Overmine,re-bomb,mining next to other player?

[halftoasted]

You can see it on the left each time I post.






<-------

 

[D3sire]

I am impressed ....I confirm returns are 95%
Thread can be closed!
Thank you all for participating!

 

[M Rufen Power]

That hit rate is worse than normal when overlaping was never question.

From my data, overlapping drops isn't a negative. 101% TT returns.

 

[kingofaces]

From my data, overlapping drops isn't a negative. 101% TT returns.

Depends how much you are overlapping. Remember the area of a circle. If you are just running and dropping at reload time, you are only overlapping the same area to a small degree. If someone is just doing that, it isn't going to be as noticeable compared to if you have full overlaps.

You basically need to have paired testing between two methods if you really want to look at long-term TT returns. You may have had 101%, but if you weren't overlapping, you might have been at 103% instead. There's basically no control in a straight log like that. Instead, it would be kind of similar to how the finder decay test in my sig was set up, except that you'd be switching drop method rather than finder each time.

 

[psyche]

There have been many times when I accidently dropped another probe at the same location.
Sometimes that first probe at that location was NRF. But that second accidental drop found something!
Very strange...
Sometimes the first probe finds something, Then that second accidental drop also finds something.
Not sure what this means.

My personal, untested, and unsupported belief / conclusion:
I feel like from the coding perspective, it would make sense if they use the coordinate where we drop to seed a RNG.
Since it is still RNG, I think just because the first is NRF, doesn't mean the next RNG roll will be NRF. But it is "mining" afterall, so I would imagine that they probably code it so that if the coordinate is in the close proximity, then it will lower the chance of a "found" RNG. So I do believe that dropping at the same coordinate will eventually reach 0% chance of "found"
I think it is RNG, but It is still designed for you to move and mine at different location / coordinates.
Just not sure how long until those coordinates "refreshes" or "resets" so that you can mine at the same location again. So far I'm assuming it is 1 day. Since I tried to mine 2 times within the same day at my area a few times and usually I get worse result. Might just be a coincidence or it might be because the server really haven't "wipe" the record of my dropped coordinates at those locations.
This is just my personal belief about mining from my personal experience. I think most of us here have our own mining beliefs.

I also would like MA to address those wasted probes. Where do those ped go? Are they just considered as donations to MA? If someone drops 100 probes at the same coordinate like rapid firing them. Should MA just keep all those peds? or do they go into the lootpool? Also what about expired claims. If someone have internet issue and cannot mine their claim. Does that expired claim go to MA or go to lootpool?

 

[psyche]

Nice thx Sulje, and kingofaces ofc for actually doing a test. So we DO know!


Altho, Id still be interested to see what would happen if we got 30 people each with one probe, standing very close together and every 2s the next person drops a probe. Think of it as a preliminary experiment to see if Miner 2 and 3 still finding things can really be explained with the 2 mechanisms you explored. We'd expect either

• only Miner#1 finding something the rest not,
• no one finding anything,
• Miner#1 yes, Miner#2 yes (because Miner#1 found something rly close), and so on, then the rest NRF.
• Hit rate goes down but maybe claim size correspondingly rises?
• Some combination.

Actually 30 people is probably too much. Maybe I can get my soc together and we can find 8 people or so, at least we could repeat the experiment 10 times at 10 different spots. Id be down to pay for that. I'll let you know, today is fishing day tho, so maybe end of the week Anything I should think of? I was thinking tt finder, unamped. Skill level of miners? Would that matter somehow?

cheers

I'm also curious about this.
Actually what would be more interesting is if 30 ppl just run together and mine normally. Try to synchronize as much as possible. I think that would be a pretty sure testing if other miners affects your return. I wouldn't mind donating 20 probe drops for this testing. If we can organize a big group mining testing.
If the group of miners all try to mine as synchronized as possible and we see several claims pop up in close proximity then we can definitely conclude that claims are generated when we drop them and they are not spawned in the ground. Having several claims pop up in close proximity also means that other miners does not affect your mining.
But if we only see 1 claim then it means other miners does affect you. That location can only have 1 claim and if 1 miner gets it then no one else can get a claim at that location.

