Mining loot analysis

[falkao]

...
Tell me what sort of data you guys need and probably I might be able to help,...:

basically we need data for single finds in the following format

Run	Run Number
DROPS	drops till find
SIZE	size of find
DEPTH	depth of find
RES	found res
UNITS	found units
TAXED	tax rate if taxed
tt p.unit	tt of found res
AMP	used amp

 

[falkao]

I tried to find the weights for the 2*3^(class+1) PEC model. Here a suggestion:

all values in PED
enm = expected observed mean class loot for enmatter
ore = expected observed mean class loot for ore
w.mean = weighted mean
cum  = cum. weighted mean
rr = return rate

Class	mean	enm	ore	weight	w.mean	cum	rr
1	0.18	0.64	1.29	0.5600	0.10	0.10	0.19
2	0.54	1.93	3.86	0.3950	0.21	0.31	0.58
3	1.62	5.79	11.57	0.0250	0.04	0.35	0.66
4	4.86	17.36	34.71	0.0160	0.08	0.43	0.81
5	14.58	52.07	104.14	0.0036	0.05	0.48	0.90
6	43.74	156.21	312.43	0.0004	0.02	0.50	0.94

The weights are different as the observed ones. I have the impression that there is rounding and therefore I used the cum.survival function to limit weights.

I'm rather sure that they are not correct yet and are maybe to high for class >=4 but atm we don't have other data.

Including globals (hofs on bombs) this leads to a 94% return rate. I would not expect much more.


If results are correct, then under optimal conditions going till minis only, you can expect a mean return of 81%, till globals about 90% and when we including hof's then you'll get back 94%.

It's possible that there is also a personal find rate related to skills/equipment which might be lower as the assumed 28%, lowering returns.

 

[Shoe]

Wow, read this post and must say that I am impressed by your work.
A statistical analysis instead of hunches and guesses.. (+rep)

A few comments.

1. About MA-rounding up to whole units.. I remember many years ago the "nonsufficient findings" mostly of valurite.. Back then I suppose the find was assigned a specific PEDamount and if it was less then half a stone it couldnt be mined at all.. For example a very poor valurite would lead to no stones at all in storage... Since a few years I havent found any "non sufficient" so I guess MA uses another logarithm these days.

2. I would like to contribute as well to this statistics, then I see the amount of data from Kozlicek(?) and realise that I dont have that time..
I will register the hit rates of the next 10x100 bombs though and make second runs 2 hours after the first on the exact same spots and see if there is any decrease in hitrate then..

I will try to register the drops, size, and units, but knowing myself I guess that I will end up with hitrate and size..

I will post the post2h data here after the first two runs.. nice work.

 

[falkao]

I've updated the main post with the main findings.

 

[Noodles]

Just had this thought about Sawachika's seemingly low hitrate. Sawachika has not yet maxed the tt finder. I qualitatively noticed hitrate problems when I switched to an unmaxed JU55(L) for a while, and asked the question in this mostly ignored thread:

Hitrates on Maxed/Unmaxed Finders?

I also recall having poor returns for a while as a new miner. But my memory is questionable

This is the hypothesis: Search radius affects hitrate. Without going into the super-details, let's consider the JU10 (the tt enmatter finder). Its max search radius is 55 meters. I recall that a new miner would have a search radius of about 50 meters. This means that a new miner searches

(50/55)^2 = 83% of the area of an experienced miner with a maxed JU10.

We have been assuming a hitrate of 28% for Steffel. 83% of 28% is 23%, so if this hypothesis is correct then a new miner should have a 23% hitrate, in line with Sawachika's observations.

This hypothesis should be testable. Someone would need to use a finder for which they have not yet reached SIB (so that the finder statistics would not change very much over the course of the test), and note the average depth (not the max depth) of that finder and of course the effective search radius (not the max radius). This miner would also use a maxed finder with a similar depth. This miner would then mine in the same area using both finders; maybe alternating drops would be the best method (?). The miner would make at least 800 drops with each finder (as per falkao's statistical significance test for 23% vs 28% hitrate), and of course record the hitrate for each finder.

