PlanetCalypsoForum.com :: Entropia Universe Discussion and Resources
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61
  1. #41
    Elite Ace Flyster's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Gender | Ingame
    Male | Male
    Location
    England, London
    Avatar
    Dave Ace Flyster
    Society
    Rangers
    Posts
    4,877
    Images
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by kingofaces View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There was functionally no difference between those averages, and if anything, they're out of line (the Z-15 had numerically less than the F-211, not more). That's just randomness. If there was a true difference, a trend would have at least showed up as I kept dropping more, but that never happened. There are some other rough analyses I ran that can estimate what would occur at much higher sample sizes, but still no difference even at 10,000 drops.

    Either way, we're at a point that no one can claim finder decay is returned in TT without actual evidence that exceeds testing like this, and even if there was an effect, it's such a small amount that there's functionally no relevance to it (biological relevance is the term we frequently use in science publications). There's a point where the inherent randomness of the thing you're measuring far exceeds minor nuisance effects that do exist, so that's where the finder decay in TT theory sits at best.

    Seems i cannot read :-) Yes, agreed on your results there is no significant difference between finders decay on average loot size. (i wish i had the time to run my own test!)

    This still doesn't explain lower I's, and II's i recorded when switching to higher decay finder. I will see if i can find my results again, maybe it was number of bombs issues or used slightly different number of bombs, maybe i tested between areas that had higher tt ores. I don't remember. Will update if i find anything of significance (see what i did there? yes i know - i am getting coffee).

    Rgds

    Ace
    2nd published novel: 'The Shadow Grounds'
    1st published novel: 'The Eyes of the Devil'
    Book 3 - Working Title 'The Meeting of Worlds' - 25%
    Book 4 - Sci-Fi Book - No title yet - 10%

  2. #42
    Prowler
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Gender | Ingame
    Female | Female
    Location
    Belgium
    Avatar
    Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
    Society
    Spectra
    Posts
    1,410
    Images
    673
    ADDING info in the mining thread after more unamped/testing mining after he sept 2019 update.

    OOPS wrong thread and moved it
    Ores - Enmatters
    Miner's Dream - TICity - Platinum - C5
    The higher the year % - The bigger discount

    DEPTH ENHANCERS Level 1 - 9

  3. #43
    Elite Kerham's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Gender | Ingame
    Male | Male
    Location
    to the moon and back
    Avatar
    Kerawan Kerham Maddahy
    Society
    Project Y
    Posts
    4,728
    Images
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by kingofaces View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There's a point where the inherent randomness of the thing you're measuring far exceeds minor nuisance effects that do exist, so that's where the finder decay in TT theory sits at best.
    I might have misunderstood you, with English not being my native language and having the scientific education of a park bench with ambitions, however if I did understood correctly, I beg to differ.

    May I point a few consequences:

    - with small enough decay, mining on taxed areas costs the same as mining untaxed areas with regular/high decay (with the debatable difference that tax is payed to a competitor, whereas decay to the system)

    - based on finder decay, there is a solid estimation to be made about (f)utility of certain levels of amplification, per markup of respective amps

    - based on finder/enhancer decay, we get into a territory where rares are effectively caged and under certain MU they become ineffective

    - finder decay is fundamental to picking between preamped and regular finders, just as excavator decay is per choice of rolled resources

    And I am sure I am missing some.

  4. #44
    Dominant kingofaces's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Gender | Ingame
    Male | Male
    Location
    US
    Avatar
    Tony KingofAces Hans
    Posts
    383
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I might have misunderstood you, with English not being my native language and having the scientific education of a park bench with ambitions, however if I did understood correctly, I beg to differ.

    May I point a few consequences:

    - with small enough decay, mining on taxed areas costs the same as mining untaxed areas with regular/high decay (with the debatable difference that tax is payed to a competitor, whereas decay to the system)

    - based on finder decay, there is a solid estimation to be made about (f)utility of certain levels of amplification, per markup of respective amps

    - based on finder/enhancer decay, we get into a territory where rares are effectively caged and under certain MU they become ineffective

    - finder decay is fundamental to picking between preamped and regular finders, just as excavator decay is per choice of rolled resources

    And I am sure I am missing some.
    Basically, when you do say 1000 drops and take the average, it's pretty much never going to be exactly the same TT return each time you repeat those 1000 drops. That's a measure of variation for that called the standard deviation. When that variation or standard deviation is high, then you cannot easily detect minor effects that may exist and only major effects that stand out in that variation.

