Info: Carpet Bombing Tactics: Area Coverage vs Overlap

bran

Provider
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Posts
166
Location
Belgium
Society
The Dung Kickers
Avatar Name
branan bran baraun
Greetings mining community,

Im sure every miner is familiar with the concept of carpet bombing. One might argue that it is a better way of mining compared to just dropping bombs random or in a line as you are more likely to find 'the good hit' in your target area.

I have only returned to eu a few weeks ago but years ago I used to mine a grid with 100m between drops as this was easy to monitor on the map. Considering that the extra overlap allowed me to have a higher "Area coverage" I believed that this compensated the overlap compared to going 110m between drops and missing out. Now after all these years I couldnt resist the urge to once again drop a probe and find some ores. I did however calculate how much overlap I used to have in my runs. The calculation yielded that i have about 87% of the target area covered looking at the problem in 2 dimensions. It does however have close to 9% in overlap in actual searched area. If anyone is good with a mathematical programs and has some spare time I would ask that you do a calculation using a spheroid with the finder depth as 3rd dimension. As this will decrease amount of overlap. But im sure some will argue that they found a 1000m+ claim at the outer edge of their finder range which kind of disproves that train of thought.

Since my return I have been doing the same thing but with 120m between hits to get zero overlap while having some play to have a smooth run. This method has only about 65% area coverage but 0% overlap.

As some of you might know the highest possible rates of coverage without overlap is about 90%. This is achieved with a hexagonal positioning of your probes. This would require that you shift your position by 95 & 55 m e.g if for example go in E-W direction and your next line would be more north, you would have to go north 95m and either W or E 55m and then continue at every 110m in E-W direction. I havent really tried this method as I just now calculated it.

Now what im really after is ofcourse the mythical loot theory :). Does higher Area Coverage yield more hofs/unusual loots or is there no difference?

I'd like to ask for the help of the mining community to provide some feedback but what im really looking for is for people to share their overall hofs vs tt returns or bombs dropped (ofcourse amps need to factored in) sticking to either of the methods I have described. Personally I'll be posting my own finding using the 120m system.

Results might give us a better understanding of the way mining works nowadays

Lets get some data in here and see if we can come to a consensus of how to carpet properly :)

Cheerz,
Bran
 

Rutabaga

Guardian
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Posts
345
Location
Detroit, Michigan
Society
Antipodean Army
Avatar Name
Frankie shibby Rutabaga
The claims aren't actually in the... oh nevermind :)

Personally I don't like any overlap, and I never double-bomb (on purpose anyways)
 

mrproper

Forum Beaver
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Posts
6,274
Location
Romania
Society
Entropia Directory
Avatar Name
Andone mrproper Andrei
Why do you overlap so much? You go one direction every XX00 coord, and in the reverse at XX50. You're now thinking in hexagons.

Here's a drawing, source origin in url:
Entropia-Guide134.png
 

Profit

Elite
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Posts
4,106
In my time in EU, I'd say I've dropped close to 500k drops.
All I can say that reducing overlap did increase ROI over the sample size, when tested about 18 months ago.
Whether the sample size is big enough, is another question (iirc it was over 100x lvl2 amps x2 samples ...pc with those logs has long gone to the cemetery).

Things have changed a lot in that time though...


EDIT: And as mrpoper pointed out, it's relatively easy to minimize overlap.
 

bran

Provider
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Posts
166
Location
Belgium
Society
The Dung Kickers
Avatar Name
branan bran baraun
The claims aren't actually in the... oh nevermind :)


Yes probably, but can you back up that statement? I'd like to see some data which atleast points in the direction of there being no difference in global rate between a high area coverage and essentially random bombing
 

Futurama

Elite
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
3,677
Location
56°58′N 24°8′E
Society
Freelance
Avatar Name
mike Futurama anderson
Yes probably, but can you back up that statement? I'd like to see some data which atleast points in the direction of there being no difference in global rate between a high area coverage and essentially random bombing

I know where you are coming from - back in 2005 or so you could easily spot that deposits were concentrating in small areas, so you really needed to cover more closely the area.

Nowadays it's more or less "random". You still get the same type of ores for a distinct area, but it's not like you are going to miss a hof or a global because you didn't cover exactly the whole area...
 

PaulCrystal

Old Alpha
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Posts
812
Avatar Name
Paul Crystal Thunder
Yes probably, but can you back up that statement? I'd like to see some data which atleast points in the direction of there being no difference in global rate between a high area coverage and essentially random bombing

Don't know if there is such a study, but if you want to have definite proof you can set up your own experiment and tell us what you discovered afterwards.
 

