Does a "better" finder provide lower returns?

[syntax]

I am a bit confused about some results I've been getting lately. I found a particular spot I like to mine in that was returning relatively predictable results, and had been doing fairly well there with an F-105. After getting a modest HOF there, I bought a TK220, which is in my skill range so I thought the learning bonus would be nice, and it has a much greater depth than the F-105.

Immediately after switching to the TK220, my returns went to hell. Where I was typically in the 80-90% TT range, I was now getting 50-60% TT, but still hitting the same ores/em. I would have expected the TK220 to give me even better results as I thought with the greater depth I would have better opportunity for finds.

On a whim, I did runs yesterday and today with the F-105 again, and both were positive return.

What does this mean? Does the skill bonus and greater depth have a trade-off of lower hit rates? Does the depth not work the way I think it does? Does this mean you not only have to find the right locations for ores, but also what type of finder works in that location?

 

[Robotek]

To answer with the famous MArco`s words... "even we dont know how loot works exactly..." (might be a bit skewed, but I remember him explaining things in this way...) hope this helps a bit..lolz

Cheers,
Robo

 

[Falagor]

I am a bit confused about some results I've been getting lately. I found a particular spot I like to mine in that was returning relatively predictable results, and had been doing fairly well there with an F-105. After getting a modest HOF there, I bought a TK220, which is in my skill range so I thought the learning bonus would be nice, and it has a much greater depth than the F-105.

Immediately after switching to the TK220, my returns went to hell. Where I was typically in the 80-90% TT range, I was now getting 50-60% TT, but still hitting the same ores/em. I would have expected the TK220 to give me even better results as I thought with the greater depth I would have better opportunity for finds.

On a whim, I did runs yesterday and today with the F-105 again, and both were positive return.

What does this mean? Does the skill bonus and greater depth have a trade-off of lower hit rates? Does the depth not work the way I think it does? Does this mean you not only have to find the right locations for ores, but also what type of finder works in that location?

1) Always use maxed equipement - this also aplies to mining. Using not maxed equipemnt always criples TT retrns.

2) Bolded part - exactly this + timing. So key to mining is: area + finder + timing.

Falagor

 

[dr3w]

1) Always use maxed equipement - this also aplies to mining. Using not maxed equipemnt always criples TT retrns.

It's NOT applied to mining. Umaxed finder - slower reload speed, lesser depth - TT returns doesn't affected.

2) Bolded part - exactly this + timing. So key to mining is: area + finder + timing.
Falagor

Key to mining is: knowledge of average markup in area + basic math.

And Spirals Theory.

 

[forgo]

There is always a skill effect when using items. The difference you see I believe is the same kind of thing with UL old school Faps, vs the new (L).

Old school (emt-2600 or f-105) are maxed result for these items, max heal, max find. Despite no SIB, and very low profs. Its why I use emt-2900 (55 heal 26/min, always maxed). The trade off is decay, you will use less in the SIB in general, and they also boost some skill gain, the value of those gains so to speak, of course will come out of your loot return. (skills and decay savings are part of the overall return, which many people do not include the skill values in their returns)

Many items might say need prof level x to max, but in reality the true maximum return point is several levels above that. You can see this with blueprints in crafting. I would personally consider that finder
(tk220) at level 40 some+ to get the max effects.

Might want to try z20 as a next step from f-105, not the huge jump in depth the 220 is giving you.

Which is the other point. What you generally find at 550 depth averages will not be found as effectively with 800, so IF you use f-105 in area x for awhile then go use something with more depth, you will show a difference in return....because those same fields are not prime for the tk220 depth.

So the other part of that is with the new finder, you need to find new places to mine effectively as well.

IMO anyhow, hope it helps

 

[syntax]

1) Always use maxed equipement - this also aplies to mining. Using not maxed equipemnt always criples TT retrns.

2) Bolded part - exactly this + timing. So key to mining is: area + finder + timing.