Any volunteers?

 

[Libby]

Any volunteers?

Sure if you provide the tools and bombs

That is very interesting. Hopefully someone will actually do this. But I expect the actual hit rate to be about the same, around 30%. Obviously they would more than likely hit Lys instead of Ruga, but that isn't what this test is about now is it.

Hehe i'm so excited to see the results of that if someone does it.

Sorry I didn't add any real useful information, but keep it up guys, you are doing lootus's work (guess thats how you would spell that?).

one note for anyone intrested. I have done runs (enmatter) with 2 different finders, double bombing each spot. I used a TT finder and a Ju55 (i think). The damnest thing happened, i found claims with the TT finder that the Ju55 didnt find. It was near the Ju55's ASD and over double the ASD of the ju10. I never understood how that can happen.

Ju55 then Ju10 - I was maxed on both.

I guess my finder got a crit and found something maybe?

 

[Shoe]

This hypothesis should be testable. Someone would need to use a finder for which they have not yet reached SIB (so that the finder statistics would not change very much over the course of the test), and note the average depth (not the max depth) of that finder and of course the effective search radius (not the max radius). This miner would also use a maxed finder with a similar depth. This miner would then mine in the same area using both finders; maybe alternating drops would be the best method (?). The miner would make at least 800 drops with each finder (as per falkao's statistical significance test for 23% vs 28% hitrate), and of course record the hitrate for each finder.

Any volunteers?

Count me in. I started registering hitrate yesterday. (maxed out TK220)
I will buy a TK320 (for which I dont yet have SIB) and drop alternate bombs. And compare hitrates...

One little note about hitrate.. I am very cautious for bombs not to overlap each other. If bombs are dropped say 90 meters apart I guess hitrate goes down a bit compared to 110 meters (range 54.5)

So far 200 bombs with TK220, hitrate 30.0%.

Hm, If I use the TK320 I guess the TK220 doesnt have "similar depth" I might have to use the TT-finder instead.. will look into that..

 

[falkao]

...
(50/55)^2 = 83% of the area of an experienced miner with a maxed JU10.

We have been assuming a hitrate of 28% for Steffel. 83% of 28% is 23%, so if this hypothesis is correct then a new miner should have a 23% hitrate, in line with Sawachika's observations.

sounds plausible. Let's assume that we need a total of 1600 drops (800 per group) to test it, and that global return rate is 90%, find rate is lowered to 23% in one group, then this would cost about 157 PED for enmatter and 314 for ore.

Who should finance this?

 

[sawachika]

I can finance my own self, although the progress will be very slow since I've gotta work and dun play too often.

The only few problems that I might have is:
1) I don't do probe runs........I normally buy like 50 probes then drop them a couple a day over the course of a few days or more, but I mostly stay at TI, so the data should still be quite consistent unless you deem time to be an important variable to be kept consistent.
2) I haven't maxed my TT enmatter finder yet. At 177.x/204 avg. depth atm.
3) Don't really know which two types of finders can be used for the test suggested by Noodles.
4) I doubt I can provide the data as fast as some others can.

So if you don't mind the long time spent waiting for me......Then tell me the finders you want me to use for the comparison (Hopefully I will have enough peds to acquire them that is. Cause I'm a non-depositor), any important things to take note of during the experiment, etc.

To Libby:
I remember mentioning something like this. I was using the TT enmatter finder and while doing a random probing, I found an IX claim at a depth of 600+ on that TT finder with an ASD of 204 of which I had just started using and have not maxed yet. So that 600+ depth was way out of my finder's ASD. But problem is, I still found it..........Amazing?

But after thinking about it now, I seem to have this idea to explain how it had happened, but not sure if it is true. Care to listen?
I happened to be probing on the top of the hill while the claim was somewhere further down the hill.

