Congrats! This reminds me about getting mining testing going again for effects of depth on hit rate, TT, etc. Maybe something to try this winter and maybe get the gang back together on.
Very nice achievment
I wonder if someone uses say a Terramaster L tier 2 and say 115-120% MU on the finder and get same depth as the F106 t10 would be better or vica verse. Or Terramaster 8 L with 1 or no enhancer...
To me those Terramasters still does the job and should be "better". But then I have never tested a T10 F106 to compare to
Not using amp 2 makes the run cheaper but the same amount of enhancers will break as with amp 2.
That's something I thought about at one point too, but never did more testing on. Basically, the enhancers are a fixed cost in a way, so assuming no amp caps, you're getting more TT per enhancer MU the bigger amp you go with.
"Conventional" wisdom on the forums (i.e., completely untested AFAIK) from my recollection, is that depth doesn't affect hit rate, just the types of resources available. I used to subscribe to that idea, but before that, I thought of a finder as having a search cylinder (Pi*search radius^2 * depth range). With the latter, you would get more hits the more you increase depth or radius. Not sure what I think now, but it should be testable once I think of how it should formally be done.
The other idea you bring up is that the depth range (i.e., min and max depth on a decent sized run) or the standard deviation, increases as you increase average depth. This is actually really common for real-world data as you move between orders of magnitude. It wouldn't surprise me if that's happening here, and could be a good thing if depth did affect hit rate.
On L enhanced vs ul enhanced I honestly don't know. The first time I tried (3 years ago), enhancers on L were breaking at least 2x faster than on ul. Then in 2017 or 2018 something deffinitely changed, I *think* nowadays the break rate on L and ul is equal. But I only *think* so, never had the budget or the will to extensively test it.
Another thing which I would look into is wether enhancer break rate is higher with amps, which was my initial impression and if so, if there is a relation between amp decay and break rate increase. The enunciation of the hypothesis itself implies a sample size which I can't handle (and is also above my math skills).
Pretty much because of these two I gave up tiered up 106, also because I heavily focused on 500-700ish depth, where enhancers were seriously not making any difference, given the wide range of tools available.
However if I ever go back to mining rares, which must have been my favourite style of mining, I would totally go with enhancers.
Just based on finder decay and enhancer "decay" (@180% MU) vs limited finder decay and markup, assuming you're mixing it up between ore and enmatter, a Terra 8 will be comparable or even slightly cheaper than an F-106 at the same depth. It's one of the only instances where a limited finder can eek out past a 106 w/ enhancers for anything below 700m depth. MU has come down on those Terramasters too. If you're just single dropping enmatter though, the enhanced 106 pretty much always comes out ahead due to decreased enhancer breakage.
That said, the big question is if there's any legitimate reason to go that deep? For enmatter, my target of 750m is about as far as I go. Do you hit enough additional rare resources to make up for the extra cost at 1000m, or is the percentage similar enough compared to 800-900m average? There's some discussion on whether depth can indirectly affect hit rate in either direction too. I want to do a little testing this winter on the latter at least like we did last winter for claim respawn rates.
Yea but if the finder got higher decay, i think that decay will return to you back with slithly higher multiplier vs a super eco finder. This statement is very hard to prove or disprove, but im trying my best to know this.
I would like to give such a finder a long run to compare
Not to highjack Leeloo's post with mining mechanics again, but I'll bite. I still need to do another round for replication since it's been a few years now, but I actually tested this with two finders where the only difference between them was decay. Essentially, there was no statistically significant difference in TT between the two. It does look like decay isn't returned, unlike how hunting used to work before loot 2.0. It looks like it's only probes and amp decay that contribute to TT.
Yea but if the finder got higher decay, i think that decay will return to you back with slithly higher multiplier vs a super eco finder. This statement is very hard to prove or disprove, but im trying my best to know this.
I would like to give such a finder a long run to compare
Just based on finder decay and enhancer "decay" (@180% MU) vs limited finder decay and markup, assuming you're mixing it up between ore and enmatter, a Terra 8 will be comparable or even slightly cheaper than an F-106 at the same depth. It's one of the only instances where a limited finder can eek out past a 106 w/ enhancers for anything below 700m depth. MU has come down on those Terramasters too. If you're just single dropping enmatter though, the enhanced 106 pretty much always comes out ahead due to decreased enhancer breakage.
That said, the big question is if there's any legitimate reason to go that deep? For enmatter, my target of 750m is about as far as I go. Do you hit enough additional rare resources to make up for the extra cost at 1000m, or is the percentage similar enough compared to 800-900m average? There's some discussion on whether depth can indirectly affect hit rate in either direction too. I want to do a little testing this winter on the latter at least like we did last winter for claim respawn rates.
Gratz Leeloo !!!
I think MA should create more UL Finders. Curious to see the costs of these Enhancers in long run.