Multipliers you get while mining

Kerham

Elite
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Posts
4,728
Location
to the moon and back
Society
Project Y
Avatar Name
Kerawan Kerham Maddahy
so you had a 616x multiplier after 08/26 not bad Gzz :)
Multipliers don't exist per se, or, rather, we have no way of verifying it, it's just a tool invented by the community to quantify a given blackbox process. Even if they would exist, though, as in being part of the loot origination process itself, your calculation is not correct. The fallacy is that everyone is looking at what a hof means in terms of these so-called "multipliers", instead of rather looking at regular finds. If your way of calculating would be correct, then in effect would mean that double-triple dropping would lower the multipliers for regular finds. Which is simply, verifiably, false.
 
Last edited:

Ace Flyster

Elite
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Posts
4,961
Location
England, London
Society
Rangers
Avatar Name
Dave Ace Flyster
Multipliers don't exist per se, or, rather, we have no way of verifying it, it's just a tool invented by the community to quantify a given blackbox process. Even if they would exist, though, as in being part of the loot origination process itself, your calculation is not correct. The fallacy is that everyone is looking at what a hof means in terms of these so-called "multipliers", instead of rather looking at regular finds. If your way of calculating would be correct, then in effect would mean that double-triple dropping would lower the multipliers for regular finds. Which is simply, verifiably, false.
I think what they are trying to understand is the biggest multiplier possible based on decay. This is easy to see with crafting explosives as you can see from the hof bored/aths that around 4000-5000x multiple off decay is around the maxish.

Same theory for mining. If you have a max multiplier of (for arguments sake) x1000. Then with using a level 13 amp with a 1 ped decay finder, then in theory you can hit a 1000 x 21 ped = 21000 ped. In reality the max multiplier is probably the same across all professions, so you can probably expect a 5000x plus for mining as well (with any finder and any amp).

So if anyone has a mining ATH after the date in this thread, then you can guarantee that the max multiplier probably hasnt changed, just the rarity of it.

I also think, and Leeloo correct if i am wrong, but there is suspicion that certain mining finder/amp combos might have a lowered possible max. How to verify this is almost impossible as the really big finds are rare as hell already.

Either way, and if i am off track completely I apologise - Good luck all!

Rgds

Ace
 

Kerham

Elite
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Posts
4,728
Location
to the moon and back
Society
Project Y
Avatar Name
Kerawan Kerham Maddahy
I don't disagree with what you said, I also agree on certain amps comment (where Dmitri could share some light if he would be the kind to talk about these things), which I think have extremely low volatility looked at a decent (yet extremely costly ttwise) sample.

What I was merely disputing is that double dropping means a "base" cost of 1,5 ped. In my opinion, it's 1 cost of 1 ped and 1 cost of 0,5 ped, each with own searches and own "multiplier" scale. As such, a find of 100 ped enmatter is the same multiplier, imo, nomatter if it is single, double or triple dropping, namely 200 per cost of attempt, respectively 60-70ish per size of average find.
 

LeelooM

Prowler
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Posts
1,492
Location
Belgium
Society
Spectra
Avatar Name
Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
I think what they are trying to understand is the biggest multiplier possible based on decay. This is easy to see with crafting explosives as you can see from the hof bored/aths that around 4000-5000x multiple off decay is around the maxish.

Same theory for mining. If you have a max multiplier of (for arguments sake) x1000. Then with using a level 13 amp with a 1 ped decay finder, then in theory you can hit a 1000 x 21 ped = 21000 ped. In reality the max multiplier is probably the same across all professions, so you can probably expect a 5000x plus for mining as well (with any finder and any amp).

So if anyone has a mining ATH after the date in this thread, then you can guarantee that the max multiplier probably hasnt changed, just the rarity of it.

I also think, and Leeloo correct if i am wrong, but there is suspicion that certain mining finder/amp combos might have a lowered possible max. How to verify this is almost impossible as the really big finds are rare as hell already.

Either way, and if i am off track completely I apologise - Good luck all!

Rgds

Ace
To be honest?