Rutabaga

Guardian
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Posts
345
Location
Detroit, Michigan
Society
Antipodean Army
Avatar Name
Frankie shibby Rutabaga
Yes probably, but can you back up that statement? I'd like to see some data which atleast points in the direction of there being no difference in global rate between a high area coverage and essentially random bombing

You want data?
Look at my entropialife stats :yup:

Besides, this is like trying to prove that God doesn't exist. There is no "set-in-stone" global rate that the game guarantees. It's dynamic baby!!!
 

Vedder

Marauder
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Posts
5,136
I'm not a miner, and dunno much about it.

But are you guys suggesting, that the ore/enmatter deposits in ground, are smart enough to "hide" in the pocket you didn't cover, and that they can move depending on where you drop your bombs, so you don't find them unless you get close to covering an area 100%?

I suppose not... But what is then the reasoning behind your theory that better coverage gives better return? :dunno:

I just don't understand it. :eyecrazy:
 

Profit

Elite
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Posts
4,106
The idea is that materials are in the ground waiting to be found, in which case, covering a larger proportion of area would increase the likelihood of you maximizing your "take" from said area.

Some of us (me included) don't think it works this way, however.
 

Laurent

Guardian
Joined
May 31, 2009
Posts
343
Location
Nantes (France)
Society
Miners Mafia
Avatar Name
Laurent thefrenchman noixdecoco
I'm not a miner, and dunno much about it.

But what is then the reasoning behind your theory that better coverage gives better return? :dunno:

I just don't understand it. :eyecrazy:

If deposits are generated further to coordinates/position.

More coords covered, theorically slightly better chances to find somethin.

(there is a "if")

:twocents:
 

Vedder

Marauder
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Posts
5,136
The idea is that materials are in the ground waiting to be found, in which case, covering a larger proportion of area would increase the likelihood of you maximizing your "take" from said area.

Some of us (me included) don't think it works this way, however.
Ah yes. Greater chance to find things in a given area.
But it wouldn't give you more finds per bomb/probe.

So it isn't about getting the most for your peds?

If deposits are generated further to coordinates/position.

More coords covered, theorically slightly better chances to find somethin.

(there is a "if")

:twocents:
No clue what that meant. :dunno:
 

Profit

Elite
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Posts
4,106
Well if the materials were in the ground, then maximizing the area coverage would give you better probe efficiency.
So it would be like dialing UP the eco on a weapon.


Overly-simplified;

If there was 100ped of redulite in an area and you only covered 80% of the area, you'd potentially get up to 80ped of redulite.
Someone who effectively carpet bombs 100% of the area, should get 100ped of redulite.

OR

If there was a tower of Narc in an area and you only cover 80% of the area effectively, you would have 80% chance of hitting the tower. However, bombing 100% of the area effectively, should guarantee you a tower.




This is the idea, however I do not personally agree with this idea.
 

Dane

Provider
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Posts
118
Location
Canada
Well if the materials were in the ground, then maximizing the area coverage would give you better probe efficiency.
So it would be like dialing UP the eco on a weapon.


Overly-simplified;

If there was 100ped of redulite in an area and you only covered 80% of the area, you'd potentially get up to 80ped of redulite.
Someone who effectively carpet bombs 100% of the area, should get 100ped of redulite.

OR

If there was a tower of Narc in an area and you only cover 80% of the area effectively, you would have 80% chance of hitting the tower. However, bombing 100% of the area effectively, should guarantee you a tower.




This is the idea, however I do not personally agree with this idea.



I think you're looking at this the wrong way for a few reasons.

Consider this;

Nobody knows how large an area exactly, or how deep for that matter, but for the purposes of this explanation, 110m x 110m with a finder range of 55m and 204m avg search depth.

An area may have a set value of each resource.

Blausarium - 10ped.
Belkar - 5ped
Alicenies - 5ped
Crude Oil - 10ped

Now, those can be split into claims of various sizes. I will keep it simple.

Blausarium - V(3.05ped), II(.95ped), III(1.5ped), VI(4.5ped)
Belkar - I(.15ped), II(.85ped), IV(2.5ped), III(1.5ped)
Alicenies - I(.15ped), II(.85ped), IV(2.5ped), III(1.5ped)
Crude Oil - V(3.05ped), II(.95ped), III(1.5ped), VI(4.5ped)

That is a total of 8 Ore Claims and 8 EnMatter Claims. 16 Claims total. (I realize this number may be larger or smaller in actual gameplay)

Now these claims have to be placed at different depths.