Well it is at 100% skill for me, so I guess it's just not a good finder for the same area I was using the F-105. Great, so mining is even more complicated than I thought.

 

[syntax]

Key to mining is: knowledge of average markup in area + basic math.

And Spirals Theory.

What is Spirals Theory?

 

[syntax]

The trade off is decay, you will use less in the SIB in general, and they also boost some skill gain, the value of those gains so to speak, of course will come out of your loot return. (skills and decay savings are part of the overall return, which many people do not include the skill values in their returns)

I never thought about it like that, makes sense. Though I have to say, it seems pretty disproportionate. Though I have admittedly not logged the rate of skill gains, I have been factoring in decay, and it's not like the 105 is significantly higher, certainly not even close to the proportionate loss in loot.

Many items might say need prof level x to max, but in reality the true maximum return point is several levels above that. You can see this with blueprints in crafting. I would personally consider that finder
(tk220) at level 40 some+ to get the max effects.

Might want to try z20 as a next step from f-105, not the huge jump in depth the 220 is giving you.

Wow, so really you are saying double the required skill - in which case you wouldn't get the SIB though, right? I guess the only benefit at that point is the depth and the slightly lower decay?

The Z20 is about the same depth as the F-105, and at L20 I'm beyond the SIB, so the main benefit would be better decay I suppose. Which is definitely a benefit.

Which is the other point. What you generally find at 550 depth averages will not be found as effectively with 800, so IF you use f-105 in area x for awhile then go use something with more depth, you will show a difference in return....because those same fields are not prime for the tk220 depth.

I think this is one of the main things I'm confused about. With the F-105, avg depth is about 550. With the TK220, avg is almost 800. Doesn't that mean that the 220 should find anything that the 105 would find, and more? It sounds like you're saying the finder's depth is where it searches, not where it searches up to.

In other words, if a finder's depth is 800, does that mean it looks for ores at around 800 or it looks for ores from 0-800?

 

[Salo]

What is Spirals Theory?

I believe Legion came up with it...it included some timer I think...was it every time the shadow moved? It was a theory to determine where the next find would be generated (or had already been generated...some debate about this)

I am no expert on this though, maybe someone else could explain

 

[Pyhä Antero]

I believe Legion came up with it...it included some timer I think...was it every time the shadow moved? It was a theory to determine where the next find would be generated (or had already been generated...some debate about this)

I am no expert on this though, maybe someone else could explain

Spirals were by R4ttexx, but Legion's 8 theory is about same as spirals.

 

[Neil Stockton]

There are not different "layers" of claims to find at different depths. Claims "in the ground" have X,Y coordinates but no mineral identity or depth until you find the claim. Of course you will find different minerals at different depths.

Which finder you should use depends on your goals... if you want economy, compare depth, MU of ores at that depth, and finder decay and see what gives you the best profit. If you want to skill quickly, use a finder in SIB and use a skill boost amp.

 

[il]

here are some resource depths at the fron page:

http://www.mininglog.com/


PS:

a rattex thread:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?223536-Number-Spiral-Theory-History

 

[syntax]

There are not different "layers" of claims to find at different depths. Claims "in the ground" have X,Y coordinates but no mineral identity or depth until you find the claim. Of course you will find different minerals at different depths.

Which finder you should use depends on your goals... if you want economy, compare depth, MU of ores at that depth, and finder decay and see what gives you the best profit. If you want to skill quickly, use a finder in SIB and use a skill boost amp.

So to me it sounds like any time I drop: there is first a probability of a hit based on location + skills + luck, then a probability of the size of the hit, based on luck + amp, and finally a probability of a particular resource based on the avg depth of the finder + probability of that resource in that area. Is that about right?

 

[syntax]

a rattex thread:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?223536-Number-Spiral-Theory-History

Interesting read! I suppose any time there is real money involved there are going to be people spending an outrageous amount of effort trying to figure out the system.

 

[Doer]

Interesting read! I suppose any time there is real money involved there are going to be people spending an outrageous amount of effort trying to figure out the system.