I do not use that many amps and if I do, it's mostly amp 2.

IF mining HR is abnormal high I might use an amp 5.

How big multipliers might be? No idea at all cause I do not mine for those, only for fun and some profit if possible :p

I only use my F-106 so no idea how other finders react

For the multipliers ... hope nobody shoots me lol, I can only say that I think they are there for gamblers and nothing but gamblers, that are seeking for a big bang that prolly will never happen.

I see a global/hof as an extra I get, but no idea who or what triggers it. As I've been mining those where extra's, since my TT returns where mostly already over 100% and that I call safe mining (unamped/amp2), no gambling at all.

Some say you get TT, decay etc ... payed back, I do not believe this, ALL I believe are the numbers I see in my excel files and from others in soc no matter what finder/amp they use. I have seen many trying for big hits with big amps ... They ALL lost big time... except for Jenna :) en myself (but that was years ago when it was completely different. Those that have the peds to run around and mine with them, they might ofc get a nice tower 1 day sure, but still that doesn't mean they made profit. Even running around with no amp, I might get a tower, who knows, but that chance is ofc a lot smaller.

As mining is now ( 80-90% TT return/unamped) the chance of having a biggy might be bigger cause the community of miners is paying (more) for it. Future will tell. In the past 2 weeks after the update my returns are constant lower, I even get multipliers/globals and like I said above they do NOT bring me back to the 100% as a payback for the TT spend. They never did and they will never do that.

MA is no charity, if you want to make profit ingame, you need to do that yourself

This is all my interpretation.

Cheerzzzz and gl :)
 
Last edited:

Ace Flyster

Elite
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Posts
4,961
Location
England, London
Society
Rangers
Avatar Name
Dave Ace Flyster
To be honest?

I do not use that many amps and if I do, it's mostly amp 2.

IF mining HR is abnormal high I might use an amp 5.

How big multipliers might be? No idea at all cause I do not mine for those, only for fun and some profit if possible :p

I only use my F-106 so no idea how other finders react

For the multipliers ... hope nobody shoots me lol, I can only say that I think they are there for gamblers and nothing but gamblers, that are seeking for a big bang that prolly will never happen.

I see a global/hof as an extra I get, but no idea who or what triggers it. As I've been mining those where extra's, since my TT returns where mostly already over 100% and that I call safe mining (unamped/amp2), no gambling at all.

Some say you get TT, decay etc ... payed back, I do not believe this, ALL I believe are the numbers I see in my excel files and from others in soc no matter what finder/amp they use. I have seen many trying for big hits with big amps ... They ALL lost big time... except for Jenna :) en myself (but that was years ago when it was completely different. Those that have the peds to run around and mine with them, they might ofc get a nice tower 1 day sure, but still that doesn't mean they made profit. Even running around with no amp, I might get a tower, who knows, but that chance is ofc a lot smaller.

As mining is now ( 80-90% TT return/unamped) the chance of having a biggy might be bigger cause the community of miners is paying (more) for it. Future will tell. In the past 2 weeks after the update my returns are constant lower, I even get multipliers/globals and like I said above they do NOT bring me back to the 100% as a payback for the TT spend. They never did and they will never do that.

MA is no charity, if you want to make profit ingame, you need to do that yourself

This is all my interpretation.

Cheerzzzz and gl :)

I don't have recent stats, but just an FYI for how it used to definitely work. I worked out my average find size, (ignoring big hits) with different sized amps, this was mostly using a vrx2k and 3k, and the average size was significantly bigger, with a bigger decaying finder. I think Falkoa (spelling?) did the stats on it.

As to now, i can only guess that decay is probably/likely still included in returns. The only undecided was the extractor costs, as this was post finding the claim and probably not included in the long run.

There is a simple test for it. Record number of I's or II's on different decay finders with no amp. It would be pretty clear, pretty quickly if finder decay is counted, as there would be a significant difference in the number of I's and II's found.

