Mining finder radius fake

[Thark]

Interesting, can we see the data and stuff that convinced you?

 

[R4tt3xx]

Interesting, can we see the data and stuff that convinced you?

I cannot reveal that publicly. As I do not know what impact that will have on Mindark and "the whales".

Lets just say that the game runs though various set distances that will give the avatar triggering them hits, each distance is unique to each avatar at a specific time.

That's why I hate this system, I note the change, make the appropriate (I cant spell) calculations but I cant make them quick enough and the system has moved onto the next set of distances, the timer sucks.. Also the simplicity and beauty of this system is obfuscated by the timer which encourages miners to plant as many probes in the ground as possible in order to maximize chances to hit something..

Who would have thought that all you have to do is pull up a 21bpm metronome video on youtube, drop when you feel the beat and watch the system cycle through the various cycles. (not that I am recommending that you do this or follow anyone elses advice on these forums as they are all third person and can be hearsay at best). If you would like to try this, please do so at your own risk and please ffs, use a md1.. This is not worth amping over.

What convinced me is when I use my sheet, my hits are significantly larger and more consistent, for a cycle, then you miss a bit, adjust to the new cycle (if you can).

The idea for the 21 beat metronome came from Nightbird.. ye remember him... His timer idea for me sucked the life out of the game.. All the work that goes into the system can just be bypassed...

Oh my signature does contain a thesis written by one of our vet players that can be used as a blueprint to what I am using..

 

[Ferial]

The way that the game actually works is that the finder checks to see if the coordinates that you are standing on will hit, if they hit, a claim is generated around the avatar effectively making all mining tools range 1m

This is finally getting close to something that is close to what we have.

Some caveats;
The finder doesnt't do anything.
The finder is just a tool that allows you access to the system.
Different tools, different parameters to forward to "the system"

I think once again you have used bias to come to a conclusion.

Now, some things for you to consider:

If the finder range was effectively 1m, would you ever find a claim that is anywhere except in the position you dropped the probe?

If the finder range was effectively 1m, how could you find two/three claims in different positions with one drop?

I think I understand what you mean, though. You mean that on any given drop "the finder checks" the position of your drop and determined if you get a claim or not, and thus with it checking only that coordinate you come to the conclusion that range is a single coordinate?

Don't you think it is far more likely that when you drop a probe, your "finder" sends information, lets say (drop cost, position, tool parameters[depth, range]) etc. And the return value is calculated based on the parameters and sent back to "finder".

I think (note, think. Based on absolutely no data at all) that it is more likely that range is a parameter used in calculating outcomes (the same way efficiency works in hunting, just slightly different). Whether or not this is by checking a larger circle on some sort of resource grid or it is directly multiplying a value in a formula is kind of beside the point. The end result is the same(for the purposes of this discussion)

What I alluded to in your other thread is that trying to understand what is going on inside the little black box that computes your results is futile, and that you should probably spend your time testing what you can. E.g. input and ouputs.

If you want to learn about what finder range does, you need to eliminate other parameters (as much as possible) and record data at different range values. I seem to recall kingofaces describing a way of doing so, either in this thread or another one.

What is likely the most interesting to compare is hit rate and avg. claim size.

Good luck in your testing.

 

[ZPF]

So the two possibilities seem to be
1) range affects hit rate calc
2) range affects claim size

Or maybe both? Neither possibility is confirmed, & even indoors we don't know if range is actually doing anything. It's just a number on a tooltip. We have no idea where or how that number is being used.

The only confirmed fact regarding "range" is that your claim will not spawn further away than your finder's max range.

Does it matter if 1) or 2) or both are true? Not really, all that matters is how it affects TT returns.

You could just do 1000 drops w/ and w/o enhancers and you'll most likely have an answer regarding hit rate and average claim size (just ignore multipliers).
But this is useless information.

We don't know if there are hidden variables or an interaction between range & multipliers.
Testing TT returns would require a much larger dataset.

This is one of those things I never found worth testing. Especially b/c I don't put it past MA to put something completely useless in the game.

 

[Haruto Rat]

The only confirmed fact regarding "range" is that your claim will not spawn further away than your finder's max range.

There's also that little inconvenient fact that your claim will never spawn on the other side of a server border. If it was all fake, the system would have no problem with that.