So if we consider that the claim was actually around the ASD of the TT finder with respect to the ground, then it might be possible that the Depth I got from the claim which was 600+ actually took into consideration my actual height which was on top of the hill + the actual depth of the claim from its distance from the surface due to some "human programming error" to fail to notice this. So it becomes "My height on hill+depth of claim = 600+ m"? That might explain it.

But what about you? Did you happen to find the claim at the bottom of the hill while probing on top?
------------------------------------------------------------------

On something different, I think I remembered seeing a MatterFinder MF-104 having a ASD of 190+ for me while the TT finder has a ASD of 177+ for me atm. So maybe I can use the MatterFinder MF-104 to collect data now for "Unskilled finder" and then after that do the collecting of "Maxed finder" data after I maxed the TT finder? How's that sound? If that sounds good, then I'll probably start working on finding a MatterFinder MF-104 to start the thing going. Hopefully at a cheap price of course.

 

[falkao]

...


The only few problems that I might have is:
1) I don't do probe runs........I normally buy like 50 probes then drop them a couple a day over the course of a few days or more, but I mostly stay at TI, so the data should still be quite consistent unless you deem time to be an important variable to be kept consistent.

time is not a problem. It is sufficient to know the number of finds out of total dropped bombs.

...
2) I haven't maxed my TT enmatter finder yet. At 177.x/204 avg. depth atm.

Use the one you're using now plus one on which you maxed stats. Noodles, some other suggestions?

 

[Shoe]

50 bombs done, 750 encounting..

Just to make sure I make it right...

Using 1. TK320 (Not sufficient skill to use properly) ASD 216.4 Range 54
Using 2. OF101 (maxed out) ASD 263 Range 54

Alternating drops in an area with few other miners.

Sofar.


_______ #bombs_#finds__depth_____distance to claim__hitrate
OF-101____25______7___119-409___18.6-48.4________28%
TK320_____25______7___121-369___18.2-53.4________28%

No conclusions to be drawn, but have I missed any important point?
I will continue to post small runs here... and then add it all up later.
The second run was almost curiously close to the first one.

OF-101____25______7___112-393___11.7-48.4________28%
TK320_____25______7____39-439___13.6-49.9________28%

TT return was 40.94 and 40.70
If I know myself right, I wont have the patience to do that many more runs... I guess my return rate seems to be between 28-30% regardless of gear..

Another question appears and that is the time question.. Would a mining run in the exact same spot after 4 hours generate the same hitrate?
Would logging in every hour, dropping one bomb and then logging off generate the same hitrate?
A question of respawn time.. to be solved once and for all...

 

[Noodles]

Just to make sure I make it right...

Using 1. TK320 (Not sufficient skill to use properly) ASD 216.4 Range 54
Using 2. OF101 (maxed out) ASD 263 Range 54

Alternating drops in an area with few other miners.

Sofar.


_______ #bombs_#finds__depth_____distance to claim__hitrate
OF-101____25______7___119-409___18.6-48.4________28%
TK320_____25______7___121-369___18.2-53.4________28%

No conclusions to be drawn, but have I missed any important point?

Hmm, is there a snag in the proposed methodology? I was under the impression that average search radius was less if the finder was not maxed. But there seems to be only one range parameter (not two like for depth--effective and maxed). Was I hallucinating? That's more likely than I care to admit . . .

Thanks for getting this started You have the right idea (only 775*2 more drops to go!) Though I would suggest the Z1 (tt) oreseeker--its ASD is 204 meters. And as you mentioned in an earlier post, it's not a good idea to overlap drop radii for this test.

Even if the radius ratio idea is not a valid one, this test will still tell us something about maxed vs unmaxed finders, so again thank you! And +rep.

EDIT: It seems I was hallucinating . . . maybe confusing gun range stats with mining? EU needs to give away a RL fountain of youth . . . This test is still a good one, though, as I don't think it has been done and published before.

 

[falkao]

...