I agree big amps is gambling, mostly because you are paying a far higher markup which will be difficult in today's climate to make back, but you would also have to drop a lot of bombs to hit the required big ones to make your tt average as high as possible. (this was 10k's of bomb drops, back in the day)

I miss mining!

Rgds

Ace
 

LeelooM

Prowler
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Posts
1,492
Location
Belgium
Society
Spectra
Avatar Name
Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
I don't have recent stats, but just an FYI for how it used to definitely work. I worked out my average find size, (ignoring big hits) with different sized amps, this was mostly using a vrx2k and 3k, and the average size was significantly bigger, with a bigger decaying finder. I think Falkoa (spelling?) did the stats on it.

As to now, i can only guess that decay is probably/likely still included in returns. The only undecided was the extractor costs, as this was post finding the claim and probably not included in the long run.

There is a simple test for it. Record number of I's or II's on different decay finders with no amp. It would be pretty clear, pretty quickly if finder decay is counted, as there would be a significant difference in the number of I's and II's found.

I agree big amps is gambling, mostly because you are paying a far higher markup which will be difficult in today's climate to make back, but you would also have to drop a lot of bombs to hit the required big ones to make your tt average as high as possible. (this was 10k's of bomb drops, back in the day)

I miss mining!

Rgds

Ace
Ah owke I get that :) thanks for explaining ^^

Now I'm wondering if this is the case in using depth enh also :p

I did some testing with other F finders on HR but never on amp sizes, maeby I'll try that also

I really never did care because most of my mining runs where over 100% TT return but this isn't the case anymore now.

I'll keep mining and see what the multi's will bring me in the long run but so far it's not looking good ^^
 
Last edited:

kingofaces

Alpha
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Posts
695
Location
US
Avatar Name
Tony KingofAces Hans
There is a simple test for it. Record number of I's or II's on different decay finders with no amp. It would be pretty clear, pretty quickly if finder decay is counted, as there would be a significant difference in the number of I's and II's found.
I did this a couple years ago actually (though just claim size number won't do the trick as it's too low resolution). I'd alternate between F-211 (1.306 PEC decay) and Ziplex Z15 (2.557 PEC decay) each find while recording the TT. Larger claims above size 7 were excluded as outliers. No amps, enhancers, etc. I had smaller sample sizes before, but this is where I cut it off since results didn't really change over time.

Just for ore alone (more likely to detect a difference first), the average claim size after 1000 drops for for the F-211 was 2.68 PED (95% confidence limits: 2.643-2.743), and the average claim for Ziplex Z15 was 2.671 PED (95% confidence limits: 2.629-2.712). In essence, no statistically significant difference due to finder decay with those intervals overlapping. P-values are also around p = 0.4 with untransformed data or even if I do a log-transformation as it sometimes detects effects better. P-values < 0.05 generally indicate a significant difference, but 0.4 isn't even in weak evidence territory.

In short, there's really no indication from actual data there's a finder decay effect. It's possible you might find a slight significant difference if you ramped up the sample size even more (though extremely unlikely at this point), but at over sample sizes over 1000, you're quickly getting into statistically significant, but functionally insignificant territory. It really looks like finder decay is just paying for access to finder radius, depth, and probe number unique to that finder and not returned in loot.
 
Last edited:

Haruto Rat

Elite
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Posts
3,341
Society
fode et fuge
Avatar Name
Cunning Haruto Rat
In short, there's really no indication from actual data there's a finder decay effect.
Ditto.

There's that crazy little thing; I've talked to some of the people who have crafted and used it but they couldn't convince me. They said "it seems there is" but I'd rather test it myself. Some day I will.
 

Ace Flyster

Elite
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Posts
4,961
Location
England, London
Society
Rangers
Avatar Name
Dave Ace Flyster
I did this a couple years ago actually (though just claim size number won't do the trick as it's too low resolution). I'd alternate between F-211 (1.306 PEC decay) and Ziplex Z15 (2.557 PEC decay) each find while recording the TT. Larger claims above size 7 were excluded as outliers. No amps, enhancers, etc. I had smaller sample sizes before, but this is where I cut it off since results didn't really change over time.