(This is an old test however, and I'm currently on a planet that doesn't allow repeating it (on RT the only border between two servers is all water).)

 

[R4tt3xx]

1 968 132
So the two possibilities seem to be
1) range affects hit rate calc
2) range affects claim size

Or maybe both? Neither possibility is confirmed, & even indoors we don't know if range is actually doing anything. It's just a number on a tooltip. We have no idea where or how that number is being used.

The only confirmed fact regarding "range" is that your claim will not spawn further away than your finder's max range.

Does it matter if 1) or 2) or both are true? Not really, all that matters is how it affects TT returns.

You could just do 1000 drops w/ and w/o enhancers and you'll most likely have an answer regarding hit rate and average claim size (just ignore multipliers).
But this is useless information.

We don't know if there are hidden variables or an interaction between range & multipliers.
Testing TT returns would require a much larger dataset.

This is one of those things I never found worth testing. Especially b/c I don't put it past MA to put something completely useless in the game.

Range "forces" players to drop probes a 1x or 2x radius of the finder, that's all. I mean there's no way that a claim can spawn in an area that I already scanned is there ? (sorry I am being sarcastic.)

If you are looking to increase hit rate and you want to do it "legitimately" as yourself why does the "vein" that I am suddenly mining on either end on a double, a claim that has lower or higher size than the average of the vein ? Has anyone noticed that...

A claim is generated at the right place and time, when both x and y are members of the correct .....

MA did put something "useless" in the game, the skill system, please check my signature for the possible reason for that..

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

The way that the game actually works is that the finder checks to see if the coordinates that you are standing on will hit, if they hit, a claim is generated around the avatar effectively making all mining tools range 1m

False, I've found claims further than 1m away from me.

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

I cannot reveal that publicly. As I do not know what impact that will have on Mindark and "the whales".

Oh brother. You the President now?

 

[R4tt3xx]

Oh brother. You the President now?

Fine, I am getting sick of keeping this a secret.

The basic idea is to factorize your x and y coordinates so that they are the closest possible to a set set. So most miners mine at +55 or +110m, If you were doing this optimally one would make your x and y coordinate a factor of 55 or 110, they way you are essentially on the same relative coordinate, moving to the next relative coordinate (which may be the same coordinate) in the set.
TARGET COORD = INT(CURRENT COORD/FACTOR)*FACTOR

You could essentially do this with any number. Then next part is complex.

Essentially construct a square domain centered around your avatar consisting of (radius*2)^2 members. Now for each member determine how close each one is to the perfect factor of your radius and head to the coordinate pair associated with the member. If you miss, use the following maximum members in your domain, (max game skill level), (max game skill level - your current skill level). You should see the "veins" spontaneously appear then disappear when using this method. You should also see that depending on the time, only certain domain sizes are present.

One domain of particular note is 9999 members.. It only contains four digits, which so happens to coincide with the four digit skill gains that our avatars experience.

One more thing, each mining tool also has a model number try that too as a member suitable for exploitation... You can also use irrational numbers such as PI, PHI,E, C10. By taking this approach and looking at the mining system relatively from the avatar's perspective it may give us clues as to how this really works..

OH OH heres another one, convert the domain from Cartesian to polar and rotate it by a skillgain value... sneaky yes... Or adjust the scale of the array by a skillgain. Perhaps each type of skillgain performs a different action on the array

Perception, just look for the member matching the increase.
Min Sense, its a field skill so scale the field to 20000-your skill lvl.. etc..

There's so much to test with this approach..

Another one.. Normalize your mining level using x factor = exp(skill gain) y factor =ln(level). If the key is sitting in the skills, then a domain is the perfect way to visualize that data, don't you think ?

 

[Deleted member 71093]

so basically, just fuck around with numbers and then randomly change some of those numbers because reasons, got it.

brb, gonna go get rich

 

[R4tt3xx]

so basically, just fuck around with numbers and then randomly change some of those numbers because reasons, got it.

brb, gonna go get rich

Getting rich is not the point.
This is a game. have fn with it...

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

Getting rich is not the point.
This is a game. have fn with it...

I’m having a great time, please tell me more. This is so F’in fascinating

 

[R4tt3xx]

I’m having a great time, please tell me more. This is so F’in fascinating

E^n(th)(rho)(pi)(a) I mean you have seen that one b4...

f'n fantastic

 

[Thark]

M8, you alright?