 

[halftoasted]

There have been many times when I accidently dropped another probe at the same location.
Sometimes that first probe at that location was NRF. But that second accidental drop found something!
Very strange...
Sometimes the first probe finds something, Then that second accidental drop also finds something.
Not sure what this means.

My personal, untested, and unsupported belief / conclusion:
I feel like from the coding perspective, it would make sense if they use the coordinate where we drop to seed a RNG.
Since it is still RNG, I think just because the first is NRF, doesn't mean the next RNG roll will be NRF.

Exactly!
Sometime I force the accident found or not.
A finder search within a depth(Seed variable) {They never say a finder search every layer of the depth it look at}
A finder search a range(Seed variable)
A finder has a cost(Seed variable)
Other factors may impact.

As the many miner I know who actually get somewhere in mining showed me. The day you think that there is nothing because you found nothing, it's the day you missed what mining was. NRF doesnt mean NRTHERE. Thats what I learned and another hof in the bank today! XY% return is for the whole pool. Im way above that.. But players can keep believing what they want. Their lost peds become ours.

 

[halftoasted]

I wouldn't mind donating 20 probe drops for this testing. If we can organize a big group mining testing.

If people stopped doing test indoor and/or with amp and/or with statistical bias... They could simply use TT finder which a ore+enmatter+TT finder decay is 0.10p + 0.05p + 0.0048p = 0.1548p drop cost. We could have interesting data already. When 1000 drops of both cost 154.80p including finder decay.. You can go a long way to gather data.

 

[Sulje]

If people stopped doing test indoor and/or with amp and/or with statistical bias... They could simply use TT finder which a ore+enmatter+TT finder decay is 0.10p + 0.05p + 0.0048p = 0.1548p drop cost. We could have interesting data already. When 1000 drops of both cost 154.80p including finder decay.. You can go a long way to gather data.

You should definitely do it!

 

[halftoasted]

You should definitely do it!

Agreed, I keep track but Im 1 man and a RT. Should more be on RT and want to consider joining in that idea. Im all open for it!
I often take 15-30 TT finder and go for a long time. There not much you get at the end considering cost but it map the planet really well.

 

[Alina]

I am impressed ....I confirm returns are 95%
Thread can be closed!
Thank you all for participating!

The area beats you enough, why should i still pk you

 

[D3sire]

The area beats you enough, why should i still pk you

[System]: [Carnage] killed [Alina] using a [Marber Tango-Type Plasma Annihilator]
[System]: Critical hit - Additional damage! You inflicted 543.0 points of damage

I got u once.....felt so good i had to save it

 

[Sulje]

[System]: [Carnage] killed [Alina] using a [Marber Tango-Type Plasma Annihilator]
[System]: Critical hit - Additional damage! You inflicted 543.0 points of damage

I got u once.....felt so good i had to save it

He has no divine, cheap a$$

 

[Kerham]

If mining near other player would be a good idea, you'd both output more tt of the desired stuff, hence lowering MU, Sherlock.

 

[kingofaces]

I'm also curious about this.
Actually what would be more interesting is if 30 ppl just run together and mine normally. Try to synchronize as much as possible. I think that would be a pretty sure testing if other miners affects your return. I wouldn't mind donating 20 probe drops for this testing. If we can organize a big group mining testing.
If the group of miners all try to mine as synchronized as possible and we see several claims pop up in close proximity then we can definitely conclude that claims are generated when we drop them and they are not spawned in the ground. Having several claims pop up in close proximity also means that other miners does not affect your mining.
But if we only see 1 claim then it means other miners does affect you. That location can only have 1 claim and if 1 miner gets it then no one else can get a claim at that location.

