Mining finder radius fake

[R4tt3xx]

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?

I agree, I will have to find a way to log that information, decide on a budget and compare it with other results.

I am thinking of pitting the different arrangements against each other. Say for example a large factor like 54 vs 0.618 using a md1..

The reason for using phi as a factor is the fact that both the distributions of the game levels and mining loot are moving averages and phi fits that.

I like the way that the circular lattice seems to be more accurate as it uses a lot more irrational numbers than the square lattice while using the same amount of points, it also does not go outside the lattice of the finder...

 

[R4tt3xx]

I'm so silly, I knew about this but did not think it was relevant. n = r^2. Which tells me where it should lie inside the spiral. If it does not lie where it's expected to lie, the point or spiral has been rotated...

Now that's the smarts right... Big Brian mafs here...

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

I'm so silly, I knew about this but did not think it was relevant. n = r^2. Which tells me where it should lie inside the spiral. If it does not lie where it's expected to lie, the point or spiral has been rotated...

Now that's the smarts right... Big Brian mafs here...

Have you thought about Vertex Operator Algebras or Non-commutative spaces? I think these are worth looking into

 

[R4tt3xx]

Why headache, so much cool mafs that I do not understand....

Why are so many mafs people's playing this game?

Have you thought about Vertex Operator Algebras or Non-commutative spaces? I think these are worth looking int

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

Why headache, so much cool mafs that I do not understand....

Why are so many mafs people's playing this game?

Looking again, I actually think that this one could be interesting Motives (in algebraic geometry)

 

[kingofaces]

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?

That's definitely what should have been shown long ago since this thread was revived (and would avoid all the folks getting rightfully annoyed by the attempts to use what sounds like fancy math terms with no actual data).

Someone doesn't even have to reveal what exactly they did. It would just be a basic statistical test comparison of if method X had a significantly higher hit rate, TT return, etc. than a standard method of mining such as no overlapping. Pretty much just like I mentioned way back a few times already. If someone wants to test something that can't easily be alternated for each treatment each drop or claim, then do a "run" with one method, do a run with the other, and then keep alternating. After you have a few runs of each, then you'd have potential confounding at least somewhat addressed to be able to run the stats tests.

Still, this thread has gotten way off topic of the original post. If someone actually wants to test that, then I already posted the framework for that: https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...mining-finder-radius-fake.268437/post-3867114.

 

[R4tt3xx]

Sorry guys, I just realized what I created... It's a very baby self similar fractal system is built on a circular lattice that has actual attractors...
In other words, it's my first dynamical system...

I just built my own dynamical system in Excel.... So go and build your own...

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

just built my own dynamical system in Excel.... So go and build your own...

I’d love to see it!

 

[MrFatBoy]

So this has happened to me on more than 1 occasion..

Drop probe, miss
move 55, drop probe, hit x meters BEHIND me, well within the range of the first probe.. Something is borked alright.

I think the game dynamically scales the matrix round the player..

isnt it 55 meter is all directions so if you drop a probe at point x and move 55 meters forward you at the edge of the original probe's range? .

i always thought you had to move 110 meter from drop point to not overlap?

 

[kingofaces]

isnt it 55 meter is all directions so if you drop a probe at point x and move 55 meters forward you at the edge of the original probe's range? .

i always thought you had to move 110 meter from drop point to not overlap?

Correct, 110 is to avoid overlapping. The example you quoted is when you find a claim in the overlapped area after that area was “cleared” by the first probe and found nothing the first time.

There is a very reduced chance of finding a claim like that, though it’s not non zero. In the time it takes you to run that 55m there’s a slight chance of that mined area gaining a new claim, but the likelihood increases as time goes on. In the hit rate testing done so far, it’s about a 5% chance after 5 minutes. Drop enough in even shorter intervals and you’ll find a few if you mine with enough volume.

 

[halftoasted]

go to LBML (or not) and reduce radius to 27,5m on planet (calypso for example). Now go mine you'll find a path or vein of deposits... even using half the radius. How can this be?