+the human brain "likes" to "find" patterns

Ah r4ttex, those were entertaining times.

 

[Shapememory]

i havnt seen any data that shows using an unmaxed finder decreases returns. unlike for example a gun where economy is affected, the performance of the finder is limited to a decrease in drop rate and depth so within those parameters should give similar return as a maxed finder.

ores do have depths, so perhaps you changed the depth you were searching at enough to affect your return. the F105 has average search depth of 522, while the tk220 has an average depth of 776, even unmaxed you could have been searching deeper than you normally do even with the search range being the average search depth +-200m (if i remember correctly)

more likely you just entered a down swing. Do you return over how much TT cycled the good and bad returned were over?

personally, i think finds go something like [(is drop in unsearched location?)*(probability of find)=find? if (yes),(lookup search depth range), (lookup loot table)*(probability of finding loot at depth)= assign find with depth and position]

 

[syntax]

i havnt seen any data that shows using an unmaxed finder decreases returns. unlike for example a gun where economy is affected, the performance of the finder is limited to a decrease in drop rate and depth so within those parameters should give similar return as a maxed finder.

ores do have depths, so perhaps you changed the depth you were searching at enough to affect your return. the F105 has average search depth of 522, while the tk220 has an average depth of 776, even unmaxed you could have been searching deeper than you normally do even with the search range being the average search depth +-200m (if i remember correctly)

more likely you just entered a down swing. Do you return over how much TT cycled the good and bad returned were over?

personally, i think finds go something like [(is drop in unsearched location?)*(probability of find)=find? if (yes),(lookup search depth range), (lookup loot table)*(probability of finding loot at depth)= assign find with depth and position]

It's possible it was just extended bad luck, but still seems weird to me. The TK220 is maxed for me, btw.

Over all runs, these are my average TT returns with both finders:

F-105 = 108%
TK220 = 60%

I will say the F-105 stats include a HOF which brought up the return. With that removed it was 77%, so it's not as much of a spread, and possibly the 220 would eventually come back up.

I didn't think about the unsearched location factor. I wonder if another player searching in the same area impacts your hit rate/return even if they don't get anything? Or what if they are searching at a higher or lower depth?

 

[Robin]

I am a bit confused about some results I've been getting lately. I found a particular spot I like to mine in that was returning relatively predictable results, and had been doing fairly well there with an F-105. After getting a modest HOF there, I bought a TK220, which is in my skill range so I thought the learning bonus would be nice, and it has a much greater depth than the F-105.

Immediately after switching to the TK220, my returns went to hell. Where I was typically in the 80-90% TT range, I was now getting 50-60% TT, but still hitting the same ores/em. I would have expected the TK220 to give me even better results as I thought with the greater depth I would have better opportunity for finds.

On a whim, I did runs yesterday and today with the F-105 again, and both were positive return.

What does this mean? Does the skill bonus and greater depth have a trade-off of lower hit rates? Does the depth not work the way I think it does? Does this mean you not only have to find the right locations for ores, but also what type of finder works in that location?

seems to be a problem with deeper finders these Days..I also do better with a F104 or 5 over a vrx3k...I'm 61 prospecting BTW

 

[tamlin]

So to me it sounds like any time I drop: there is first a probability of a hit based on location + skills + luck, then a probability of the size of the hit, based on luck + amp, and finally a probability of a particular resource based on the avg depth of the finder + probability of that resource in that area. Is that about right?

The order is not known, and possibly irrelevant, but what it's claimed is:
1. x/y. No matter what finder you use, that defines NRF. That's roll 1.
2. If find, xy + finder (+enhancers) could decide what you get. That's roll 2. Avatar-skills are completely disregarded unless you use a non-maxed finder.
3. Size. If you passed the two previous rolls, you now get a roll for size.

This is AFAIK the system, and those three "rolls" (shorthand for "roll of dice", but in the software probably simply a call to rand(), followed by probability check, I bet) displays with 100% certainty that EU is gambling.