Just for ore alone (more likely to detect a difference first), the average claim size after 1000 drops for for the F-211 was 2.68 PED (95% confidence limits: 2.643-2.743), and the average claim for Ziplex Z15 was 2.671 PED (95% confidence limits: 2.629-2.712). In essence, no statistically significant difference due to finder decay with those intervals overlapping. P-values are also around p = 0.4 with untransformed data or even if I do a log-transformation as it sometimes detects effects better. P-values < 0.05 generally indicate a significant difference, but 0.4 isn't even in weak evidence territory.

In short, there's really no indication from actual data there's a finder decay effect. It's possible you might find a slight significant difference if you ramped up the sample size even more (though extremely unlikely at this point), but at over sample sizes over 1000, you're quickly getting into statistically significant, but functionally insignificant territory. It really looks like finder decay is just paying for access to finder radius, depth, and probe number unique to that finder and not returned in loot.
1.3 pec (f211) vs 2.5pec (Z-15) difference of 1.2 pec. Your results are in line with this. But you would have to drop a lot more bombs to get the significance down.

Rgds

Ace
 

kingofaces

Alpha
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Posts
695
Location
US
Avatar Name
Tony KingofAces Hans
1.3 pec (f211) vs 2.5pec (Z-15) difference of 1.2 pec. Your results are in line with this. But you would have to drop a lot more bombs to get the significance down.
There was functionally no difference between those averages, and if anything, they're out of line (the Z-15 had numerically less than the F-211, not more). That's just randomness. If there was a true difference, a trend would have at least showed up as I kept dropping more, but that never happened. There are some other rough analyses I ran that can estimate what would occur at much higher sample sizes, but still no difference even at 10,000 drops.

Either way, we're at a point that no one can claim finder decay is returned in TT without actual evidence that exceeds testing like this, and even if there was an effect, it's such a small amount that there's functionally no relevance to it (biological relevance is the term we frequently use in science publications). There's a point where the inherent randomness of the thing you're measuring far exceeds minor nuisance effects that do exist, so that's where the finder decay in TT theory sits at best.
 

Ace Flyster

Elite
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Posts
4,961
Location
England, London
Society
Rangers
Avatar Name
Dave Ace Flyster
There was functionally no difference between those averages, and if anything, they're out of line (the Z-15 had numerically less than the F-211, not more). That's just randomness. If there was a true difference, a trend would have at least showed up as I kept dropping more, but that never happened. There are some other rough analyses I ran that can estimate what would occur at much higher sample sizes, but still no difference even at 10,000 drops.

Either way, we're at a point that no one can claim finder decay is returned in TT without actual evidence that exceeds testing like this, and even if there was an effect, it's such a small amount that there's functionally no relevance to it (biological relevance is the term we frequently use in science publications). There's a point where the inherent randomness of the thing you're measuring far exceeds minor nuisance effects that do exist, so that's where the finder decay in TT theory sits at best.

Seems i cannot read :) Yes, agreed on your results there is no significant difference between finders decay on average loot size. (i wish i had the time to run my own test!)

This still doesn't explain lower I's, and II's i recorded when switching to higher decay finder. I will see if i can find my results again, maybe it was number of bombs issues or used slightly different number of bombs, maybe i tested between areas that had higher tt ores. I don't remember. Will update if i find anything of significance (see what i did there? yes i know - i am getting coffee).

Rgds

Ace
 

LeelooM

Prowler
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Posts
1,492
Location
Belgium
Society
Spectra
Avatar Name
Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
ADDING info in the mining thread after more unamped/testing mining after he sept 2019 update.

OOPS wrong thread and moved it
 

Kerham

Elite
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Posts
4,728
Location
to the moon and back
Society
Project Y
Avatar Name
Kerawan Kerham Maddahy
There's a point where the inherent randomness of the thing you're measuring far exceeds minor nuisance effects that do exist, so that's where the finder decay in TT theory sits at best.
I might have misunderstood you, with English not being my native language and having the scientific education of a park bench with ambitions, however if I did understood correctly, I beg to differ.