Just FYI, we hashed out a lot of how to do the testing properly awhile back in this thread followed by the results here and a followup with longer time frames here. Basically so people don't have to reinvent the wheel and also see of the statistical design issues that informed how it was done.

There isn't really a need for a massive number of people for additional testing (or increasing the number of drops), but checking out the intervals more. We saw a drop in HR at 5 and 10 minutes after someone dropped in the exact same area, but not at 15 in the second round of testing. If someone was going to basically repeat the interesting parts of those two, it would be 4 people with one starting out dropping at a coordinate until they get NRF for both ore/enmatter, extracting, and moving on while the next person would come in 5 minutes later at the exact same coordinates. With more people you could shorten the intervals (could be a challenge since you can catch up to the first miner easier and have to wait) or replicate it in other areas with another group of people.

Basically if people are interested in doing something again, I could help set up the design again, but my schedule is also kind of wonky this month for organizing much more.

 

[~ Cirrus ~]

I am always amazed that people who have been around for years, maybe10 years or more, still talk about RNG...

How is it possible not to understand that there is ZERO randomness..?

Pretty sure these people still believe in "luck".
And some of them even think that their choices can influence their results..
Despairing..

Now people knows their return is set and capped in Hunt, they think they can beat the game whith mining..? WTF.

Anyway..
There is no such thing.
The game is designed to let you think so, but it's all wrong.

Your return, and therefore your hit rate, is set in advance, and is avatar-based.
Just like in hunting.
Why should it be any different?
It would not make sense from MA's point of view.

If you really believe that the claims are already there in the ground, waiting for someone to come and get them, you are very naive.

What is taken into account, however, is where YOU have already dropped.
Your hit rate will be very low if you drop at the same place over and over.
Because, easy again, everything is avatar-based.

And MA doesn't like it much when few people making money chasing MU over and over.
That's why they removed Pyrite from the lootable area.
Since the timer was not enough to prevent the same people getting all the MU there (because most people didn't want to go in lootable anyway)
There were only few people mining this area, so always same getting the Pyrite.
So they removed 90% of Pyrite from lootable.
(Because MA have no idea what Meritocracy is, having worked hard enough to reach a certain level that gives you access to better opportunities, the whole point of a MMO..)

The rarity of resources is a real time in-game balance.
If you don't get any pyrite at a given time, it's because there is already enough of it ingame.
This is probably where the famous "waves" come from, the system simply checks at regular intervals the availability of a resource, and then adjusts its drop rate.

But the pyrite example is a good one, since MA had the wonderful idea to put everything in 2km².
There is ALOT of people mining the same area over and over every single day.
In your theory, your hit rate should be very close to ZERO there.
But that's absolutely not the case, the hit rate is exactly the same as elsewhere.

 

[kingofaces]

Because, easy again, everything is avatar-based.

There's already statistically rigorous data to the contrary on that. Someone mining in an area will affect the HR of miners going through there within a short period of time, and you don't see a rise in TT per claim to compensate. It's basically no different than if a hunter goes through an area and cleans out mobs before they respawn. You're not going to have anything to shoot at for a bit, but in the case of mining, it's like shooting in PVP where you lose TT even if it's not a shot at a mob. Mobs are just visible on your radar is all. Meanwhile, you have to stab in the dark to see if you hit a mining resource.

Part of the reason the testing threads came up in the past is because so many people have personal theories they'll argue about (e.g, avatar-based returns), but don't have useable data to back it up. There gets to be circular reasoning where someone's pet theory is contradicted by data, so they say X contradicts this assumption, so X must be wrong, usually followed by other assumptions without focusing on actual data. It's kind of like before the scientific method really came into play where it was more philosophers arguing about how the world is by rhetoric and winning arguments rather than being data-centric.

