PlanetCalypsoForum.com :: Entropia Universe Discussion and Resources
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61
  1. #31
    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 Storm Souza View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    so you had a 616x multiplier after 08/26 not bad Gzz
    Multipliers don't exist per se, or, rather, we have no way of verifying it, it's just a tool invented by the community to quantify a given blackbox process. Even if they would exist, though, as in being part of the loot origination process itself, your calculation is not correct. The fallacy is that everyone is looking at what a hof means in terms of these so-called "multipliers", instead of rather looking at regular finds. If your way of calculating would be correct, then in effect would mean that double-triple dropping would lower the multipliers for regular finds. Which is simply, verifiably, false.
    Last edited by Kerham; 10-04-2019 at 13:22.

  2. #32
    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 Kerham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Multipliers don't exist per se, or, rather, we have no way of verifying it, it's just a tool invented by the community to quantify a given blackbox process. Even if they would exist, though, as in being part of the loot origination process itself, your calculation is not correct. The fallacy is that everyone is looking at what a hof means in terms of these so-called "multipliers", instead of rather looking at regular finds. If your way of calculating would be correct, then in effect would mean that double-triple dropping would lower the multipliers for regular finds. Which is simply, verifiably, false.
    I think what they are trying to understand is the biggest multiplier possible based on decay. This is easy to see with crafting explosives as you can see from the hof bored/aths that around 4000-5000x multiple off decay is around the maxish.

    Same theory for mining. If you have a max multiplier of (for arguments sake) x1000. Then with using a level 13 amp with a 1 ped decay finder, then in theory you can hit a 1000 x 21 ped = 21000 ped. In reality the max multiplier is probably the same across all professions, so you can probably expect a 5000x plus for mining as well (with any finder and any amp).

    So if anyone has a mining ATH after the date in this thread, then you can guarantee that the max multiplier probably hasnt changed, just the rarity of it.

    I also think, and Leeloo correct if i am wrong, but there is suspicion that certain mining finder/amp combos might have a lowered possible max. How to verify this is almost impossible as the really big finds are rare as hell already.

    Either way, and if i am off track completely I apologise - Good luck all!

    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%

  3. #33
    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
    I don't disagree with what you said, I also agree on certain amps comment (where Dmitri could share some light if he would be the kind to talk about these things), which I think have extremely low volatility looked at a decent (yet extremely costly ttwise) sample.

    What I was merely disputing is that double dropping means a "base" cost of 1,5 ped. In my opinion, it's 1 cost of 1 ped and 1 cost of 0,5 ped, each with own searches and own "multiplier" scale. As such, a find of 100 ped enmatter is the same multiplier, imo, nomatter if it is single, double or triple dropping, namely 200 per cost of attempt, respectively 60-70ish per size of average find.

  4. #34
    Prowler
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Gender | Ingame
    Female | Female
    Location
    Belgium
    Avatar
    Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
    Society
    Spectra
    Posts
    1,410
    Images
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace Flyster View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think what they are trying to understand is the biggest multiplier possible based on decay. This is easy to see with crafting explosives as you can see from the hof bored/aths that around 4000-5000x multiple off decay is around the maxish.

    Same theory for mining. If you have a max multiplier of (for arguments sake) x1000. Then with using a level 13 amp with a 1 ped decay finder, then in theory you can hit a 1000 x 21 ped = 21000 ped. In reality the max multiplier is probably the same across all professions, so you can probably expect a 5000x plus for mining as well (with any finder and any amp).

    So if anyone has a mining ATH after the date in this thread, then you can guarantee that the max multiplier probably hasnt changed, just the rarity of it.

    I also think, and Leeloo correct if i am wrong, but there is suspicion that certain mining finder/amp combos might have a lowered possible max. How to verify this is almost impossible as the really big finds are rare as hell already.

    Either way, and if i am off track completely I apologise - Good luck all!

    Rgds

    Ace
    To be honest?

    I do not use that many amps and if I do, it's mostly amp 2.

    IF mining HR is abnormal high I might use an amp 5.

    How big multipliers might be? No idea at all cause I do not mine for those, only for fun and some profit if possible :p

    I only use my F-106 so no idea how other finders react

    For the multipliers ... hope nobody shoots me lol, I can only say that I think they are there for gamblers and nothing but gamblers, that are seeking for a big bang that prolly will never happen.

    I see a global/hof as an extra I get, but no idea who or what triggers it. As I've been mining those where extra's, since my TT returns where mostly already over 100% and that I call safe mining (unamped/amp2), no gambling at all.