May I point a few consequences:

- with small enough decay, mining on taxed areas costs the same as mining untaxed areas with regular/high decay (with the debatable difference that tax is payed to a competitor, whereas decay to the system)

- based on finder decay, there is a solid estimation to be made about (f)utility of certain levels of amplification, per markup of respective amps

- based on finder/enhancer decay, we get into a territory where rares are effectively caged and under certain MU they become ineffective

- finder decay is fundamental to picking between preamped and regular finders, just as excavator decay is per choice of rolled resources

And I am sure I am missing some.
 

kingofaces

Alpha
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Posts
695
Location
US
Avatar Name
Tony KingofAces Hans
I might have misunderstood you, with English not being my native language and having the scientific education of a park bench with ambitions, however if I did understood correctly, I beg to differ.

May I point a few consequences:

- with small enough decay, mining on taxed areas costs the same as mining untaxed areas with regular/high decay (with the debatable difference that tax is payed to a competitor, whereas decay to the system)

- based on finder decay, there is a solid estimation to be made about (f)utility of certain levels of amplification, per markup of respective amps

- based on finder/enhancer decay, we get into a territory where rares are effectively caged and under certain MU they become ineffective

- finder decay is fundamental to picking between preamped and regular finders, just as excavator decay is per choice of rolled resources

And I am sure I am missing some.
Basically, when you do say 1000 drops and take the average, it's pretty much never going to be exactly the same TT return each time you repeat those 1000 drops. That's a measure of variation for that called the standard deviation. When that variation or standard deviation is high, then you cannot easily detect minor effects that may exist and only major effects that stand out in that variation.

Take human height for example. If there's a gene that practically guarantees a person will be 0.001mm higher than a person without, that would be a minor nuisance effect because even though it exists (theoretically for this example) you aren't going to detect it in testing for causes of height differences, and it doesn't really matter much at all for predicting height anyways. That's kind of the equivalent of what's going on here.

For your questions:

1. Average claim size would be the same for those different finders, but taxes would likely be a bigger bite than anything. Decay is measured in PECs (1-2 PEC for the finders I tested) and if you're taking say 5% of an average ore claim, that's .13 PED or 13 PEC. If you're getting to bigger finders that pre-amp, that decay can basically be considered MU you'd pay for an equivalent amp instead.

2. Just looking solely at amps and not pre-amped finders, I'm not sure I follow. The base TT will always be the same based on probes, so you'd be getting the same modified TT for adding an amp for both. If you were dead set on using a VRX-3000, then adding an amp would actually mean a smaller percentage of your PED are being eaten up by finder decay. With, pre-amped finders though this does come into play when calculating an amp equivalent MU for using the finder.

3. True, though I have to pencil out where that comes into play, but I suspect you'd need a <120% MU deep resource to really see such an effect. For me though, I don't bother with Redulite as much because I can get higher average MU at shallower depths.

4. It really depends on the pre-amped finder, but if you consider all of the decay of the pre-amped finder as MU similar to the percentage you'd pay for an amp, some finders are actually cheaper than buying an amp (except for enmatter in most cases).
 

Kerham

Elite
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Posts
4,728
Location
to the moon and back
Society
Project Y
Avatar Name
Kerawan Kerham Maddahy
1. Average claim size would be the same for those different finders, but taxes would likely be a bigger bite than anything. Decay is measured in PECs (1-2 PEC for the finders I tested) and if you're taking say 5% of an average ore claim, that's .13 PED or 13 PEC. If you're getting to bigger finders that pre-amp, that decay can basically be considered MU you'd pay for an equivalent amp instead.
Correct, but this only true as long as you stay at shallow average depth (say, 600ish), where you have head-to-head F212, EFS and F106. When you have to (or you choose to) go at deeper areas, 8-900-1k, the decay (Terra)/enhancers (F106)/MU (preamped) become comparable to taxes. Based on wether you consider or not the decay as being recovered, one choice would be better than others. Of course, MU of resources and actual avg MU harvested is alot more important, we're merely talking habits of choice so to say.