It's generally better to stick to what the actual test data says and build up rather than a top-down approach of assumptions first. People see correlations that don't exist all the time in unstructured data (and it happens a lot on the forums), so like in the real-world, that's why we need to stick to formal experiments if you really want to test how a black box responds to different conditions. It's not that difficult, but it takes a little front-end work to set up like has been discussed above. You shouldn't extrapolate beyond what the data says, but there are definitely a few things that are already established in testing that people still argue about without additional equivalent data to refute it.

 

[~ Cirrus ~]

There's already statistically rigorous data to the contrary on that.

Rigorous data ?
45 PED drops ?

You science apprentices should already be learning what a valid test is in terms of statistics.

You did 30 double drops, and said "wow the difference is so big that we are sure that if we did the test 100 times, we would get the same result".

LOL, is that your science ?

Do that test 5000 times, whith different people, different tools, etc..., then come here whith the result, and I promise I could change my mind.

My logical sense, and my tens of thousands of hours playing are enough for me to understand that everything is avatar-based.
That nothing is random.
Besides, it's quite easy to understand that if there was a random factor in Entropia, the game would be illegal.

What you think is a random factor is really just an artificial variance.
Which is there mainly to hook people, since it's well known that a higher variance is more addictive.

To put it simply, if your return was set to 97%, but every time you spent 1PED you got 0.97PED back, the game would be boring as hell.. (it is already for people who understand how it works..)
Variance is the addictive part.
Give them 80% most of the time, then suddenly every now and then a 110%, even if the end result is worse, people will be more addicted to 95% with variance than 97% whith no variance.
This is something that have been studied already, and I guess MA know that perfectly.

It's this variance that people see as "randomness".
This is a mistake.
I repeat, if there was an ounce of randomness in this real money game (TT in/TT out), it would be illegal. (in most countries)

So YES, there is no other choice, to make it legal, no randomness.
IT IS avatar based. END OF STORY.

Now for those who can't see this..
Well I can tell only one thing: GOOD "LUCK"...

 

[D3sire]

I conducted test i did 130 000 drops in same area....sample is relly big enough and my results are bad, that is why i asked for opinion in first place!

 

[David Joker Potanus]

I love checking in on this thread lately and reading people smarter than myself argue. It is like Entropia's version of politics!

 

[halftoasted]

Your return, and therefore your hit rate, is set in advance, and is avatar-based.

There is no personal lootpool. MA said it and my account shouldnt exist if it was true. Im not saying Im mr.richboy printing peds.. Just to be clear, look my EL. While many globals are missing as a offworlder, even with the hofs we can tell what kind of player I am. So even if I grow it's just fun growth because even mcdonald would pay me way more over time.

Rigorous data ?

That I agree with you. There too many players that dont understand if their sampling was rigorous data you would have EA, EPIC games or any big company buy the system via trial and error to clone intellectual properties MA wouldnt sell for even a few millions. That alone show how much their pool cannot be more than sampled using 100$ or even 10000$.

I repeat, if there was an ounce of randomness in this real money game (TT in/TT out), it would be illegal.

I know some people dont like that but I refer to Diablo II which was considered gambling during production where they had to change the loot algo to have, in short, loot into "coded chest" where mobs spawn with a pregenerated key and when you kill the mob it try all combination until it open your loot. This was deemed "non gambling". We can imagine EU work in a very similar but in reverse where decay/tool generate the key that check which loot pocket you open.
Pre-generated random is a complex and weird way to do a non gambling that act just like it.

 

[kingofaces]

Rigorous data ?
45 PED drops ?

You science apprentices should already be learning what a valid test is in terms of statistics.

You did 30 double drops, and said "wow the difference is so big that we are sure that if we did the test 100 times, we would get the same result".

Good teaching moments here, but pretty much. That's how nearly all science research is done. We don't need huge sample sizes in research statistics because the statistical tests are designed to estimate what the true population mean is as if you manually sampled an extremely large amount to the point the running average stabilized out. They're basically saying how likely it is that two treatments are different if you did go out to say 5,000 or 100,000 drops based on some smaller sample size. If someone doesn't like that, they don't like nearly all published research out there that we do in the real world, often with much less controlled systems.