    Take human height for example. If there's a gene that practically guarantees a person will be 0.001mm higher than a person without, that would be a minor nuisance effect because even though it exists (theoretically for this example) you aren't going to detect it in testing for causes of height differences, and it doesn't really matter much at all for predicting height anyways. That's kind of the equivalent of what's going on here.

    For your questions:

    1. Average claim size would be the same for those different finders, but taxes would likely be a bigger bite than anything. Decay is measured in PECs (1-2 PEC for the finders I tested) and if you're taking say 5% of an average ore claim, that's .13 PED or 13 PEC. If you're getting to bigger finders that pre-amp, that decay can basically be considered MU you'd pay for an equivalent amp instead.

    2. Just looking solely at amps and not pre-amped finders, I'm not sure I follow. The base TT will always be the same based on probes, so you'd be getting the same modified TT for adding an amp for both. If you were dead set on using a VRX-3000, then adding an amp would actually mean a smaller percentage of your PED are being eaten up by finder decay. With, pre-amped finders though this does come into play when calculating an amp equivalent MU for using the finder.

    3. True, though I have to pencil out where that comes into play, but I suspect you'd need a <120% MU deep resource to really see such an effect. For me though, I don't bother with Redulite as much because I can get higher average MU at shallower depths.

    4. It really depends on the pre-amped finder, but if you consider all of the decay of the pre-amped finder as MU similar to the percentage you'd pay for an amp, some finders are actually cheaper than buying an amp (except for enmatter in most cases).

  5. #45
    Elite Kerham's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Gender | Ingame
    Male | Male
    Location
    to the moon and back
    Avatar
    Kerawan Kerham Maddahy
    Society
    Project Y
    Posts
    4,728
    Images
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by kingofaces View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1. Average claim size would be the same for those different finders, but taxes would likely be a bigger bite than anything. Decay is measured in PECs (1-2 PEC for the finders I tested) and if you're taking say 5% of an average ore claim, that's .13 PED or 13 PEC. If you're getting to bigger finders that pre-amp, that decay can basically be considered MU you'd pay for an equivalent amp instead.
    Correct, but this only true as long as you stay at shallow average depth (say, 600ish), where you have head-to-head F212, EFS and F106. When you have to (or you choose to) go at deeper areas, 8-900-1k, the decay (Terra)/enhancers (F106)/MU (preamped) become comparable to taxes. Based on wether you consider or not the decay as being recovered, one choice would be better than others. Of course, MU of resources and actual avg MU harvested is alot more important, we're merely talking habits of choice so to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingofaces View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    2. Just looking solely at amps and not pre-amped finders, I'm not sure I follow. The base TT will always be the same based on probes, so you'd be getting the same modified TT for adding an amp for both. If you were dead set on using a VRX-3000, then adding an amp would actually mean a smaller percentage of your PED are being eaten up by finder decay. With, pre-amped finders though this does come into play when calculating an amp equivalent MU for using the finder.
    This regards compound of risks/costs and actual harvested MU. In the case of certain rare capped resources, finder decay and amp MU will together eat up whatever can be found /no of drops from said resource. I have in mind at least one example where is better to attempt unamped low decay, provided enough patience. With apologies I don't provide actual examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingofaces View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    3. True, though I have to pencil out where that comes into play, but I suspect you'd need a <120% MU deep resource to really see such an effect. For me though, I don't bother with Redulite as much because I can get higher average MU at shallower depths.
    Redulite is not a rare capped resource. Tridenite or rugaritz might be better examples. If looking in a bad avg MU area, then, same as above pretty much, whatever you spend for the specialised effort (as in price of big depth or amplification) might/will be eaten away by, say, lysterium finds and extraction. I will admit though that is a very niche thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingofaces View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    4. It really depends on the pre-amped finder, but if you consider all of the decay of the pre-amped finder as MU similar to the percentage you'd pay for an amp, some finders are actually cheaper than buying an amp (except for enmatter in most cases).
    Exactly my point.