    Some say you get TT, decay etc ... payed back, I do not believe this, ALL I believe are the numbers I see in my excel files and from others in soc no matter what finder/amp they use. I have seen many trying for big hits with big amps ... They ALL lost big time... except for Jenna en myself (but that was years ago when it was completely different. Those that have the peds to run around and mine with them, they might ofc get a nice tower 1 day sure, but still that doesn't mean they made profit. Even running around with no amp, I might get a tower, who knows, but that chance is ofc a lot smaller.

    As mining is now ( 80-90% TT return/unamped) the chance of having a biggy might be bigger cause the community of miners is paying (more) for it. Future will tell. In the past 2 weeks after the update my returns are constant lower, I even get multipliers/globals and like I said above they do NOT bring me back to the 100% as a payback for the TT spend. They never did and they will never do that.

    MA is no charity, if you want to make profit ingame, you need to do that yourself

    This is all my interpretation.

    Cheerzzzz and gl
    Last edited by LeelooM; 10-04-2019 at 15:47.
    Ores - Enmatters
    Miner's Dream - TICity - Platinum - C5
    The higher the year % - The bigger discount

    DEPTH ENHANCERS Level 1 - 9

  5. #35
    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 LeelooM View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    To be honest?

    I do not use that many amps and if I do, it's mostly amp 2.

    IF mining HR is abnormal high I might use an amp 5.

    How big multipliers might be? No idea at all cause I do not mine for those, only for fun and some profit if possible :p

    I only use my F-106 so no idea how other finders react

    For the multipliers ... hope nobody shoots me lol, I can only say that I think they are there for gamblers and nothing but gamblers, that are seeking for a big bang that prolly will never happen.

    I see a global/hof as an extra I get, but no idea who or what triggers it. As I've been mining those where extra's, since my TT returns where mostly already over 100% and that I call safe mining (unamped/amp2), no gambling at all.

    Some say you get TT, decay etc ... payed back, I do not believe this, ALL I believe are the numbers I see in my excel files and from others in soc no matter what finder/amp they use. I have seen many trying for big hits with big amps ... They ALL lost big time... except for Jenna en myself (but that was years ago when it was completely different. Those that have the peds to run around and mine with them, they might ofc get a nice tower 1 day sure, but still that doesn't mean they made profit. Even running around with no amp, I might get a tower, who knows, but that chance is ofc a lot smaller.

    As mining is now ( 80-90% TT return/unamped) the chance of having a biggy might be bigger cause the community of miners is paying (more) for it. Future will tell. In the past 2 weeks after the update my returns are constant lower, I even get multipliers/globals and like I said above they do NOT bring me back to the 100% as a payback for the TT spend. They never did and they will never do that.

    MA is no charity, if you want to make profit ingame, you need to do that yourself

    This is all my interpretation.

    Cheerzzzz and gl

    I don't have recent stats, but just an FYI for how it used to definitely work. I worked out my average find size, (ignoring big hits) with different sized amps, this was mostly using a vrx2k and 3k, and the average size was significantly bigger, with a bigger decaying finder. I think Falkoa (spelling?) did the stats on it.

    As to now, i can only guess that decay is probably/likely still included in returns. The only undecided was the extractor costs, as this was post finding the claim and probably not included in the long run.

    There is a simple test for it. Record number of I's or II's on different decay finders with no amp. It would be pretty clear, pretty quickly if finder decay is counted, as there would be a significant difference in the number of I's and II's found.

    I agree big amps is gambling, mostly because you are paying a far higher markup which will be difficult in today's climate to make back, but you would also have to drop a lot of bombs to hit the required big ones to make your tt average as high as possible. (this was 10k's of bomb drops, back in the day)

    I miss mining!

    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%

  6. #36
    Prowler
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Gender | Ingame
    Female | Female
    Location
    Belgium
    Avatar
    Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
    Society
    Spectra
    Posts
    1,410
    Images
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace Flyster View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't have recent stats, but just an FYI for how it used to definitely work. I worked out my average find size, (ignoring big hits) with different sized amps, this was mostly using a vrx2k and 3k, and the average size was significantly bigger, with a bigger decaying finder. I think Falkoa (spelling?) did the stats on it.

    As to now, i can only guess that decay is probably/likely still included in returns. The only undecided was the extractor costs, as this was post finding the claim and probably not included in the long run.

    There is a simple test for it. Record number of I's or II's on different decay finders with no amp. It would be pretty clear, pretty quickly if finder decay is counted, as there would be a significant difference in the number of I's and II's found.