Thoughts?

There nothing under the map. Its all an illusion. The equation is a bit of this gibberish game.

but instead of all rewards, there many 0 in there and its not cause you found one that there not more but it just mean there is more 0 for a while.

 

[R4tt3xx]

There nothing under the map. Its all an illusion. The equation is a bit of this gibberish game.

but instead of all rewards, there many 0 in there and its not cause you found one that there not more but it just mean there is more 0 for a while.

I hate it when people refer to the "law of large numbers" and bell curves as if they apply to this game, when they clearly do not...

 

[R4tt3xx]

I had an interesting observation over the weekend, so I have had to play in safe window mode due to an issue with my graphics card and one of the issues is that I sometimes click the mouse button when I do not want to. So i occasionally double drop.

Here's the interesting part, even when I miss at a set coordinate, it's possible to get a hit when a probe is dropped on the same coordinates, by moving away from said coordinates. It does not happen every time but it does happen... The game does not check the coordinates of the dropped probe, but the coordinates of the avatar, the generation of the claim is still less than radius m away from the probe...

 

[Ferial]

I hate it when people refer to the "law of large numbers" and bell curves as if they apply to this game, when they clearly do not...

The law of large numbers applies to anything with any sort of variance in it.
This is just a faulty statement.

The game does not check the coordinates of the dropped probe, but the coordinates of the avatar

Another faulty statement, position is sent(or rather verified) as the cost is incurred, e.g. when probe is dropped.

 

[M Rufen Power]

Here's the interesting part, even when I miss at a set coordinate, it's possible to get a hit when a probe is dropped on the same coordinates, by moving away from said coordinates. It does not happen every time but it does happen.

This is 100% correct.

 

[R4tt3xx]

The law of large numbers applies to anything with any sort of variance in it.
This is just a faulty statement.


Another faulty statement, position is sent(or rather verified) as the cost is incurred, e.g. when probe is dropped.

No It's verified when the searching algorithm is triggered.

 

[R4tt3xx]

The law of large numbers applies to anything with any sort of variance in it.
This is just a faulty statement.


Another faulty statement, position is sent(or rather verified) as the cost is incurred, e.g. when probe is dropped.

My apologies, I just hate people assuming that this game is gambling without understanding the underlying systems..

If my hunch is correct, the more skills you have, the less skills you will gain and the less times skill gains will "over-ride" hits. Yes I am suggesting that skill gains with regards to mining are "near hits" in other words, "yes player this was the correct place for this deposit but it has moved to .1256" It even tells you where it has moved to...

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

If my hunch is correct, the more skills you have, the less skills you will gain and the less times skill gains will "over-ride" hits. Yes I am suggesting that skill gains with regards to mining are "near hits" in other words, "yes player this was the correct place for this deposit but it has moved to .1256" It even tells you where it has moved to...

How do you explain people who get .00001 exp gained on a probe drop?

 

[R4tt3xx]

How do you explain people who get .00001 exp gained on a probe drop?

The engine has a 5 decimal point float ?

But yes, you make an excellent point... How much will a 0.0001 (4 point float not 5) change alter the coordinate, I will have to check when I get home... Very nice

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

The engine has a 5 decimal point float ?

Well yeah as shown with fruit tests. Or people who's mining levels are so high that they get .0000 xp.

 

[R4tt3xx]

Well yeah as shown with fruit tests. Or people who's mining levels are so high that they get .0000 xp.

How interesting, that's two places where data is obfuscated.. So then the loot system is not part of the game engine... or it is and it's just rounding down...

Perhaps the high end miners are supposed to know how the system works... I mean they have had plenty time to figure it out..

Havent you asked your self the question, WTF do these skill gains mean ?

 

[R4tt3xx]

The engine has a 5 decimal point float ?

But yes, you make an excellent point... How much will a 0.0001 (4 point float not 5) change alter the coordinate, I will have to check when I get home... Very nice

floating point 4 makes a difference, 5 makes no difference..