2. Just looking solely at amps and not pre-amped finders, I'm not sure I follow. The base TT will always be the same based on probes, so you'd be getting the same modified TT for adding an amp for both. If you were dead set on using a VRX-3000, then adding an amp would actually mean a smaller percentage of your PED are being eaten up by finder decay. With, pre-amped finders though this does come into play when calculating an amp equivalent MU for using the finder.
This regards compound of risks/costs and actual harvested MU. In the case of certain rare capped resources, finder decay and amp MU will together eat up whatever can be found /no of drops from said resource. I have in mind at least one example where is better to attempt unamped low decay, provided enough patience. With apologies I don't provide actual examples.

3. True, though I have to pencil out where that comes into play, but I suspect you'd need a <120% MU deep resource to really see such an effect. For me though, I don't bother with Redulite as much because I can get higher average MU at shallower depths.
Redulite is not a rare capped resource. Tridenite or rugaritz might be better examples. If looking in a bad avg MU area, then, same as above pretty much, whatever you spend for the specialised effort (as in price of big depth or amplification) might/will be eaten away by, say, lysterium finds and extraction. I will admit though that is a very niche thing.

4. It really depends on the pre-amped finder, but if you consider all of the decay of the pre-amped finder as MU similar to the percentage you'd pay for an amp, some finders are actually cheaper than buying an amp (except for enmatter in most cases).
Exactly my point.


Putting all together, thank you for your explanation regarding the science background. Whereas is hard to measure and I only have some empirical data (namely, probes+amp roi tt seem to me to vary independent of probes+amp+finder decay roi tt), I simply prefer to pick what is the worst case scenario and behave upon that. Of course, based on the actual targeted resource and area, I do consider that all finders (or, at worst, the large majority) have their place and suitable behaviour.
 

Boxie

Mature
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Posts
32
Thank you :)

Not maximum only cause I assume you can get 2 or 3 different claimsizes on every amp
On level 13 so far (FOMA mostly), I had: Sizable, Large, Abundant, Great (These one were on Caly) Substantial, Plentiful, Extremely Huge, Massive, Vast, Rich...

The array of claim sizes is proportional to the claim sizes unamped only multiplied by aprox. 30x

Sample size: Aprox 200 Level 13 amps in September 2019

This you can best observe on FOMA, where the average claim size for ores is ample (12 PED aprox), and the average hit on ores with level 13 is around 330-370 PED.
 

chaoz

Guardian
Joined
May 14, 2005
Posts
282
Location
Gothenburg / Sweden
Society
Amethera Demons
Avatar Name
John chaoz Anderson
Tried some mining on FOMA today

Setup: F-105, 2 depth enhancers, Level 3 amp, 228 drops

1 x size 18 - huge (567 peds)
1 x size 19 - extremly large (711 peds)

(other then that there were mostly size 11 & a few size 9)
 

Robin

Prowler
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Posts
1,269
Location
USA
Society
Soldiers of Fortune
Avatar Name
Mayana maya Riechert
This multiplier lowering to me, has made me turn away from Entropia Universe. I just don't feel it's been fair basically. I just got to 71 prospecting and was excited to be past 70 and a champion level hoping to become a master miner eventually. I've deposited plenty, bought all the best finder equiptment as i could for my level and all that but to no avail. I have lost over at least 20k peds in the last few years and am down to practically under 200 peds. I felt the lowering of multipliers in this last update and previous ones. Oh and i have dropped big amps and lost plenty but not gotten my next big one back to make up for all the losses I have had. It's not fun and I played for fun and just don't get it anymore. I'm glad you all are enjoying the updates. Maybe I'll try again maybe not. I haven't decided yet what to do.
 

Vadio

Dominant
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Posts
488
Location
Space
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Jhan Delarea Freitas
Welcome to club
 

LeelooM

Prowler
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Posts
1,492
Location
Belgium
Society
Spectra
Avatar Name
Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
Check this out pls :) and using big amps ... enjoy the casual 60 - 70% TT return now

What I mean is, it's changed a lot after the patch.
Want to win big, need to spend big + higher risk cause of the high amps.