_______ #bombs_#finds__depth_____distance to claim__hitrate
OF-101____25______7___119-409___18.6-48.4________28%
TK320_____25______7___121-369___18.2-53.4________28%

No conclusions to be drawn, but have I missed any important point?
I will continue to post small runs here... and then add it all up later.
The second run was almost curiously close to the first one.

OF-101____25______7___112-393___11.7-48.4________28%
TK320_____25______7____39-439___13.6-49.9________28%

...

there is a 17.5% chance to get exactly 7 finds out of 25 drops when find rate is 28%. It's 16.6% for 6 and 15.3% for 8.

Assuming a find rate of 23%, the chance to get 7 finds out of 25 is 14.8%, 18.3% for for 6 and 10% for 8.

So all is very close and this is sampling. I wouldn't conclude anything atm, since sample size is very small.

 

[Shoe]

I know it is too small..., and unfortunately I now have SIB on the TK320..

I dont have the patience to do any more runs like that either.
End of test for me.

 

[falkao]

I know it is too small..., and unfortunately I now have SIB on the TK320..

gratz on that );

I dont have the patience to do any more runs like that either.
End of test for me.

Data collection is very very time consuming. Without Steffels and Noodles effort, we wouldn't have those insights yet. To know if find rate is different or not between maxed and not maxed finders, might be quite interesting. It would directly influence your return rate.

Maybe we should do a bomb drop fest? 100 miners along one row ....

but thanks for your efforts so far.

 

[Noodles]

Data for large loot classes

Here are some finds (not mine) of which I am confident about the amp usage. I will try to add to this list slowly, as I ask around more. All finds are on the planet.

1. 6856 ped crude oil, unamped
2. 784 ped crude oil, unamped
3. 778 ped crude oil, unamped
4. 2064 ped cumbriz stone, 101 amp
5. 9699 ped duru, 101 amp (thanks kolobok) (http://www.entropiaworld.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=4456)
6. 14674 ped narc, 105 amp (thanks kolobok) (http://www.entropiaworld.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=4340)
7. 6942 ped alicenies, unamped here
8. 6324 ped typonolic, unamped here
9. 2461 ped cumbriz, 105 amp here
10. 68718 ped lyst, 105 amp here
11. 2427 ped caldorite, 101 amp here
12. 4291 ped frigulite, 103 amp here
13. 3650 ped crude oil, unamped here
14. 2105 ped copper, 102 amp here
15. 6111 ped frigulite, unamped

Everyone is encouraged to help us add to the data for these rare finds! Must be found on the planet, and should be one year old or less (?), to be sure that they represent the current mining system.

 

[falkao]

Here are some finds (not mine) of which I am confident about the amp usage. ...

thx Noodles, have overseen this post. It's really important to get some insights on those finds. Tracker data is useless and also the ATH list is of no use since amp is not stated.

Steffel was so kind to provide further data. Find rate seems to be now around 27%. Furthermore I was able to identify the loot classes. There are a total of 9 ranging from Class 0 to 8, each build up of 3 size classes. Due to rounding, loot class 1 and 2 do overlap and therefore the additional step in class 2. Till class 6 I'll get now a return rate of 92%, but will do some further verification on this.

If I extrapolate (I don't like to do this normally) from class 6 to 9 I would get a max unamped enmatter loot of 5467 PED. This does not fit your stated oil find of 6856 PED. Since we don't have any data for class 7 to 9 in our data set, it might be possible that there are some further corrections to do or loot changed in the meanwhile. For class 0 to 6 however, the model fits perfectly.

Here a teaser of what I'm doing atm, and the given sizes are still wrong btw.

[br]Click to enlarge[/br]

More will follow here or in the main post in the next days.

 

[Shoe]

I have mined for 5 years and I cant recall finding an unamped size X (considerable) except on CND where they are common...

I cant really interpret your loot classes to understand if it fits but can anyone report a find of size X unamped? (Only talking ore here...)

 

[Kolobok]

Must be found on the planet, and should be one year old or less (?), to be sure that they represent the current mining system.