    Putting all together, thank you for your explanation regarding the science background. Whereas is hard to measure and I only have some empirical data (namely, probes+amp roi tt seem to me to vary independent of probes+amp+finder decay roi tt), I simply prefer to pick what is the worst case scenario and behave upon that. Of course, based on the actual targeted resource and area, I do consider that all finders (or, at worst, the large majority) have their place and suitable behaviour.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by LeelooM View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thank you

    Not maximum only cause I assume you can get 2 or 3 different claimsizes on every amp
    On level 13 so far (FOMA mostly), I had: Sizable, Large, Abundant, Great (These one were on Caly) Substantial, Plentiful, Extremely Huge, Massive, Vast, Rich...

    The array of claim sizes is proportional to the claim sizes unamped only multiplied by aprox. 30x

    Sample size: Aprox 200 Level 13 amps in September 2019

    This you can best observe on FOMA, where the average claim size for ores is ample (12 PED aprox), and the average hit on ores with level 13 is around 330-370 PED.

  7. #47
    Guardian chaoz's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Gender | Ingame
    Male | Male
    Location
    Gothenburg / Sweden
    Avatar
    John chaoz Anderson
    Society
    Amethera Demons
    Posts
    269
    Images
    35
    Tried some mining on FOMA today

    Setup: F-105, 2 depth enhancers, Level 3 amp, 228 drops

    1 x size 18 - huge (567 peds)
    1 x size 19 - extremly large (711 peds)

    (other then that there were mostly size 11 & a few size 9)

  8. #48
    Prowler Robin's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2008
    Gender | Ingame
    Female | Female
    Location
    USA
    Avatar
    Mayana maya Riechert
    Society
    Soldiers of Fortune
    Posts
    1,254
    Images
    71
    This multiplier lowering to me, has made me turn away from Entropia Universe. I just don't feel it's been fair basically. I just got to 71 prospecting and was excited to be past 70 and a champion level hoping to become a master miner eventually. I've deposited plenty, bought all the best finder equiptment as i could for my level and all that but to no avail. I have lost over at least 20k peds in the last few years and am down to practically under 200 peds. I felt the lowering of multipliers in this last update and previous ones. Oh and i have dropped big amps and lost plenty but not gotten my next big one back to make up for all the losses I have had. It's not fun and I played for fun and just don't get it anymore. I'm glad you all are enjoying the updates. Maybe I'll try again maybe not. I haven't decided yet what to do.
    [

  9. #49
    Dominant Vadio's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    Gender | Ingame
    Male | Female
    Location
    Space
    Avatar
    Jhan Delarea Freitas
    Society
    Freelancer
    Posts
    469
    Welcome to club

    Useless miner who want new high end minning tools

    RIP multis : 26.08.19

  10. #50
    Prowler
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Gender | Ingame
    Female | Female
    Location
    Belgium
    Avatar
    Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
    Society
    Spectra
    Posts
    1,410
    Images
    673
    Check this out pls and using big amps ... enjoy the casual 60 - 70% TT return now

    What I mean is, it's changed a lot after the patch.
    Want to win big, need to spend big + higher risk cause of the high amps.

    http://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/fo...-Steady-mining

    What I wanted to proof (and see with my own eyes) is that TT return in mining is almost constant 80-90% TT return after the patch in september 2019 (without amp)
    Agree that it was more before the patch (almost 100% most of the time)

    As soon as my numbers (TT return) goes in minus or in other words go in the red ... I get a lot of multipliers/globals/hof that brings me back in positive numbers again. This does NOT count if you are mining in a taxed area, that % of TT return is the miner loosing.

    This does not mean I'm in green numbers in TT return so it is always important to keep mining with the lowest cost factor, depending the resources you are looking for.

    Once you start using amps, TT returns will react the same BUT with deeper/higher neg/pos TT returns and will bring you back to 94-95% TT return. For this you need a bigger pedcard.

    Your profit comes from at what % you will sell your resources, that's fully up to you !!!

    EDIT : compare it with crafting from quantity to condition ... a lot more failures on condition so a lot more chance to loose.
    Last edited by LeelooM; 10-17-2019 at 06:55.
    Ores - Enmatters
    Miner's Dream - TICity - Platinum - C5
    The higher the year % - The bigger discount

    DEPTH ENHANCERS Level 1 - 9

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Planet Calypso on Twitter  Follow Planet Calypso on Facebook