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?312373-Steady-mining

What I wanted to proof (and see with my own eyes) is that TT return in mining is almost constant 80-90% TT return after the patch in september 2019 (without amp)
Agree that it was more before the patch (almost 100% most of the time)

As soon as my numbers (TT return) goes in minus or in other words go in the red ... I get a lot of multipliers/globals/hof that brings me back in positive numbers again. This does NOT count if you are mining in a taxed area, that % of TT return is the miner loosing.

This does not mean I'm in green numbers in TT return so it is always important to keep mining with the lowest cost factor, depending the resources you are looking for.

Once you start using amps, TT returns will react the same BUT with deeper/higher neg/pos TT returns and will bring you back to 94-95% TT return. For this you need a bigger pedcard.

Your profit comes from at what % you will sell your resources, that's fully up to you !!!

EDIT : compare it with crafting from quantity to condition ... a lot more failures on condition so a lot more chance to loose.
 
Last edited:

Manique

Marauder
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Posts
6,510
Location
Portugal
Society
In Da Pocket
Avatar Name
Paulo Manique Santos
I honestly don't understand what you are saying. 50x + multipliers only, maybe. Lvl13 would give significant/plentiful at each find indoor, that's not a "swirl", even if graphically is.
that and also would hurt the economy, most ppl just do their gambling for the swirlie rush and nothing else
Even if they get screwed its not what matters
 

LeelooM

Prowler
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Posts
1,492
Location
Belgium
Society
Spectra
Avatar Name
Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
that and also would hurt the economy, most ppl just do their gambling for the swirlie rush and nothing else
Even if they get screwed its not what matters
YES YES YES :)

We share the same opinion.

Swirls / Hoflist/ Attention

and screwing MU's cause they just sell at whatever, to buy more probes to loose more = gambling
 
Last edited:

Psynergy

Provider
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Posts
133
Avatar Name
Shadowfire Hottygurl Of The Phoenix
YES YES YES :)

We share the same opinion.

Swirls / Hoflist/ Attention

and screwing MU's cause they just sell at whatever, to buy more probes to loose more = gambling
They need to do some adjusting of the way the flow of ore on big amps and such goes.
In my opinion, they need to make the TT returns more stable to reward people using them, but adjust the way more rare ores and less common ones drop in return so that if the person is in the correct small sub-area to find a material, they can hit a nice pocket of it, while the mass majority won't pay attention and will miss.
In effect, increasing the 'skill factor' in coming out ahead after MU.
This is just my opinion though....thoughts?

Gamblers would be less punished, and more inclined to keep going, but wouldn't flood market as much. Pick one resource, like oil, to dump on and take to no markup, along with one or two other ores in cycle from the ultra-commons.
 

Vadio

Dominant
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Posts
488
Location
Space
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Jhan Delarea Freitas
In this way you not punish gamblers
you punish players like me heavly grinder

I realy upset i cant hit zanderium with all my skills , all my expensive tools because this kind cap
imagine you start cap others stuffs?

Yes minning need whole rebalance and overhaull , yes grind my gear F106 hit redu , gold , vesperdite without enhancer
but this its not rigth way to do
 

TheRock

Elite
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Posts
2,547
Location
Inverted Southway - City of peace
Society
Pain Incoming
Avatar Name
TheRock
In this way you not punish gamblers
you punish players like me heavly grinder

I realy upset i cant hit zanderium with all my skills , all my expensive tools because this kind cap
imagine you start cap others stuffs?

Yes minning need whole rebalance and overhaull , yes grind my gear F106 hit redu , gold , vesperdite without enhancer
but this its not rigth way to do
Long time ago, an old friend of me who were a "miner", used to chip in huge amount of mining skills thinking it will help him. I was in shock that he was thinking this way... You are now saying the same. I think mining skills should be valued that you may instead get x% higher TT return. X% higher SOOTO, X% higher multi chanse or x% higher rare hit if you are using the correct tool. Something in this regard
But removing all the skill based finders, enhacners etc to get back to a plain F106 to hit all rares.. That would kill lots of enhancer business and other crafting ones.