I'm not even being joking here, you got someone you can talk to in real life? At first I thought you were trolling or something, but this is some serious nonsense and I'm getting worried. I mean, if thats your normal state, no problem, what ever, keep on keeping on. We're all different and great, but if you had something happen to you, or maybe stopped the meds a while ago or something, just talk to a friend in real life. Hear what they have to say.

I know writing this kinda thing on a forum makes it sound like I'm making fun of you or like I'm trying to put you down or sth but i promise I'm not. That just seriously reminds me of a friend, who over the course of a couple of months, really spiraled. Bought our house twice, water rights and all, catholic church after him, implants, twins, cloning and fake kids the whole nine yards. Just watch out for yourself m8.

And again, if thats just you, cool. But if not, seriously, talk to someone RL.

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

And again, if thats just you, cool.

False, still concerning. Shouldn't normalize this behavior.

 

[R4tt3xx]

M8, you alright?

I'm not even being joking here, you got someone you can talk to in real life? At first I thought you were trolling or something, but this is some serious nonsense and I'm getting worried. I mean, if thats your normal state, no problem, what ever, keep on keeping on. We're all different and great, but if you had something happen to you, or maybe stopped the meds a while ago or something, just talk to a friend in real life. Hear what they have to say.

I know writing this kinda thing on a forum makes it sound like I'm making fun of you or like I'm trying to put you down or sth but i promise I'm not. That just seriously reminds me of a friend, who over the course of a couple of months, really spiraled. Bought our house twice, water rights and all, catholic church after him, implants, twins, cloning and fake kids the whole nine yards. Just watch out for yourself m8.

And again, if thats just you, cool. But if not, seriously, talk to someone RL.

Im cool..

I actually did talk to someone regarding the math, a couple of people actually, turns out that the math that I was using at the time, they were using to calibrate measuring instruments (temp sensors), namely ln and exp. So yes, I was so shocked that I was not actually loosing my mind.

Let me try to explain it in laymen terms..

You have a grid starting at point 0,0 and ending at point 999,999. There are 999^2 members of that grid. Each member can be given a number based on where they fall on the grid

0 0,0
1 0,1
2 0,2 etc and so on

So when system tells you , you have gained 0.x exp in geo. Head to point x*1000 and see whats there. Now the problem with this is the timer, you only have a set amount of time to get to the correct location before the game shifts to it's next set of ^2 numbers. This creates a very dynamic, non random and most importantly "SKILL BASED" system that uses your actual skill level as a non random variable. I am not the only one that thought this.

My signature contains a thesis written by a ex mindark Intern that describes a similar system for Entropia Universe mining specifically.

There's just so many ways to change and develop this concept, I mean MA was or could even still be using a spiral as their base domain. I was also suspecting a relationship between the skill system and a "long tailed distribution" hence I was asking for information regarding it. And lo and behold I find exactly what I am looking for posted by an old Mindark employee.

On a personal note, yes I am that kind of person that can obsess about something constantly, but I am not willing to have it impact important areas of my life. This is something that I do when idle, my brain is always working, it need stimulation..

Let me go through my math tonight, create a really stripped down version of what I have and I will let you decide if its valid or not and if it accomplishes what my goals are. It may not necessarily work ingame but I want to know if the math does what I say it does.

 

[R4tt3xx]

False, still concerning. Shouldn't normalize this behavior.

I see what you did there.... Without meaning to do it.....

 

[kingofaces]

False, still concerning. Shouldn't normalize this behavior.

It's reminding me a lot of crank "scientists" we run into IRL sometimes that say that have some intricate idea that upends current knowledge, grand claims they have it figured out, etc. with complicated or fancy sounding math. When asked to show the data, they're mum pretty quick because they actually don't have data to back anything up. The "I can't reveal that publicly" idea is generally used as a cover to avoid scrutiny often when there would be no problem revealing that data if it existed despite the claim otherwise.