18.08.2008 9699 ped duru tk220 + oa101 (http://www.entropiaworld.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=4456)
13.07.2008 14674 ped narc of105 + oa105 (http://www.entropiaworld.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=4340)

I also have some older data and some yet unchecked data that I hope to add here later.

Great work this thread.

For mere mortals a summary stating the probabilities of certain outcome for a given number of bombs would be useful.

As a side note, it is very easy to lower the hit rate if bombs are dropped in areas where there are no or little resources. There were some experiments with people dropping 100 bombs at one place (at Hadesheim City, e.g.) and having 1 claim or no claims at all. Experienced miners avoid these areas (that have very distinct borders), while casual miners drop bombs anywhere. That might explain the difference of return rates for different miners.

 

[falkao]

..
For mere mortals a summary stating the probabilities of certain outcome for a given number of bombs would be useful.

will follow but I have to solve some puzzles before. Maybe somebody can help with sizes. In Steffels data I do have sizes 3 to 18 all amped MA104 = factor 4. So his observed loot is 4 times higher. The above depicted figure is wrong as I have to find out the original sizes from what it was triggered and not the observed one.
I have the impression that his sizes 3 to 5 are mostly orig. size 2. His 6 might be a 3, 7 and 8 to 4 and so on. This is when I use wiki as a reference. I doubt however, that those numbers are very precise and there should be gaps between some sizes.

In Steffels data the observed classes 3, 4 and 5 do group, and also 6, 7 and 8. This unfortunately will not be true for the original sizes. I guess it will be something like this:

[br]Click to enlarge[/br]

The loot values are now not standardized. So you can compare them to what you would observe.

Does somebody have an unamped dataset with given sizes and loot value, so we can check this?

All this serves to understand who sizes and loot are related. For a mining loot model this is not necessarily needed.

And this is how the model looks atm:

 values in PED
Class	obs.m	mean	lower	upper	weight	w.mean	cumm	rr
0		0.21	0.16	0.26		0.00	0.00	0.00
1	0.64	0.63	0.47	0.79	47.21%	0.29	0.29	0.15
2	1.81	1.89	1.42	2.36	47.86%	0.90	1.19	0.60
3	6.34	5.67	4.25	7.09	3.38%	0.19	1.38	0.70
4	17.23	17.01	12.76	21.26	1.21%	0.20	1.58	0.80
5	48.95	51.03	38.27	63.79	0.26%	0.13	1.71	0.87
6	164.73	153	115	191	0.08%	0.12	1.83	0.93
7		459	344	574				
8		1378	1033	1722				
9		4133	3100	5167				
10		12400	9300	15500

It uses the simple formula mean expected class loot = 7*3^(1+class) PEC. Lower and upper limits are calculated using mean +/- mean/4.

Till now I've always used std. loot but I guess its better to state the normal loot (i.e. without find rate correction). Instead of using loot classes it would be also be possible to use sizes directly. The model would look more or less like this

mean size loot = a*1.5^size

Unfortunately weights per sizes and a must be known and since sizes do group, we're on the safer way when using loot classes.

 

[steffel]

you know, the last but one run in the latest data set is MA107,so factor 11. maybe check if those claims fit into the factor 4 set?

 

[falkao]

you know, the last but one run in the latest data set is MA107,so factor 11. maybe check if those claims fit into the factor 4 set?

oh yep, I've excluded them atm to get an unbiased estimate. Will check it.

edit: It seems as going from MA104 to MA107 shifts size by 3 classes.
In the following table I do show mean loot per size. For amp factor 11 loot was divided by 11 and multiplied by 4 to reflect amp factor 4. The given sizes are the observed sizes.

	amp f4		amp f11
Size	Mean	Size	Mean
3	1.94	6	2.09
4	2.52	7	2.48
5	3.12	8	3.04
6	5.53	9	5.49
7	7.22	10	7.66
8	8.82	11	9.22
9	15.51		
10	23.23	13	24.51
11	26.76		
12			
13	68.67		
14	97.66		
15	160.43		
16	226.56		
18	598.95

Now the question is, what will happen to sizes if we eliminate the amp 4?