You don't hit zand simply because you are grinding with medium amps. Those amps will never or rarly hit zand. You are seeking skill/higher multipliers over MU and profit. Its a way of play. Not saying you are loosing the way you do, but sometimes playing the game the way it is (even if it is not balanced), is better than playing the way you want it to be.

With respect to u, i think u are the only lvl100 i know of or heard of as mining is extremely slow in skilling. Not that i care much of skill as a lvl30 miner can actually compete with lvl 200 miner since this lvl200 sadly wont have much advantage over a lower lvl. Im sure MA are thinking of something here and all those changes we see or saw on mining are a part of their testing. So keep it up :)
 
Last edited:

LeelooM

Prowler
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Posts
1,492
Location
Belgium
Society
Spectra
Avatar Name
Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
Yes minning need whole rebalance and overhaull , yes grind my gear F106 hit redu , gold , vesperdite without enhancer
but this its not rigth way to do
You can get those with the F-106 without amp/enhancers

But ofc you will get not much at all cause you only get the top layers + if not using amps you get even again less cause of the TT value. (+ More time consuming)

Up to you now if you want to use basic amps (around 80-90% TT return) that will give you almost no lyst and some amounts of those rare ores , this way MU will make up nicely and you make profit. (+ Less market flooding so higher MU's)

Up to you now if you want to risk high/pro amps (around 60-70% TT return) that will give you heeps of lyst and small amount of those rare ores, making you loose cause you cannot make up the losses with MU.

So many way's to play this game :)

And as Rocky said before, I also regret skills have nothing to do with mining once over lvl 20-30 now cause then you can find anything, but we did get a new nice patch so I'm sure there will be more changes overtime :)
 
Last edited:

MikeH

Dominant
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Posts
448
Society
AoC 2.0
Avatar Name
Mike KingMike007 Hussey
Finally got my highest multiplier today after September 1st,
F 106 + level 2 amp treasure only costs 1.5ped probe + 0.5ped amp decay = 2 ped
global i got 292 ped so 146x multiplier ?
 

LeelooM

Prowler
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Posts
1,492
Location
Belgium
Society
Spectra
Avatar Name
Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
Finally got my highest multiplier today after September 1st,
F 106 + level 2 amp treasure only costs 1.5ped probe + 0.5ped amp decay = 2 ped
global i got 292 ped so 146x multiplier ?
Woohoo nice 1 Mike :) glad for you but I see you amped down also?

Been doing lots of testing and it really depends depth + what amp = loss/win on each zone.

EDIT : + the fact that high amp users (read gamblers) need to sell big stacks fast to go mining again (read loose more) and drag MU down. So stocking up some resources till MU goes up helps a lot now.
 
Last edited:

LeelooM

Prowler
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Posts
1,492
Location
Belgium
Society
Spectra
Avatar Name
Leeloo Leeloo Mountain
Finally got my highest multiplier today after September 1st,
F 106 + level 2 amp treasure only costs 1.5ped probe + 0.5ped amp decay = 2 ped
global i got 292 ped so 146x multiplier ?
The xxx multiplier doesn't mean anything.

Without or with any amp, you mostly will get a claim 13-14-15 and much more rare a 16.

You might get a 16+ with or without amp but those are becoming very very very rare.

Why amp users loose a lot more is just because the dropcost is a lot higher (every NRF hurts more) so you are having a very hard time making that up + selling with to low % on resources and you will loose big time.
It's just the first thing you learn in economy lessons.
 
Last edited:

BackBone

Dominant
Joined
May 16, 2006
Posts
489
Location
Portugal
Avatar Name
BackBone Angelina Praias
My latest tower, 5264 PED Melchi, was with level 5 amp, so a little over 2000 multiplier.

My previous tower, 4509 PED Magerian, was with level 8 amp, so around 1000 multiplier.
 
Top