simple at the basic level: chaotic behaviour beyond the second or third dimension, because the resulting system of equations can no longer be algorithmically solved. It can only be described by statistical methods which is also the essence of quantum mechanics, which is why its knowledge is so helpful. What's fascinating about these things is how it shows similarities between micro- and macrocosmos, between phenomena on the smallest and the largest scale, the fabric of nature and human action, and at the end of it... the grand picture of a game which simulates all this...

Great article here, and the further reading he suggests:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/scit...ysics-made-simple-by-a-pinay-physicist/story/
 
Me Really Never said:
and you dont have all variables, right? so you are basically saying that you are saying that in this term: "2 + x = y"
you are able to predict the outcome of y without knowing x? thats just not possible and useless to debate about.

im just saying that this wild theory of yours is not working, unless you are able to show proof that its otherwise. and proof would be a longterm hitrate (more than 1k drops) of 50% or bigger. and i seriously doubt that you will ever be able to produce these results. it may even be impossible despite knowing the full loot algorithm.
Click to expand...

Its coming right.. XX deposit on Monday night, XIV last night. Both were unamped. 50% might, and this is a big might, be possible. (I am going on the communities definition of "hit" not my personal definition.)

I do admit that there is still a value in the spreadsheet that I am not happy with, I have thought about it and may have an answer and no it's not 42....., if it is the correct one I will know later this afternoon, fingers crossed.....

I must say that I like the way this sheet is turning out. It's simple to demonstrate and reproduce, just need this stupid one number ..... Perhaps I should just brute force it, till it breaks.
 
San said:
But we don't have them, they are at the core of MindArk's trade secrets. The moment somebody manages to figure them out, they'd have to change it and employ science well above your pay-grade to make damn sure it doesn't happen again. The changes to battle the infamous loot waves are clearly part of this effort, and it's even the players who demanded it the loudest for the sake of fairness.

This doesn't mean there are no more swings, and what you can still do is either react to them, much like daytrading in stocks or options works, or soldier through with a large enough budget. These are the polar opposites of recommendations made around here. Because these swings depend on the ups and downs in MA's income stream which gets redistributed and may take a longer time than you can stick out to come around.

On the level of individual loot events, you've already observed that every additional actor in your area influences the outcome. Every single one adds a dimension to the formula. Go to Wikipedia and study what a mathematical dimension actually is, rather than rely on popular understanding. This one is relatively easy. Then it becomes clear what this increase does to any concept no matter how simple at the basic level: chaotic behaviour beyond the second or third dimension, because the resulting system of equations can no longer be algorithmically solved. It can only be described by statistical methods which is also the essence of quantum mechanics, which is why its knowledge is so helpful. What's fascinating about these things is how it shows similarities between micro- and macrocosmos, between phenomena on the smallest and the largest scale, the fabric of nature and human action, and at the end of it... the grand picture of a game which simulates all this...

Great article here, and the further reading he suggests:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/scit...ysics-made-simple-by-a-pinay-physicist/story/
Click to expand...

Yes the system is chaotic... Been saying that for years....

The state of a system can only be measured once it is observed, until it is, it exists in all states simultaneously. So your cat is alive-dead.. You are talking about some real Rick And Morty shit here.

Hell, I posted this response without even reading the article... How did I know that it was talking about quantum entanglement ?

Either way, ur a fucking genius, I think you just handed me the number .....

And seeing as there are 2 types of resources it would be x^2
 
Last edited:
R4tt3xx said:
Its coming right.. XX deposit on Monday night, XIV last night. Both were unamped. 50% might, and this is a big might, be possible. (I am going on the communities definition of "hit" not my personal definition.)

I do admit that there is still a value in the spreadsheet that I am not happy with, I have thought about it and may have an answer and no it's not 42....., if it is the correct one I will know later this afternoon, fingers crossed.....

I must say that I like the way this sheet is turning out. It's simple to demonstrate and reproduce, just need this stupid one number ..... Perhaps I should just brute force it, till it breaks.
Click to expand...

first you talk about getting claims at all and now you talk about their size... those are 2 different things that have nothing to do with one another... which one are you actually talking about?
 
Me Really Never said:
first you talk about getting claims at all and now you talk about their size... those are 2 different things that have nothing to do with one another... which one are you actually talking about?
Click to expand...

True, I got sidetracked.... Im scatterbrained again, my brain works sideways not in a single direction.
 
R4tt3xx said:
Hell, I posted this response without even reading the article... How did I know that it was talking about quantum entanglement ?
Click to expand...
Because everybody does who touches the topic nowadays. Yet it's not the phenomenon at work here. You're missing the big picture behind the shiny objects.
 