Here's a paper that actually does give some introduction on how us scientists do address sample size: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4296634/. In short, statistical tests are designed to use samples, not full on population scale sizes like others are suggesting be done.

Usually day 1 of an undergrad course in statistics is basically saying "Hey, remember the concept that you learned about in high school where if you increase sample size to really large numbers, the running average tends to stabilize rather than jump around? The next steps in using that are the statistical tests you'll learn about this semester or through your entire graduate school career." No scientist is going to do 5,000 samples when the data show only 30-60 samples are required to detect that difference reliably, and that's a good way to pick out a student who wasn't paying attention in class if they try to suggest that.

It would be one thing if it was a marginally significant difference like p = 0.049, but we were pretty far from that. In ecology or sociology that are considered statistically "sloppy", they often use a threshold of p = 0.1, most disciplines are 0.05, and more restrictive ones with extremely minute measurements like chemistry or physics don't consider something significant until values 0.01 or 0.001. When you get something like p = 0.000982 like we did, you're dealing with something so unlikely to switch up and become statistically equal amounts for each treatment that the burden is really on those disagreeing to provide data showing that.

What you're suggesting is sample size overkill, or sampling much more than needed when there's no indication it would change the result of the tests at all. It's something we teach about avoiding in intro research statistics courses because you don't gain anything while spending exponentially more time and money. On the other side, you can have cases of too low of sample sizes, and there are ways to assess if that's occurring. I haven't seen anyone mention anything about those related concepts or checks though as opposed to kneejerk "more samples" comments. A lot of those low sample size questions are also moot if you are repeatedly detecting a difference like we did with HR with replication (i.e., redoing the experiment, which was often nested in other non-public data), so it really is to the point that if people went out and repeated the same experiment, they would get similar results.

Either way, the data doesn't lie. If you wanted to increase the sample size, the confidence intervals would just be shrinking, and percentages like HR are actually a little easier to work with in that sense too. If someone has an issue with the data, don't beat around the bush with hand-waving comments about "science apprentices" or haphazzardly say get more samples. It's not like I used an arcsine transformation instead of logistic regression or something else not by the book where I'd get after someone. You'd instead need to show real statistical issues like we would in journal peer-review or pony up your own "better" data.

 

[halftoasted]

That's how nearly all science research is done.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4296634/.

If you quote a research, at least find one that support your claims.
From your own paper linked.

The purpose of estimating the appropriate sample size is to produce studies capable of detecting clinically relevant differences. Bearing this point in mind, there are different formulas to calculate sample size.

This is why your method is basically interesting data. Not statistic. Far from making that post useless. It was an interesting read but we must see things for what they are.
Further in the paper.

It is also important to determine what is the smallest magnitude of the effect and the extent to which it is clinically relevant. For example, how many degrees of difference in the ANB angle can be considered relevant? It is vital that we address this issue.

Applying medical techniques to EU is already questionable but the smallest magnitude would be the globals and HoF which happen the smallest. While "clinically relevant in this case would refer that loot pool which IS more than relevant.

If researchers wish to detect a difference as small as 0.1° in an ANB angle, they will probably need thousands of patients in their study. If this value rises to 1°, the number of cases required falls drastically.

This is a prime example as to why you did an observation. A scientific observation but it is nowhere to be close to being statistics.

Finally, it is essential that the researcher determine the level of significance and the type II error, which is the probability of not rejecting the null hypothesis, although the hypothesis is actually false, which the study will accept as reasonable.

And you tossed those out the window saying they were error even though MA will say clearly that gobal and HoF are part of your expected results.

using a sample smaller than the ideal increases the chance of assuming as true a false premise.

Which is something you do in abundance.