The other less malicious mindset is that people even believe what they are saying themselves often in an appeal to "magic math", which is a source of a lot of internet memes out there. The nice way of putting it in science is called a non sequitur with the current invocations of magic math. Magic math obsession is a far cry from actually analyzing data that scientists will do, and that's playing out pretty starkly in this thread. Hyperfocus here on concepts related to spirals or throwing out other random math terms comes to mind with that. It just falls into the technobabble issue I mentioned earlier rather than addressing anything concrete.

I also say that as one of the few people that do release some mining data and findings for people to see and really am seeing the irony in the posts. Of course I have some data I wouldn't post about in forums, but I also don't go bragging that I've got it all figured out. If it's a subject I wouldn't show data about, I simply wouldn't be making much of a statement if anything about that subject.

 

[R4tt3xx]

It's reminding me a lot of crank "scientists" we run into IRL sometimes that say that have some intricate idea that upends current knowledge, grand claims they have it figured out, etc. with complicated or fancy sounding math. When asked to show the data, they're mum pretty quick because they actually don't have data to back anything up. The "I can't reveal that publicly" idea is generally used as a cover to avoid scrutiny often when there would be no problem revealing that data if it existed despite the claim otherwise.

The other less malicious mindset is that people even believe what they are saying themselves often in an appeal to "magic math", which is a source of a lot of internet memes out there. The nice way of putting it in science is called a non sequitur with the current invocations of magic math. Magic math obsession is a far cry from actually analyzing data that scientists will do, and that's playing out pretty starkly in this thread. Hyperfocus here on concepts related to spirals or throwing out other random math terms comes to mind with that. It just falls into the technobabble issue I mentioned earlier rather than addressing anything concrete.

I also say that as one of the few people that do release some mining data and findings for people to see and really am seeing the irony in the posts. Of course I have some data I wouldn't post about in forums, but I also don't go bragging that I've got it all figured out. If it's a subject I wouldn't show data about, I simply wouldn't be making much of a statement if anything about that subject.

No I have no figured anything out 100% and I would be an absolute fool to state otherwise.

You use statistics as a tool to help you make sense of the incoming data. I am using a basic spreadsheet to build a tool that I can use to gather data through a "filter". I can then select a different filter, go out into the world and see what happens. Rinse, repeat.

If you go out into this game and have a presupposition that it's all random, you are going to have that it's random mindset. I have the opposite problem. I am basing my info on what the developers have said, and also what they an legally do, as well as well please take a look at my signature.

 

[ZPF]

So when system tells you , you have gained 0.x exp in geo. Head to point x*1000 and see whats there.

It's pretty widely accepted that claims are generated when you drop a probe, they don't exist "in the ground" anymore (not since Project Entropia days)
If you're trying to blow up the consensus around here, you'd need some strong evidence

This thread is getting far off-topic, I thought we were talking about range enhancers

 

[kingofaces]

It's pretty widely accepted that claims are generated when you drop a probe, they don't exist "in the ground" anymore (not since Project Entropia days)

The data we do have is a bit in the opposite direction actually. The posts in my sig on hit rate testing were just from a few years ago, and the original title of this post is what spurred those (to at least try to redirect this topic to the original focus).

The short of it was radius isn't fake in that if multiple players overlap within a short period of time, they will have heavily reduced hit rates (and TT). Functionally, that is like claims are in the ground, but what that claim is in terms of resource type and size are determined at the drop like you mentioned. That "in the ground" concept also comes into play if you mine an area (5-10 drops) really shallow and immediately mine with a much deeper finder on the same coordinates (then repeat the cycle elsewhere). You just don't find many claims on the second pass to the point it's statistically significant.

In a way it's like mobs on your radar hunting. The red dot is a thing, but you don't know what you'll get out of the thing until it's killed/extracted, costs calculated, etc. If someone has already run through the area and cleared out the mobs, you'll have a lower density of mobs until some respawning goes on. Mining is similar to hunting in that regard except that you don't have a radar or visual cue of where a claim is like hunters do, so you're basically shooting blind instead. That's about as far as I'd go saying hunting and mining are similar, but the radar idea helps illustrate things a bit at least.

 

[ZPF]

The data we do have is a bit in the opposite direction actually. The posts in my sig on hit rate testing were just from a few years ago, and the original title of this post is what spurred those (to at least try to redirect this topic to the original focus).