Min size with amp f4 is 3. So maybe this come from a size 1. From the sizes stated at entropedia it seem to be a 2.
Well, I have to think about it. Maybe I find a way to calc. it.

 

[Noodles]

Maybe somebody can help with sizes. In Steffels data I do have sizes 3 to 18 all amped MA104 = factor 4. So his observed loot is 4 times higher. The above depicted figure is wrong as I have to find out the original sizes from what it was triggered and not the observed one.
I have the impression that his sizes 3 to 5 are mostly orig. size 2. His 6 might be a 3, 7 and 8 to 4 and so on. This is when I use wiki as a reference. I doubt however, that those numbers are very precise and there should be gaps between some sizes.

In Steffels data the observed classes 3, 4 and 5 do group, and also 6, 7 and 8. This unfortunately will not be true for the original sizes. I guess it will be something like this:

[br]Click to enlarge[/br]

The loot values are now not standardized. So you can compare them to what you would observe.

As far as I have ever seen, the deed sizes listed on Entropedia are exactly correct, with two exceptions. Size I no longer occurs, and of course the very large sizes have some uncertainty due to rarity.

I agree with you on the deed size mapping—the loot classes and deed sizes are determined separately, so a given class can result in more than one possible deed size.

Does somebody have an unamped dataset with given sizes and loot value, so we can check this?

A lot of my data is unamped. The tt=1 pec resources are especially useful for verifying the ranges for the smaller (i.e. common) loot classes; your ranges are approximately correct. It is easy to determine the given deed sizes; they are just as listed in Entropedia. There do not seem to be any size I's any longer.

 

[Noodles]

edit: It seems as going from MA104 to MA107 shifts size by 3 classes.

...

Now the question is, what will happen to sizes if we eliminate the amp 4?

Min size with amp f4 is 3. So maybe this come from a size 1. From the sizes stated at entropedia it seem to be a 2.
Well, I have to think about it. Maybe I find a way to calc. it.

The 3 class shift is a pretty good approximation in this case, but just an approximation. The important things are the classes C1, C2, etc. which can span multiple deed sizes. If you consider the classes, you will get the right answer.

As an example, C1 for unamped enmatter spans from 48 pecs to ~80 pecs, as your latest graphs show. These all happen to be deed size 2. Use a 104 amp with factor 4, The new C1 range is 192 pecs to 320 pecs, which are large deed size 3, deed size 4, and small deed size 5. Use a 107 amp with factor 11, C1 is then 528 pecs (deed size 6) through 880 pecs (a small deed size 8).

 

[wizzszz]

I have mined for 5 years and I cant recall finding an unamped size X (considerable) except on CND where they are common...

I cant really interpret your loot classes to understand if it fits but can anyone report a find of size X unamped? (Only talking ore here...)

I found very few X claims (ore unamped), but only inside of taxed areas, never outside.

 

[falkao]

Sizes increase with amp might be as follows:

size increase = log(Amp Factor;1.5)

where log(a,b) = log base b of a

AmpF	Sizes increase
1.5	1.00
2	1.71
3	2.71
4	3.42
5	3.97
6	4.42
7	4.80
9	5.42
11	5.91
16	6.84
21	7.51
31	8.47
41	9.16

Explanation:

mean loot per size = l = a*1.5^size

hence

size = log(l/a;1.5)

since amp will increase loot by a constant amp factor ampf we will have

log(l/a*ampf;1.5) = log(l/a;1.5) + log(ampf;1.5) = size + size increase and hence

size increase = log(ampf;1.5)

 

[falkao]

I've updated the main post including Steffels new data. I precisely analyzed sizes in the last days and came to the following conclusion.

Although, there is a correlation between mean size loot and size, like with loot classes, sizes do not take part of the randomization process.