There are obviously "affectors" here, like area 1 having 500% more probability of find (Monrovia or what it's called could be seen as proof of this), or 10% (25%?) probability of find (FOMA et.al.), but I believe the general idea is made clear.

As for how this fits in the bigger picture? Isn't it obvious: MA's "master server" tells what server(s)/area(s) to enable/disable at various times. Maybe even the master-server stops replying (not impossible due to it crashing, again) at times.

As hypothesis and theories go, I find this having some engineering credibility.

 

[syntax]

seems to be a problem with deeper finders these Days..I also do better with a F104 or 5 over a vrx3k...I'm 61 prospecting BTW

At least I'm not the only one that has experienced this. I wonder if MA factors this in as a gambling component... with the deeper finders you have the potential for "more valuable" ores, but the tradeoff is you have a lower hitrate.

 

[syntax]

The order is not known, and possibly irrelevant, but what it's claimed is:
1. x/y. No matter what finder you use, that defines NRF. That's roll 1.
2. If find, xy + finder (+enhancers) could decide what you get. That's roll 2. Avatar-skills are completely disregarded unless you use a non-maxed finder.
3. Size. If you passed the two previous rolls, you now get a roll for size.

If skills have nothing to do with it, then what is the point of even having them? I'm not doubting you, I'm just asking.

This is AFAIK the system, and those three "rolls" (shorthand for "roll of dice", but in the software probably simply a call to rand(), followed by probability check, I bet) displays with 100% certainty that EU is gambling.

As pseudo-random number generators go, rand() is probably the worst, and it's only used in trivial use-cases. It would be far too easy to game the system. I would imagine they are using some Mersenne Twister variant with a custom distribution algorithm, but I don't really know much about the algorithms that power gambling systems. I can't imagine MA uses something vastly different from what an online casino uses. (Except online casinos have better payout rates. )

There are obviously "affectors" here, like area 1 having 500% more probability of find (Monrovia or what it's called could be seen as proof of this), or 10% (25%?) probability of find (FOMA et.al.), but I believe the general idea is made clear.

Wait, Monrovia has a 500% better hitrate?! Ugh, I've been wasting my time on Caly!

As for how this fits in the bigger picture? Isn't it obvious: MA's "master server" tells what server(s)/area(s) to enable/disable at various times. Maybe even the master-server stops replying (not impossible due to it crashing, again) at times.

Interesting thought, but it wouldn't make much sense from a design perspective. I can't imagine them using anything but a decentralized distributed platform.

 

[FallenAngel]

At least I'm not the only one that has experienced this. I wonder if MA factors this in as a gambling component... with the deeper finders you have the potential for "more valuable" ores, but the tradeoff is you have a lower hitrate.

the finders that robin is referring to are quite "exotic" and not what i would call regular deeper finders.
i personally dont have any proof but in my own experience using finders you are not maxed on is a very bad idea and i would normally only use finders i have more than maxed.
if you are looking for a nice finder with some decent depth to get some of the higher MU enmatters with or to do treasure hunting on arkadia with, if you are not so high skilled, i would recommend looking at the emine FS, it has lower skill requirements than the TK series, lower TT value, lower decay, and lower markup, so for all intents and purposes a better finder for people that have intermediate skills, and i would say that it is a much better finder to use than the 105.

if you are interested in how loot and hitrate works in entropia there are a few interesting threads where a statistician looked at data from various miners and wrote a paper on it in 2008/2009, this data collection was repeated in 2012 to see if anything had changed in the mean time. the datasets used contained +/- 7000 claims each.

the raw data from the first experiments and some preliminary results:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?132510-Mining-loot-analysis
the published paper:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?167998-Mining-Payout
the 2012 repeat experiment:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?230470-mining-data-2012

the threads contain a lot of discussion and in some cases arguments, but in between that there is interesting information, graphs and conclusions.