Blausarium - V(3.05ped)/956m, II(.95ped)/275m, III(1.5ped)/543m, VI(4.5ped)/360m
Belkar - I(.15ped)/26m, II(.85ped)/840m, IV(2.5ped)/205m, III(1.5ped)/1010m
Alicenies - I(.15ped)/10m, II(.85ped)/540m, IV(2.5ped)/600m, III(1.5ped)/840m
Crude Oil - V(3.05ped)/96m, II(.95ped)/320m, III(1.5ped)/580m, VI(4.5ped)/860m

Those claims can be placed at random coordinates (even next to each other by a few meters) within the 110m x 110m area.Keep in mind that if you hit a claim 25m away from you that still leaves 20m of range left from that exact point where you dropped that probe.

Now you go out mining. If you're only looking for Ores that rules out the EnMatter claims, leaving you with 8 claims to find, but what you don't know is that those claims are at different depths and truly you are only left with Belkar - I(.15ped)/26m - IV(2.5ped)/205m and Blausarium - II(.95ped)/275m - VI(4.5ped)/360m(this is all invisible to you). Leaving you now with 4 available claims in that area because you're limited to Ores and 204m avg search depth.

So you could potentially go out and carpet bomb an area as explained by mrproper (that is the most effective method of carpet bombing) only to find 4 claims at your depth.

My theory is that once a claim is found it has a cooldown period, in this time if any other claims are found in that area the ped value is stacked up per resource (Belkar - I(.15ped)/26m - IV(2.5ped)/205m and Blausarium - II(.95ped)/275m - VI(4.5ped)/360m - - Total: Belkar - 2.65ped - - Total Blausarium - 5.45ped) then it is redivided into the same number of claims but this time one claim could be stacked or split evenly. This is a random generation done by the server. What also contributes to this is resources that are being used (manufacturing) that go back into the system and the system balances the base level peds available in the ground with what has returned to the 'pool' from manufacturing and they take their 'cut' from the profits depending on activity and turnover.
 
Last edited:

Serica

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Posts
5,356
Location
Australia
Society
Antipodean Army
Avatar Name
Harena Serica Turbinis
I've always had the notion that mining has some similarities to hunting .. (bear with me on this :silly2:) .. partly because I think it would let the developers use much the same programming elements in both professions.

Like hunting in that you know WHAT mob (or mix of mobs) will spawn at a given location... but they may not spawn on exactly the same coordinates each time. ie if you kill one mob right after it spawns, another mob will not necessarily reappear on the exact same coordinates.

And like hunting in that you never know how much will loot from an individual kill - that appears to be calculated by some 'loot algorithym' at the time of kill. One advantage of mining though is that you have a much more limited range of loots than hunting - ie if you mine in a lyst/belk/blau area, you get lyst/belk/blau - not as in hunting with getting 101 different types of loot out of a bery/trip/cauda spawn :laugh:

So, you could think of mining as being like hunting blind-folded with a 55m range area-of-effect weapon, where you may 'kill' one 'mob/mineral' in that range (the closest, if there is one) with each shot .. but you can't see if there's a mob actually standing in that range before you shoot.

Also, the 'mob/minerals' aren't limited to being on the surface plane, but have a Z factor to their location, in the same way that flying mobs have a height-above-ground range, but let's leave that to one side for simplicity at this point**.

So, to relate this back to the OP ..
100% Carpet-bombing (and rebombing after each find) might ensure that all the mob/minerals are found for a given area, but it's not necessarily going to ensure any difference in loot than randomly dropping would.

Overlapping ranges would mostly drive up costs, as if you've already hit all the mob/minerals out there, it would be like shooting with no mob left in range, unless in the slim chance that the mob/mineral has managed to re-spawn between those drops (which I think it can, just like if you kill a mob another can re-spawn right beside you. I recall a soc member who dropped while standing still .. stood there to chat in pm for a minute or two, dropped again before moving and globalled).

Now I'm not suggesting that this is exactly how mining works, only MA knows that. I just find it a useful way to visualise it :)



**I'm not too sure how to best visualise the depth of search.
One possibility is that the z-value might be like a range of avg depth +/- x std deviations, with a find being the mob/mineral with an xyz vector distance closest to the epicentre at avg depth.
Another is that the z-value is only relevant in defining the parameter of the search, but the find is the mob/mineral with an xy vector distance closest to the epicentre at the surface.
(And I'm sure others could come up with multiple other scenarios that might fit too)
The differences though are probably more of relevance in decisions about 1/ the choice of finder, and 2/ whether or not to re-bomb after a find.
 

Profit

Elite
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Posts
4,106
I think you're looking at this the wrong way for a few reasons.