When numerous cases are included in the statistics, analysis power is substantially increased.

With a simple sampling, because I cant even see it as a real sample, you have no analysis power. Just the power to sew perceptions based on your heart and desire to see something.

CONCLUSIONS​

An appropriate sample renders the research more efficient: Data generated are reliable, resource investment is as limited as possible, while conforming to ethical principles. The use of sample size calculation directly influences research findings. Very small samples undermine the internal and external validity of a study.

My conclusion: It is very important to read the paper you submit to support your opinions. As glancing at a text to read a few correlating aspect while taking them out of context and skipping the fundamentals of doing a study end with someone taking that very same study to say it has different claims to yours.

Because using a random link to stake claims without actually reading it properly would be unethical. Wouldn't you say ?

You seem to not understand what is a proper sample size and the need for MANY samples done at random interval being of a PROPER size to GENERATE said statistics.

 

[kingofaces]

Hi again halftoasted, based on what you are quoting, thank you for agreeing now with me on the sample size being appropriate for the mining experiments using the statistics-wide concepts used across all discliplines that they describe. It's good to see you've changed your mind, especially with that bolded parts you happened to choose that outline why we don't do overkill on sample size and how appropriate sample sizes were determined in the cases I'm talking about. That's partly why I went directly to relevant scientific literature that outlines what we normally do since that trumps what random people on the internet might think about how statistics works. It's a good quick reminder paper I'd give to students for classes actually.

Though I am curious, what is your power calculator showing now for a sample size needed to detect a difference of say 27% vs. 5% in samples? Even if you were only doing a two proportion comparison (this was a regression of three or more depending on which you dataset look at), I'm actually getting right around 60 samples, which is what we planned on from the start and actually did based on trial runs, like one is supposed to do for determining required sample size. We technically went a bit over the suggested sample size by adding additional miners, but that functionally became adding replication rather than sample size at least. To get something like 1000s of samples required though sounds like a misspecification somewhere, possibly forgetting to enter the proportions to test or accidentally having it determine a minute difference (which the paper cautions about) of say 27% vs. 26%?

 

[psyche]

Mobs are just visible on your radar is all. Meanwhile, you have to stab in the dark to see if you hit a mining resource.

I like this statement. It makes me feel like it is possible that mining claims are just invisible mobs roaming around. You drop a probe to see if your area has a invisible mob roaming there. If they just copy and past the codes for mobs and just make them invisible and change the respawn timer. Kinda makes me have a different theory about the coordinates seeding a RNG. But then this "invisible mob" theory doesn't explain dropping at the same coordinates and getting 0 hits. Like if you drop 100 probes in the same coordinates, you will probably get like 1 or 2 hits out of the 100 drops. Even if you wait 15 minutes before dropping another probe at the same coordinate, I think you still won't get a claim at that coordinate.

 

[halftoasted]

Seem you have issues reading. Appropriate sample size is the thing you did not do seeing that the average over 10k isnt even that reliable as it's the average of a TON of hunters according to MA meaning many scored way less and a few got way more. We can easily see where your experiment and lack of reading happen.

Assumption, poor quality of a small sample, neglect of important data doing one of the biggest error in samples, etc. It's all there and somehow you can post something like that. I would take a good night rest and go back to reading if I were you if such basic posting is too complex. I mean, you cant understand a scientific paper you post.

 

[kingofaces]

I like this statement. It makes me feel like it is possible that mining claims are just invisible mobs roaming around. You drop a probe to see if your area has a invisible mob roaming there. If they just copy and past the codes for mobs and just make them invisible and change the respawn timer. Kinda makes me have a different theory about the coordinates seeding a RNG. But then this "invisible mob" theory doesn't explain dropping at the same coordinates and getting 0 hits. Like if you drop 100 probes in the same coordinates, you will probably get like 1 or 2 hits out of the 100 drops. Even if you wait 15 minutes before dropping another probe at the same coordinate, I think you still won't get a claim at that coordinate.