    I agree big amps is gambling, mostly because you are paying a far higher markup which will be difficult in today's climate to make back, but you would also have to drop a lot of bombs to hit the required big ones to make your tt average as high as possible. (this was 10k's of bomb drops, back in the day)

    I miss mining!

    Rgds

    Ace
    Ah owke I get that thanks for explaining ^^

    Now I'm wondering if this is the case in using depth enh also :p

    I did some testing with other F finders on HR but never on amp sizes, maeby I'll try that also

    I really never did care because most of my mining runs where over 100% TT return but this isn't the case anymore now.

    I'll keep mining and see what the multi's will bring me in the long run but so far it's not looking good ^^
    Last edited by LeelooM; 10-04-2019 at 19:06.
    Ores - Enmatters
    Miner's Dream - TICity - Platinum - C5
    The higher the year % - The bigger discount

    DEPTH ENHANCERS Level 1 - 9

  7. #37
    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 Ace Flyster View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There is a simple test for it. Record number of I's or II's on different decay finders with no amp. It would be pretty clear, pretty quickly if finder decay is counted, as there would be a significant difference in the number of I's and II's found.
    I did this a couple years ago actually (though just claim size number won't do the trick as it's too low resolution). I'd alternate between F-211 (1.306 PEC decay) and Ziplex Z15 (2.557 PEC decay) each find while recording the TT. Larger claims above size 7 were excluded as outliers. No amps, enhancers, etc. I had smaller sample sizes before, but this is where I cut it off since results didn't really change over time.

    Just for ore alone (more likely to detect a difference first), the average claim size after 1000 drops for for the F-211 was 2.68 PED (95% confidence limits: 2.643-2.743), and the average claim for Ziplex Z15 was 2.671 PED (95% confidence limits: 2.629-2.712). In essence, no statistically significant difference due to finder decay with those intervals overlapping. P-values are also around p = 0.4 with untransformed data or even if I do a log-transformation as it sometimes detects effects better. P-values < 0.05 generally indicate a significant difference, but 0.4 isn't even in weak evidence territory.

    In short, there's really no indication from actual data there's a finder decay effect. It's possible you might find a slight significant difference if you ramped up the sample size even more (though extremely unlikely at this point), but at over sample sizes over 1000, you're quickly getting into statistically significant, but functionally insignificant territory. It really looks like finder decay is just paying for access to finder radius, depth, and probe number unique to that finder and not returned in loot.
    Last edited by kingofaces; 10-05-2019 at 05:27.

  8. #38
    Elite Haruto Rat's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Avatar
    Cunning Haruto Rat
    Society
    fode et fuge
    Posts
    3,245
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by kingofaces View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In short, there's really no indication from actual data there's a finder decay effect.
    Ditto.

    There's that crazy little thing; I've talked to some of the people who have crafted and used it but they couldn't convince me. They said "it seems there is" but I'd rather test it myself. Some day I will.
    There are many ways to skin a cat but just one way to boil a frog.

  9. #39
    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
    I did this a couple years ago actually (though just claim size number won't do the trick as it's too low resolution). I'd alternate between F-211 (1.306 PEC decay) and Ziplex Z15 (2.557 PEC decay) each find while recording the TT. Larger claims above size 7 were excluded as outliers. No amps, enhancers, etc. I had smaller sample sizes before, but this is where I cut it off since results didn't really change over time.

    Just for ore alone (more likely to detect a difference first), the average claim size after 1000 drops for for the F-211 was 2.68 PED (95% confidence limits: 2.643-2.743), and the average claim for Ziplex Z15 was 2.671 PED (95% confidence limits: 2.629-2.712). In essence, no statistically significant difference due to finder decay with those intervals overlapping. P-values are also around p = 0.4 with untransformed data or even if I do a log-transformation as it sometimes detects effects better. P-values < 0.05 generally indicate a significant difference, but 0.4 isn't even in weak evidence territory.

    In short, there's really no indication from actual data there's a finder decay effect. It's possible you might find a slight significant difference if you ramped up the sample size even more (though extremely unlikely at this point), but at over sample sizes over 1000, you're quickly getting into statistically significant, but functionally insignificant territory. It really looks like finder decay is just paying for access to finder radius, depth, and probe number unique to that finder and not returned in loot.
    1.3 pec (f211) vs 2.5pec (Z-15) difference of 1.2 pec. Your results are in line with this. But you would have to drop a lot more bombs to get the significance down.

    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%

  10. #40
    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 Ace Flyster View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1.3 pec (f211) vs 2.5pec (Z-15) difference of 1.2 pec. Your results are in line with this. But you would have to drop a lot more bombs to get the significance down.
    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.

Page 4 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