The randomization process follows loot classes to witch the amp factor is applied. This determines calculated loot which will get assigned to a single resource correcting further for ore or enmatter. Using calculated loot a possible tax is applied and res. TT units are derived. Units get then rounded and this leads to effective observed loot. Due to rounding, tax might not be applied on every find. It's also possible that res. type and loot are chosen simultaneously, but this would not have any influence on effective loot.


If there is any interest I can explain what made me conclude that, but the main purpose of this thread was to get a reliable estimate of the return rate.

Here is an example of a .19 TT res showing the relation between units (loot) and size.

[br]Click to enlarge[/br]

Please note the jump from units 20 to 26 between size 5 and 6 as well the different count of units within a size.

All in all I have to conclude that mining loot will have most probably a return rate higher than 91%. Since the existence of classes above 6 and their weights are not well known, but we know that they do exist, mean return will therefore be higher as 91%, maybe not for everyone but for sure for the lucky ones.

 

[falkao]

we've already discussed costs per drop but Steffel provided some further data on drilling decay.

We do have 4 enmatter res. in the dataset with different TT. Since the found number of units are higher in lower TT res., you'll have more driller decay on them. So the higher decay of finders with larger depth might be compensated with res. that have a higher TT and hence less drilling decay. To get an idea here a simple list.

Tab1. mean clicks per res. R1 to R4 do have increasing TT

res	mean clicks
R1	2.21
R2	2.01
R3	1.09
R4	1.17

Since not all res. have the same freq. I used Steffels data to get an idea about what drilling costs one have to expect per dropped bomb. This leads to .98 PEC per drop. As mentioned some post ago I used 1.5 PEC till now, so it seems that this was to high.

All in all this would lead to mean costs per click of

.5 (probe) + .018 (finder decay) + .01 (driller decay) = .528 PED

and hence I've update the estimated return rate in the main post.

I'm not sure if Steffels data can be generalized as I did, since we used only 4 res. with quite high tt (min > .1 PED). It might be that drilling decay is even higher on .01 TT res.


As it seems we've reached our goal to describe mining loot and estimate return rate. Sure we can go on to get more confidence on the higher loot classes, but I think it is sufficient to know that the return rate is above 90%. I personally would expect one near 96%, this would correspond to the fees that MA gets normally from us, but thats irrelevant atm.

We know further that the above mentioned return rate is only realized when your able to reach class 6 loot. Since this class has a rel. freq of .8%, in mean about 5000 drops (4830 drops to be precisely calculated as 1/.008/.27) are needed to achieve it. So one dropping only some bombs/probes here and there can't expect that much and will find himself with a return rate of about 60%.

A further crucial point about the return rate is the find rate. We could expect one between 26% and 28% assuming that no further skills or equipment characteristics are involved.


Please let me know if there are some further points to discuss, otherwise I would regard this thread as completed.

Thx again to everyone providing data and input especially to Steffel and Noodles for the hudge datasets, without them an analysis like the one we did would not be doable.

 

[falkao]

according to this 6026 Zinc stone = 3013 std PED class 9 is reachable without an amp.

 

[sawachika]

we've already discussed costs per drop but Steffel provided some further data on drilling decay.

We do have 4 enmatter res. in the dataset with different TT. Since the number found units are higher in lower TT res., you'll have more driller decay on them. So the higher decay of finders with larger depth might be compensated with res. that have a higher TT and hence less drilling decay. To get an idea here a simple list.

Erm......not really sure about this though. Cause I noticed that when drilling enmatts with a TT of 0.01, like force nexus or oil, I can get around 20+ average per click, while mining enmatts like alicenies liquid, I get only 8 to 9 per click. Not sure if this is due to me not maxing the driller yet though.

Edit: On second thought, with Alicenies at TT = 0.05, each click gives a 0.05 * 9 = 0.45 PED, while each click of Force Nexus only gives 0.01 * 20 = 0.20 PED. With Garcen Grease, at TT = 0.10, each click gives 0.10 * 8 = 0.80 PED. So.....hehehe.....maybe your right.