San said:
Because everybody does who touches the topic nowadays. Yet it's not the phenomenon at work here. You're missing the big picture behind the shiny objects.
Click to expand...

We are talking about objects that are in multiple states of existence at the same time? Are you suggesting that if someone observes loot, someone else by default has to observe no loot , if they are quantum entangled?
 
R4tt3xx said:
We are talking about objects that are in multiple states of existence at the same time? Are you suggesting that if someone observes loot, someone else by default has to observe no loot , if they are quantum entangled?
Click to expand...

No, the indefinition of state does not equal entanglement. It means the outcome is not realized until observed, before that it exists only as possibility. Only the likelihood of this possibility is determined by constraints such as natural law or the algorithm in a simulation. Understanding of the statistical nature of nature, and that our avatars live in a simulation of this nature is what I meant to point out. If you can find the motivation to make this effort once, a lot becomes clearer and you don't have to waste so much time following down every rabbit hole.
 
San said:
No, the indefinition of state does not equal entanglement. It means the outcome is not realized until observed, before that it exists only as possibility. Only the likelihood of this possibility is determined by constraints such as natural law or the algorithm in a simulation. Understanding of the statistical nature of nature, and that our avatars live in a simulation of this nature is what I meant to point out. If you can find the motivation to make this effort once, a lot becomes clearer and you don't have to waste so much time following down every rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

Dude this is absolutely amazing ..... And really strange... I think what you posted is having the opposite effect , as I now want to apply some of these concepts..

We are dealing with a wave function, which is just a stretched out circle, which is just a spiral with a set radius, so it is compatible with what I want to attempt. I already have the not so complex math ready, just need to get home and experiment, see what the game does to these new inputs.

The trick would be to get the wave or multiple waves to collapse the way I want them to.

That aside. I get your point in that it may be impossible to predict, as you cannot observe everyone. Even if you could, the wave function would collapse making the outcome a certainty.
 
Well that did not work ...... :mad:
 
The purpose of this whole erudition was to suggest embracing statistics and understanding why. It does not offer to solve a conundrum to which no solution exists, it gives you the tools to work with what you find.
 
San said:
The purpose of this whole erudition was to suggest embracing statistics and understanding why. It does not offer to solve a conundrum to which no solution exists, it gives you the tools to work with what you find.
Click to expand...

I am still thinking about a response to this.. If you just observe the system, how are you supposed to interact with it ?

I would also be very careful about saying to which no solution exists, if one has all the values for all the variables at the correct time, the outcome can be predicted.

Statistics would, please correct me if I am not getting this right, be able to simulate a system between a predetermined set of min and max values for each variable, by analysing data collected one would be able to determine those bounds and thus run several simulations and predict what the system would do over the long term.

As for what the system is doing now, well it does not have the correct values for the variables, so it would not be able to determine what it is doing.

So yes, I do get it. But I do not want to just analyse it, I want to interact with it in real time, and make predictions to what it will do, in real time.

I can apply a bit of what I think you are suggesting either by adding randomness into my sheet to simulate random and perform random non-optimal moves, or perform "average" value moves which are predetermined and follow a set defined pattern.

I will then see what the system does to each type of input, either chaotic or ordered and see which one is most optimal. Taking other players into account will also be crucial as I will effectively be recycling their spent peds as well as my own. I still think that this game is based on avatar activity and movement.
 
Last edited:
R4tt3xx said:
Statistics would, please correct me if I am not getting this right, be able to simulate a system between a predetermined set of min and max values for each variable, by analysing data collected one would be able to determine those bounds and thus run several simulations and predict what the system would do over the long term.
Click to expand...

Statistics doesn't simulate anything, it describes. You can create a simulation of a system which behaves statistically similar to a system whose inner workings you don't know, but which you can observe through its output. This is done to understand those systems wholescale and work with the larger patterns, it doesn't give the power to predict atomic events within it. E.g. the weather, stock markets, quantum effects, and much more. All this can be learned from the reading material provided.
 
San said:
Statistics doesn't simulate anything, it describes. You can create a simulation of a system which behaves statistically similar to a system whose inner workings you don't know, but which you can observe through its output. This is done to understand those systems wholescale and work with the larger patterns, it doesn't give the power to predict atomic events within it. E.g. the weather, stock markets, quantum effects, and much more. All this can be learned from the reading material provided.
Click to expand...

Ok gotcha : its a set of results that need to be analysed with trends that need to be identified.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top