halftoasted
Guardian
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Posts
- 345
- Avatar Name
- Frank Halftoasted Redhot
You can see it on the left each time I post.
<-------
<-------
From my data, overlapping drops isn't a negative. 101% TT returns.That hit rate is worse than normal when overlaping was never question.
Depends how much you are overlapping. Remember the area of a circle. If you are just running and dropping at reload time, you are only overlapping the same area to a small degree. If someone is just doing that, it isn't going to be as noticeable compared to if you have full overlaps.From my data, overlapping drops isn't a negative. 101% TT returns.
I'm also curious about this.Nice thx Sulje, and kingofaces ofc for actually doing a test. So we DO know!
Altho, Id still be interested to see what would happen if we got 30 people each with one probe, standing very close together and every 2s the next person drops a probe. Think of it as a preliminary experiment to see if Miner 2 and 3 still finding things can really be explained with the 2 mechanisms you explored. We'd expect either
Actually 30 people is probably too much. Maybe I can get my soc together and we can find 8 people or so, at least we could repeat the experiment 10 times at 10 different spots. Id be down to pay for that. I'll let you know, today is fishing day tho, so maybe end of the week Anything I should think of? I was thinking tt finder, unamped. Skill level of miners? Would that matter somehow?
- only Miner#1 finding something the rest not,
- no one finding anything,
- Miner#1 yes, Miner#2 yes (because Miner#1 found something rly close), and so on, then the rest NRF.
- Hit rate goes down but maybe claim size correspondingly rises?
- Some combination.
cheers
Exactly!There have been many times when I accidently dropped another probe at the same location.
Sometimes that first probe at that location was NRF. But that second accidental drop found something!
Very strange...
Sometimes the first probe finds something, Then that second accidental drop also finds something.
Not sure what this means.
My personal, untested, and unsupported belief / conclusion:
I feel like from the coding perspective, it would make sense if they use the coordinate where we drop to seed a RNG.
Since it is still RNG, I think just because the first is NRF, doesn't mean the next RNG roll will be NRF.
If people stopped doing test indoor and/or with amp and/or with statistical bias... They could simply use TT finder which a ore+enmatter+TT finder decay is 0.10p + 0.05p + 0.0048p = 0.1548p drop cost. We could have interesting data already. When 1000 drops of both cost 154.80p including finder decay.. You can go a long way to gather data.I wouldn't mind donating 20 probe drops for this testing. If we can organize a big group mining testing.
You should definitely do it!If people stopped doing test indoor and/or with amp and/or with statistical bias... They could simply use TT finder which a ore+enmatter+TT finder decay is 0.10p + 0.05p + 0.0048p = 0.1548p drop cost. We could have interesting data already. When 1000 drops of both cost 154.80p including finder decay.. You can go a long way to gather data.
Agreed, I keep track but Im 1 man and a RT. Should more be on RT and want to consider joining in that idea. Im all open for it!You should definitely do it!
I am impressed ....I confirm returns are 95%
Thread can be closed!
Thank you all for participating!
[System]: [Carnage] killed [Alina] using a [Marber Tango-Type Plasma Annihilator]The area beats you enough, why should i still pk you
He has no divine, cheap a$$[System]: [Carnage] killed [Alina] using a [Marber Tango-Type Plasma Annihilator]
[System]: Critical hit - Additional damage! You inflicted 543.0 points of damage
I got u once.....felt so good i had to save it
I'm also curious about this.
Actually what would be more interesting is if 30 ppl just run together and mine normally. Try to synchronize as much as possible. I think that would be a pretty sure testing if other miners affects your return. I wouldn't mind donating 20 probe drops for this testing. If we can organize a big group mining testing.
If the group of miners all try to mine as synchronized as possible and we see several claims pop up in close proximity then we can definitely conclude that claims are generated when we drop them and they are not spawned in the ground. Having several claims pop up in close proximity also means that other miners does not affect your mining.
But if we only see 1 claim then it means other miners does affect you. That location can only have 1 claim and if 1 miner gets it then no one else can get a claim at that location.
There's already statistically rigorous data to the contrary on that. Someone mining in an area will affect the HR of miners going through there within a short period of time, and you don't see a rise in TT per claim to compensate. It's basically no different than if a hunter goes through an area and cleans out mobs before they respawn. You're not going to have anything to shoot at for a bit, but in the case of mining, it's like shooting in PVP where you lose TT even if it's not a shot at a mob. Mobs are just visible on your radar is all. Meanwhile, you have to stab in the dark to see if you hit a mining resource.Because, easy again, everything is avatar-based.
There's already statistically rigorous data to the contrary on that.
There is no personal lootpool. MA said it and my account shouldnt exist if it was true. Im not saying Im mr.richboy printing peds.. Just to be clear, look my EL. While many globals are missing as a offworlder, even with the hofs we can tell what kind of player I am. So even if I grow it's just fun growth because even mcdonald would pay me way more over time.Your return, and therefore your hit rate, is set in advance, and is avatar-based.