Consider this;

Nobody knows how large an area exactly, or how deep for that matter, but for the purposes of this explanation, 110m x 110m with a finder range of 55m and 204m avg search depth.

An area may have a set value of each resource.

Blausarium - 10ped.
Belkar - 5ped
Alicenies - 5ped
Crude Oil - 10ped

Now, those can be split into claims of various sizes. I will keep it simple.

Blausarium - V(3.05ped), II(.95ped), III(1.5ped), VI(4.5ped)
Belkar - I(.15ped), II(.85ped), IV(2.5ped), III(1.5ped)
Alicenies - I(.15ped), II(.85ped), IV(2.5ped), III(1.5ped)
Crude Oil - V(3.05ped), II(.95ped), III(1.5ped), VI(4.5ped)

That is a total of 8 Ore Claims and 8 EnMatter Claims. 16 Claims total. (I realize this number may be larger or smaller in actual gameplay)

Now these claims have to be placed at different depths.

Blausarium - V(3.05ped)/956m, II(.95ped)/275m, III(1.5ped)/543m, VI(4.5ped)/360m
Belkar - I(.15ped)/26m, II(.85ped)/840m, IV(2.5ped)/205m, III(1.5ped)/1010m
Alicenies - I(.15ped)/10m, II(.85ped)/540m, IV(2.5ped)/600m, III(1.5ped)/840m
Crude Oil - V(3.05ped)/96m, II(.95ped)/320m, III(1.5ped)/580m, VI(4.5ped)/860m

Those claims can be placed at random coordinates (even next to each other by a few meters) within the 110m x 110m area.Keep in mind that if you hit a claim 25m away from you that still leaves 20m of range left from that exact point where you dropped that probe.

Now you go out mining. If you're only looking for Ores that rules out the EnMatter claims, leaving you with 8 claims to find, but what you don't know is that those claims are at different depths and truly you are only left with Belkar - I(.15ped)/26m - IV(2.5ped)/205m and Blausarium - II(.95ped)/275m - VI(4.5ped)/360m(this is all invisible to you). Leaving you now with 4 available claims in that area because you're limited to Ores and 204m avg search depth.

So you could potentially go out and carpet bomb an area as explained by mrproper (that is the most effective method of carpet bombing) only to find 4 claims at your depth.

My theory is that once a claim is found it has a cooldown period, in this time if any other claims are found in that area the ped value is stacked up per resource (Belkar - I(.15ped)/26m - IV(2.5ped)/205m and Blausarium - II(.95ped)/275m - VI(4.5ped)/360m - - Total: Belkar - 2.65ped - - Total Blausarium - 5.45ped) then it is redivided into the same number of claims but this time one claim could be stacked or split evenly. This is a random generation done by the server. What also contributes to this is resources that are being used (manufacturing) that go back into the system and the system balances the base level peds available in the ground with what has returned to the 'pool' from manufacturing and they take their 'cut' from the profits depending on activity and turnover.

The most important part of my comment was the "OVERLY SIMPLIFIED;" part. Perhaps YOU were looking at my post the wrong way? lol
 

Dane

Provider
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Posts
118
Location
Canada
Well if the materials were in the ground, then maximizing the area coverage would give you better probe efficiency.
So it would be like dialing UP the eco on a weapon.


Overly-simplified;

If there was 100ped of redulite in an area and you only covered 80% of the area, you'd potentially get up to 80ped of redulite.
Someone who effectively carpet bombs 100% of the area, should get 100ped of redulite.

OR

If there was a tower of Narc in an area and you only cover 80% of the area effectively, you would have 80% chance of hitting the tower. However, bombing 100% of the area effectively, should guarantee you a tower.




This is the idea, however I do not personally agree with this idea.



Okay, lets try this then...


To effectively cover a desired area you would need to carpet bomb from 0m to 1500m(?) as well as cover the area with your 55m range as posted by mrproper. You would need 4-5 finders for each location you drop a probe to cover the depth.

By the way, does anyone know if this has been tested? It may be expensive, but could turn out very lucrative. I certainly don't have the skill or peds to drop 7.5ped in each 55m zone.
 

Futurama

Elite
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
3,677
Location
56°58′N 24°8′E
Society
Freelance
Avatar Name
mike Futurama anderson
By the way, does anyone know if this has been tested? It may be expensive, but could turn out very lucrative. I certainly don't have the skill or peds to drop 7.5ped in each 55m zone.

With the bold part you already say that It won't work, because you will lose peds. :scratch2: Some people have been talking about this for years, but I have never seen anyone do it just for the very same reason - loosing peds. I think that shows how much people believe in their theories. :laugh: I personally think this one is BS.