The short of it was radius isn't fake in that if multiple players overlap within a short period of time, they will have heavily reduced hit rates (and TT). Functionally, that is like claims are in the ground, but what that claim is in terms of resource type and size are determined at the drop like you mentioned. That "in the ground" concept also comes into play if you mine an area (5-10 drops) really shallow and immediately mine with a much deeper finder on the same coordinates (then repeat the cycle elsewhere). You just don't find many claims on the second pass to the point it's statistically significant.

In a way it's like mobs on your radar hunting. The red dot is a thing, but you don't know what you'll get out of the thing until it's killed/extracted, costs calculated, etc. If someone has already run through the area and cleared out the mobs, you'll have a lower density of mobs until some respawning goes on. Mining is similar to hunting in that regard except that you don't have a radar or visual cue of where a claim is like hunters do, so you're basically shooting blind instead. That's about as far as I'd go saying hunting and mining are similar, but the radar idea helps illustrate things a bit at least.

I hesitate to believe this is because it makes MA's job harder. Why increase statistical variance when MA's design directive is 95% TT returns for all players?

It could just be that the RNG factors in recent activity/overlapping for some reason.

In a way it's like mobs on your radar hunting.

I won't say it's impossible. But "NRF" doesn't exist in hunting, allowing the possibility for a player to have a 100% or 0% hit rate seems like a bad design decision.

IMO it makes more sense that every mining drop is a "loot event", just like every mob kill is a "loot event". Only in mining, it's still possible to get 0 loot (they removed this from hunting). If NRF represents the failure to trigger a loot event, then mining is actually very different from hunting and crafting.

Anyway I see your point and I agree "claims in the ground" is not a crazy thing to say when you look at the evidence. It's obvious that location has some role to play.

 

[Thark]

Your mandatory reading is a 23 page bachelor thesis with another 10 pages of references/appendix, by a guy who now does blockchain stuff, and hasnt worked at MA before his thesis either, or after for that matter. At least according to his LinkedIn page. Infact he stopped after the 3y bachelor of game design to found Triolith Entertainment AB after (Uni till 2010, thesis published same year). I dunno, I cant be bothered to read LinkedIn self advertisements, especially when the first sentense has blockchain in it.

In the thesis, he made up a system to prove that a game CAN be designed such that it doesnt fall under the swedish gambling act thingy. So he designed a board game, came up with 2 player types and showed that they have different outcomes, thus showing RL-skill/knowledge is involved. His system involved creating a map with veins, and a system where skill gains indicate things to players. Hardly comparable, and by his own description "scaled down" (google translate)

Was quite interesting, I liked it. I had never thought about how to design a game that isn't gambling but seems to be, I also didnt know that designing different player profiles (one dumb / one not, basically) and showing different outcomes is a common definition of what is gambling and what is not. Tho I gotta admit, he even mentions poker in the beginning and I'm pretty sure poker is gambling at least in the US (Poker stars and stuff). He later mentiones that the swedish lottery agency tested PE in 2008 and came to the conclusion that it IS NOT gambling, BUT due to "the general nature of the game" (google translate). This felt like the catch all phrase in their policy when they dont wanna, I was thinking of those claw things at the fare where you try to grab a plush? Dunno, obviously I didnt read swedens gambling policy but I doubt every fare or game arcade needs a lotto license in sweden, do they?

Just for people who dont feel like translating a swedish bachelor thesis to see what mandatory reading is for this game.

Cheers

 

[Ferial]

He later mentiones that the swedish lottery agency tested PE in 2008 and came to the conclusion that it IS NOT gambling, BUT due to "the general nature of the game"

The report also concluded that they did not have the resources required to fully test everything, but if more reports would arise they would be able to get said resources and do thorough testing.

 

[R4tt3xx]

Your mandatory reading is a 23 page bachelor thesis with another 10 pages of references/appendix, by a guy who now does blockchain stuff, and hasnt worked at MA before his thesis either, or after for that matter. At least according to his LinkedIn page. Infact he stopped after the 3y bachelor of game design to found Triolith Entertainment AB after (Uni till 2010, thesis published same year). I dunno, I cant be bothered to read LinkedIn self advertisements, especially when the first sentense has blockchain in it.