That I agree with you. There too many players that dont understand if their sampling was rigorous data you would have EA, EPIC games or any big company buy the system via trial and error to clone intellectual properties MA wouldnt sell for even a few millions. That alone show how much their pool cannot be more than sampled using 100$ or even 10000$.Rigorous data ?
I know some people dont like that but I refer to Diablo II which was considered gambling during production where they had to change the loot algo to have, in short, loot into "coded chest" where mobs spawn with a pregenerated key and when you kill the mob it try all combination until it open your loot. This was deemed "non gambling". We can imagine EU work in a very similar but in reverse where decay/tool generate the key that check which loot pocket you open.I repeat, if there was an ounce of randomness in this real money game (TT in/TT out), it would be illegal.
Good teaching moments here, but pretty much. That's how nearly all science research is done. We don't need huge sample sizes in research statistics because the statistical tests are designed to estimate what the true population mean is as if you manually sampled an extremely large amount to the point the running average stabilized out. They're basically saying how likely it is that two treatments are different if you did go out to say 5,000 or 100,000 drops based on some smaller sample size. If someone doesn't like that, they don't like nearly all published research out there that we do in the real world, often with much less controlled systems.Rigorous data ?
45 PED drops ?
You science apprentices should already be learning what a valid test is in terms of statistics.
You did 30 double drops, and said "wow the difference is so big that we are sure that if we did the test 100 times, we would get the same result".
That's how nearly all science research is done.
If you quote a research, at least find one that support your claims.
This is why your method is basically interesting data. Not statistic. Far from making that post useless. It was an interesting read but we must see things for what they are.The purpose of estimating the appropriate sample size is to produce studies capable of detecting clinically relevant differences. Bearing this point in mind, there are different formulas to calculate sample size.
Applying medical techniques to EU is already questionable but the smallest magnitude would be the globals and HoF which happen the smallest. While "clinically relevant in this case would refer that loot pool which IS more than relevant.It is also important to determine what is the smallest magnitude of the effect and the extent to which it is clinically relevant. For example, how many degrees of difference in the ANB angle can be considered relevant? It is vital that we address this issue.
This is a prime example as to why you did an observation. A scientific observation but it is nowhere to be close to being statistics.If researchers wish to detect a difference as small as 0.1° in an ANB angle, they will probably need thousands of patients in their study. If this value rises to 1°, the number of cases required falls drastically.
And you tossed those out the window saying they were error even though MA will say clearly that gobal and HoF are part of your expected results.Finally, it is essential that the researcher determine the level of significance and the type II error, which is the probability of not rejecting the null hypothesis, although the hypothesis is actually false, which the study will accept as reasonable.
Which is something you do in abundance.using a sample smaller than the ideal increases the chance of assuming as true a false premise.
With a simple sampling, because I cant even see it as a real sample, you have no analysis power. Just the power to sew perceptions based on your heart and desire to see something.When numerous cases are included in the statistics, analysis power is substantially increased.
CONCLUSIONS
An appropriate sample renders the research more efficient: Data generated are reliable, resource investment is as limited as possible, while conforming to ethical principles. The use of sample size calculation directly influences research findings. Very small samples undermine the internal and external validity of a study.
I like this statement. It makes me feel like it is possible that mining claims are just invisible mobs roaming around. You drop a probe to see if your area has a invisible mob roaming there. If they just copy and past the codes for mobs and just make them invisible and change the respawn timer. Kinda makes me have a different theory about the coordinates seeding a RNG. But then this "invisible mob" theory doesn't explain dropping at the same coordinates and getting 0 hits. Like if you drop 100 probes in the same coordinates, you will probably get like 1 or 2 hits out of the 100 drops. Even if you wait 15 minutes before dropping another probe at the same coordinate, I think you still won't get a claim at that coordinate.Mobs are just visible on your radar is all. Meanwhile, you have to stab in the dark to see if you hit a mining resource.
Yeah, it's just my speculation getting into that territory since there isn't a good way to test those two, but I'd bet more on resource nodes (equivalent to mob radar dots) not moving around on their own, but just being static where they happened to generate. I don't really have any strong attachment to the idea either way, but the mob parallel seemed to at least be a decent illustration for parts of what the data suggests for mining mechanics. There are some parts that don't really match exactly with how mobs work in other testing I have, but that gets into what I leave others to figure out on their own.I like this statement. It makes me feel like it is possible that mining claims are just invisible mobs roaming around. You drop a probe to see if your area has a invisible mob roaming there. If they just copy and past the codes for mobs and just make them invisible and change the respawn timer. Kinda makes me have a different theory about the coordinates seeding a RNG. But then this "invisible mob" theory doesn't explain dropping at the same coordinates and getting 0 hits. Like if you drop 100 probes in the same coordinates, you will probably get like 1 or 2 hits out of the 100 drops. Even if you wait 15 minutes before dropping another probe at the same coordinate, I think you still won't get a claim at that coordinate.