I kinda agree with what profit said - from time to time when I had logged my mining results for a particular area, it usually showed some consistency to what proportions of materials you get. So for example if you get 5% redulite (just an example, not necessary correct) of you total loot, you will get more redulite by covering more of the area (increasing your turnover).
 

Dane

Provider
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Posts
118
Location
Canada
With the bold part you already say that It won't work, because you will lose peds. :scratch2: Some people have been talking about this for years, but I have never seen anyone do it just for the very same reason - loosing peds. I think that shows how much people believe in their theories. :laugh: I personally think this one is BS.



I kinda agree with what profit said - from time to time when I had logged my mining results for a particular area, it usually showed some consistency to what proportions of materials you get. So for example if you get 5% redulite (just an example, not necessary correct) of you total loot, you will get more redulite by covering more of the area (increasing your turnover).

No, the bold part does not say "It won't work". It says my avatar and bank account do not provide the possibility to mine in this fashion. If I had enough skills to max the VRX3000 to tier 10 with depth enhancers and peds to bomb each finder in each 55m location I probably would.
 

Futurama

Elite
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
3,677
Location
56°58′N 24°8′E
Society
Freelance
Avatar Name
mike Futurama anderson
No, the bold part does not say "It won't work". It says my avatar and bank account do not provide the possibility to mine in this fashion. If I had enough skills to max the VRX3000 to tier 10 with depth enhancers and peds to bomb each finder in each 55m location I probably would.

My point was that if it would really work, peds probably woudn't be a problem, you just dropped your probes faster than usual. Besides with this "technique" you are hoping to get more out of the ground, right? So better tt returns as well?

I agree, that skills is a limitation.
 

Dane

Provider
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Posts
118
Location
Canada
I would still need a sizable amount of peds to start, you can't hope to drop 7.5peds (or whatever it takes) in one spot all the way down past 1743m (maxed vrx3000 T10 enhanced - or deeper) and expect to hit something, that particular 55m zone you dropped on might have nothing on it all the way to the bottom. I would want to try it with at least 100 drops. 750ped (unamped, lol) would be a good start i suppose. Not to mention the cost of the VRX3000(maxed at lvl61), getting it to tier 10 and the cost of the depth enhancers.. + the cost of all the other finders you'd need to get a continual depth all the way to the bottom. :)

But then again, is 100 drops enough?
 

Vedder

Marauder
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Posts
5,136
Well if the materials were in the ground, then maximizing the area coverage would give you better probe efficiency.
...
No, it would give you bigger % of the the materials in the ground, but for a bigger number of probes, which could have given the same amount of materials in another area.

...So it would be like dialing UP the eco on a weapon....
Nope, for this to be the same, you'd have to increase your chances PER probe. Not just getting more stuff from a defined area at the cost of more probes.


Overly-simplified;

If there was 100ped of redulite in an area and you only covered 80% of the area, you'd potentially get up to 80ped of redulite.
Someone who effectively carpet bombs 100% of the area, should get 100ped of redulite.
...
Yes, but they'd be using more probes.

If there was a tower of Narc in an area and you only cover 80% of the area effectively, you would have 80% chance of hitting the tower. However, bombing 100% of the area effectively, should guarantee you a tower.
...
Yes, but maybe there's no tower in that area, but only in the next one.
So spending extra probes in the same area, doesn't increase your chances of finding a tower.


You all seem to agree, yet I still don't understand your fundamental assumption, that increasing coverage of a given area is good for your economy.
Isn't i like claiming, that if you hunt Levis you have to kill ALL the levis in an area to get the good loot?

I just don't get it. :laugh:

But then again... It's MA. Who knows what's going on in their heads. :laugh:
 

TACUTTING

Old Alpha
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Posts
777
Location
Raven valley
Society
Ice Cold
Avatar Name
Tacutting
I would rather think its a bit of every loot theory mixed with some favour from Ma /personal loot pool +90% return in TT ,

If an area/server is empty its just empty , no matter how much you drop , unless system seems to think you has a payback coming for you .

I would say that the bigger hit comes in the first drops in that area anyway ,well it used to be like that but lately its just looks random from what ive seen .
 

bran

Provider
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Posts
166
Location
Belgium
Society
The Dung Kickers
Avatar Name
branan bran baraun
Isn't i like claiming, that if you hunt Levis you have to kill ALL the levis in an area to get the good loot?

You sound very convinced but have you actually tried this ? and what were your results ? And besides what im really after is not overall increase in return as sure thats impossible to really change, but what i wanna see is if either technique has higher global rate, as this might be interesting concerning amp usage and short term profit :p.
 
Top