 

[halftoasted]

I hate it when people refer to the "law of large numbers" and bell curves as if they apply to this game, when they clearly do not...

Yes, they clearly are not.... and that must be a fact based on what exactly?
Thats why MA often said they take MUCH bigger number than we do for their calculation. They go way past the 0.00..p
Players will say that when you lose a large amount of peds you end often with the NBA jam effect where winning the game isnt garanteed but your team is on fire.

But aside that, Im not refering to law of large numbers. Im refering to the fact that everyone mining will tell you that there can be another claim at the same exact spot but its much less likely. I said the interaction is a bit of that GIBBERISH where the more you find claim at the spot, the least likely you can find another.

 

[R4tt3xx]

Yes, they clearly are not.... and that must be a fact based on what exactly?
Thats why MA often said they take MUCH bigger number than we do for their calculation. They go way past the 0.00..p
Players will say that when you lose a large amount of peds you end often with the NBA jam effect where winning the game isnt garanteed but your team is on fire.

But aside that, Im not refering to law of large numbers. Im refering to the fact that everyone mining will tell you that there can be another claim at the same exact spot but its much less likely. I said the interaction is a bit of that GIBBERISH where the more you find claim at the spot, the least likely you can find another.

No, I never said ANOTHER claim, I said NO claim...

 

[halftoasted]

No, I never said ANOTHER claim, I said NO claim...

Its not because you found nothing that there wasnt anything to find if you drop again.
Its not because you found nothing that there is something to find if you drop again.
Its not because you found something that you cant find more if you drop again.
Its not because you found something that there is something else to find if you drop again.

There we go, now we can skip all the little picking at every little words. Those 4 statements are true.

 

[R4tt3xx]

Its not because you found nothing that there wasnt anything to find if you drop again.
Its not because you found nothing that there is something to find if you drop again.
Its not because you found something that you cant find more if you drop again.
Its not because you found something that there is something else to find if you drop again.

There we go, now we can skip all the little picking at every little words. Those 4 statements are true.

The point that I am making is that the game does not check the drop coordinates of the probe, it checks the coordinates of the avatar that dropped the probe when the searching is triggered.

And I would like to make it clear once again, that the exact coords of your own avatar are not known as they are rounded off to the nearest meter.

 

[kingofaces]

The point that I am making is that the game does not check the drop coordinates of the probe, it checks the coordinates of the avatar that dropped the probe when the searching is triggered.

And I would like to make it clear once again, that the exact coords of your own avatar are not known as they are rounded off to the nearest meter.

The point you are making is that you are making stuff up not grounded in actual data (often contrary to existing data), and I'm being a bit more stern because you've avoided this when brought up previously. Maybe instead of making repeated blind assertions or assumptions based on assumptions, show an actual difference in outcomes through actual testing as multiple folks have given you guidance on? Just continuing to assert doesn't change anything.

At this point I do have to echo what Thark said earlier:

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.

Your comments in this thread and elsewhere really do come across as trolling at first glance, but the more I've seen you post the more it instead comes across as needing to seek help. Obsessiveness over minute often irrelevant details, claiming you got it all figured out while ignoring key details that conflict with you, chasing "magic math", spirals, specific shapes, etc., or outright gibberish that jumps around in reasoning really do come across as behavioral issue red flags that need to be addressed. When Thark made that comment about talking to someone (mental health related), you really deflected and doubled-down saying "I actually did talk to someone regarding the math, a couple of people actually. . ." That really comes across as things definitely not being "cool". Like Thark, I don't like bringing this up in the forum, but the behavior is clearly already causing issues in these posts.

Again, that's not to attack, but to hopefully give a little reality check that even members of this community are rightfully concerned for your well-being. We're just not equipped to deal with that here. Similar to Thark, I've known people IRL that exhibited behavior that was almost identical to what I just described above about you, and they really did need to talk with a mental health provider on dealing with obsessive behaviors like that (and benefited from it). I really suggest doing the same.