In the thesis, he made up a system to prove that a game CAN be designed such that it doesnt fall under the swedish gambling act thingy. So he designed a board game, came up with 2 player types and showed that they have different outcomes, thus showing RL-skill/knowledge is involved. His system involved creating a map with veins, and a system where skill gains indicate things to players. Hardly comparable, and by his own description "scaled down" (google translate)

Was quite interesting, I liked it. I had never thought about how to design a game that isn't gambling but seems to be, I also didnt know that designing different player profiles (one dumb / one not, basically) and showing different outcomes is a common definition of what is gambling and what is not. Tho I gotta admit, he even mentions poker in the beginning and I'm pretty sure poker is gambling at least in the US (Poker stars and stuff). He later mentiones that the swedish lottery agency tested PE in 2008 and came to the conclusion that it IS NOT gambling, BUT due to "the general nature of the game" (google translate). This felt like the catch all phrase in their policy when they dont wanna, I was thinking of those claw things at the fare where you try to grab a plush? Dunno, obviously I didnt read swedens gambling policy but I doubt every fare or game arcade needs a lotto license in sweden, do they?

Just for people who dont feel like translating a swedish bachelor thesis to see what mandatory reading is for this game.

Cheers

Ye he went by Legion on the forum, and inspired me to create the recursive number spiral that allowed me to legitimately work my way up from 600 to about 8k peds...

What i found interesting was the board itself. IE a matrix or domain.

MA also refurs to this as a "skill based game", I think that has a double meaning, ie skills in the game and skills outside the game contribute, hence my idea of using the skill levels as a matrix itself. Which works, until it doesn't and I have to find the new skill that works.

But I do admit that this may all be in my head and it's just a silly timer that acts as a faucet that can turn off and on loot.

 

[raulpon]

My returns are always better when my guns lazer is green, guns with blue lazers suck

Also pew-pew-pew guns loot better than pew pew pew.

Beat the system!

 

[R4tt3xx]

The data we do have is a bit in the opposite direction actually. The posts in my sig on hit rate testing were just from a few years ago, and the original title of this post is what spurred those (to at least try to redirect this topic to the original focus).

The short of it was radius isn't fake in that if multiple players overlap within a short period of time, they will have heavily reduced hit rates (and TT). Functionally, that is like claims are in the ground, but what that claim is in terms of resource type and size are determined at the drop like you mentioned. That "in the ground" concept also comes into play if you mine an area (5-10 drops) really shallow and immediately mine with a much deeper finder on the same coordinates (then repeat the cycle elsewhere). You just don't find many claims on the second pass to the point it's statistically significant.

In a way it's like mobs on your radar hunting. The red dot is a thing, but you don't know what you'll get out of the thing until it's killed/extracted, costs calculated, etc. If someone has already run through the area and cleared out the mobs, you'll have a lower density of mobs until some respawning goes on. Mining is similar to hunting in that regard except that you don't have a radar or visual cue of where a claim is like hunters do, so you're basically shooting blind instead. That's about as far as I'd go saying hunting and mining are similar, but the radar idea helps illustrate things a bit at least.

Can we not then use how mobs are arranged as a template for mining ?

 

[R4tt3xx]

It's pretty widely accepted that claims are generated when you drop a probe, they don't exist "in the ground" anymore (not since Project Entropia days)
If you're trying to blow up the consensus around here, you'd need some strong evidence

This thread is getting far off-topic, I thought we were talking about range enhancers

Who says that claim that it is generating is within the current range of your finder ?

 

[R4tt3xx]

So it looks like I will have to share multiple models... One square one, which I have completed, One circular spiral one, which is also complete and as expected gives wildly different results as it is not constrained by round off errors..

I will just say this, this game is a DYNAMICAL SYSTEM and dynamical systems use lattices as one of it's building blocks, why has no one constructed and tested different lattices ?

It is also evident that for what ever reason this game obfuscates the true location of each claim as the numbers appear rounded off to 1m numerically, but on the physical Cartesian plane, are not rounded off. You can stand next to a claim rod and be at the exact same coordinate on the map.. Deliberate data obfuscation.

 

[Thark]

How are you testing your results? I mean, how do you determine if one approach is superior to another? Hit rate? Return with/without multipliers? Are you getting above the currently excepted avg. hitrate/return? By how much and what was the sample size? Giving that info would go along way to establish that your approach is doing something. Actually, even lower than random would show that your approach does something.

Can you share any of that?