Yeah, it's just my speculation getting into that territory since there isn't a good way to test those two, but I'd bet more on resource nodes (equivalent to mob radar dots) not moving around on their own, but just being static where they happened to generate. I don't really have any strong attachment to the idea either way, but the mob parallel seemed to at least be a decent illustration for parts of what the data suggests for mining mechanics. There are some parts that don't really match exactly with how mobs work in other testing I have, but that gets into what I leave others to figure out on their own.

 

[Thark]

Hey,

so yeah the idea to use more people but fewer spots was to see if there still is a CHANCE to get a hit, eventho people before you didn't. As in, does MA have some mechanism to reduce the losses at all. When you guys did your tests, I was surprised to still see a 5%ish hit rate for the third player. I can see some low percentage for the second, cuz sometimes you mess up and drop another probe by accident and still find something, so maybe "there was another invisible mob in the area" but it could also be that the lowest hitrate simply is 5%.

The question of:
"Do other miners affect my hitrate?" Seems to have been answered by you, with a clear yes, if within X minutes. (max right now is 15 in your test if I understand correctly? To be narrowed/corrected down if people want)
But the question of:
"Is there a floor for your hit rate, and how does that affect your multis?" Seems to still be in question?

I understand that you like the idea of testing people moving and mining normally but after reading this thread a little bit, it seems the only thing people are unclear on, is if the hit rate just goes down if you mine in an overmined area, but maybe the multipliers go up, so that everybody ends up at the same tt. Or if the hitrate depends on the overlap or if its simply a set but lower HitRate. Like, maybe MA did implement something like:

FIRST_MINER_EVER drops a bomb ->
save miners location, drop = [x=1234, y=1234, range=45, t=1234] with (x,y-coords, range of finder ,and time of drop) ->
hitrate =35% ->
come up with and apply some multiplier.

OR

MinerB drops a bomb ->
check position and radius ->
check relevant drops within last 15mins ->
if no intersect, then hitrate =35%, else hitrate = 5% ->
Come up with and apply some multiplier. This COULD be: if HR = 35, then do this. Else, do another thing.

(Yes, yes, I know this is forum level programming, you know what I mean)

My prediction would be that, NO, your tt doesnt go up when HR goes down. Simply because mining always feels very old school. And back in the day, hunting and stuff was way more unforgiving than today. As far as I know mining doesnt have loot 2.0. And also, people would have figured that out and used it to get hofs, plus it would be kind of annoying to some people to see someone running after them get a global/hof when they just went thru the field. (Even if, now, we dont think thats how that works, but its a perception thing)
I always thought that you wouldnt get anything if you mined the exact spot as someone else before, but maybe there really is a floor for the HR.

So thats why I suggested getting 8 people droping at the same spot, then move 110m or what ever finder range x2 is. If we really do see the 5%ish HR for the 2nd to 8th player, then we can be pretty sure about the HR part of the question above. I dunno if I wanna really test TT-Return. I mean we prolly have pretty good data on normal hit size, so if the tt wants to stay the same by giving bigger multies, then even normal hits should be bigger. I guess we can take a look at that but I kinda doubt it.

Extra credit for reading this wall of text: yes there are a few assumptions in here: all this is independent of people doing the test and their activity history, tools dont affect hitrate at least if they have the same radius, all of caly is homogenious in a hit rate sense, time of day/week/month/lunar cycle/position of alpha centaury relative to mars etc. doesnt matter, I checked that noone mined our testing spot right before us, skills dont matter. If you disagree with those, do your own tests to account for those, and just take mine as a fart in the wind of an uneducated boble dibub.

Cheers

 

[Deemer]

8 people droping at the same spot

 

[Cromius69]

I dont care about other miners In argus i do my route some times i run behind someone whos dropping before me and i still get 30%+ hit rate so i think its personal ive seen even 8 claims In few squaremeter spots