 

[M Rufen Power]

The point you are making is that you are making stuff up not grounded in actual data (often contrary to existing data), and I'm being a bit more stern because you've avoided this when brought up previously. Maybe instead of making repeated blind assertions or assumptions based on assumptions, show an actual difference in outcomes through actual testing as multiple folks have given you guidance on? Just continuing to assert doesn't change anything.

At this point I do have to echo what Thark said earlier:

Your comments in this thread and elsewhere really do come across as trolling at first glance, but the more I've seen you post the more it instead comes across as needing to seek help. Obsessiveness over minute often irrelevant details, claiming you got it all figured out while ignoring key details that conflict with you, chasing "magic math", spirals, specific shapes, etc., or outright gibberish that jumps around in reasoning really do come across as behavioral issue red flags that need to be addressed. When Thark made that comment about talking to someone (mental health related), you really deflected and doubled-down saying "I actually did talk to someone regarding the math, a couple of people actually. . ." That really comes across as things definitely not being "cool". Like Thark, I don't like bringing this up in the forum, but the behavior is clearly already causing issues in these posts.

Again, that's not to attack, but to hopefully give a little reality check that even members of this community are rightfully concerned for your well-being. We're just not equipped to deal with that here. Similar to Thark, I've known people IRL that exhibited behavior that was almost identical to what I just described above about you, and they really did need to talk with a mental health provider on dealing with obsessive behaviors like that (and benefited from it). I really suggest doing the same.

Imo his gibberish is misunderstood for enthusiasm. He just uses words outside of your vocabulary. Simple enough to interpret. I can empathise with this as nobody IRl understands me either even tho I’m a nice individual.

 

[Vadio]

1 - Minning range is define base multiplier , you can notice in finders with 54 55 55.2m its why you base multi in indoor is bigger , system force to become 22m
otherwise its not claim on ground you can just run and drop... and lets be done with this is know fact since 2017 , to be you not full bias drop same place usual lead in fuck up but anything above 5m is fine , usual i just run and drop and is work and save my half my time minning

2 - Skill gain is pointless , in old days before mindark disable this calc sum of skills are that make counts like looter in this day , notice calc become some point so complex server cant handle , and what they did to fix lag? they disable complexity on calc and introduced waves , when i start play this game my average return is 92%(circa 2008) in 2013 is around 93% in 2015 around rank 60 become 95 in 2017 96.50 (around 70-80) in 2019 before nerf my average return is 98% (nerf happen 26.08.19 in stealth nigth) and its result of 2020-2023 fck this cap

3 - Depth yes is increase average markup over time since its move in tier loot table
3.a you can argue old avg mu is high for sure .... but in this period we have Explosive introduction that make all market crash

4 - You can predict waves.... however at same you cant predict anything else , if none know about waves is 5-15 min of good markup followed by between 50min-1h10min cd with shit mu and its work across all game mechanics , usual acrosss my observation first 1min of wave is peak of loot when big rares like tridenite / ruga is come by or ESI , annd .55-.00 trend be most common wave time if you follow pyrite hofs/globals but probably you can pattern out others item to , its not skill or complex math or grind or dedication , Its timing , wave in == good loot wave out == fuck you ofcourse if play both 24h you eventual going hit some good mu ..... true question is you average mu for 24h try crush this bad waves worth? or better only play in specify time frames and min/max you markup if you can? and who cant? fuck off?

Plus you reference 2008 material , brow is 2023 minning changes at last 6-7x time since you base material of study here another one : https://web.archive.org/web/20170330042953/http://upc.gamezjunkie.com/silver/

In past i did all this overthink and try find meanifull sense but not worth is useless and when you find something make sense mindark go and mess with you

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

Imo his gibberish is misunderstood for enthusiasm. He just uses words outside of your vocabulary. Simple enough to interpret. I can empathise with this as nobody IRl understands me either even tho I’m a nice individual.

There's a reason for that.

Havent you asked your self the question, WTF do these skill gains mean ?

Yeah the skill gain happens when you spend ped.