Info: Post 09/2019 Mining Log

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
L30/Cougr

Shrapnel for probes at all times

Mod Exc (anything else is for eco fags who are bad at maths)

imperium refiner

4/21/2020 start date

Goals:

4% profit margin on TT cycled [ ]
Find mining locations outside of pyrite/alt grinding that are worth a fuck [ ]
first 5-digit planetside tower [ ]
Get MA to recognize and appreciate my data/feedback [ ]
Play a game that isn't broken [ ]
Don't be a pussy and quit before new mining VU [ ]
Piss off russian miners [X]
cycle greater than 5k TT/day on average [X]



Going to hedge this against my data from 2015-2018. Observations so far:

1) random number generation controls the multipliers - you get small kickbacks here and there to 85-90%, but if you want more you can get fucked if you think you'll get it aside from just RNG'ing your way through millions of TT cycle

2)markups are complete ass - i blame two people for this 1) MA for EPs and shrapnel recycle bps, and 2) the eastern european/russian miner socs that run 24/7 and just nuke all the markup in sight.

3) indoor mining is still broken since the update so don't waste your ped.

4) i've written to MA and supplied data regarding variance at certain locations, they had a two part response of "well get fucked kid" and "It's on Neverdie to fix so again, get fucked kid" (tl;dr ND never adjusted hell so the hit rate/multipliers/etc... is fucked and the system won't pay out expectancies so don't mine HELL until it's been fixed.)


Overall Stats through 5/31/2020

TT in: 152412.5

TT out: 134336(88.14%)

Gross: -18076.33

markup sold: 16697.43

net pnl: -1379.06


if 500k is cycled at sub-93% tt this log will be stopped and i'll be gone again.
 
Last edited:

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
Reserved......
 

Vadio

Dominant
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Posts
488
Location
Space
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Jhan Delarea Freitas
<- stalk mode on
 

warwar

Prowler
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Posts
1,016
Society
WhySoSerious
Avatar Name
Warvar Mortal Wild
in your stats (tt return, Mu return) you have no chance to earn peds, so how the guys that you blame for, mining somewhere 24/7?
 

GxB

Guardian
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Posts
212
the thing with mining is that you make more money, the lower your turnover, generally speaking. one miner alone with medium sized amps could provide all resources that are needed for crafting... only thing you can do to profit is low turnover (probably 500 peds or less) daily and accumulate and sell when prices are slightly better than usual.
(low turnover due to stupid resource caps / waves whatever that prevent you from actually getting MU 95% of the time)
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
in your stats (tt return, Mu return) you have no chance to earn peds, so how the guys that you blame for, mining somewhere 24/7?
current markup average is closer to 113% - markup sold and actual markup average is completely differnet.
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
the thing with mining is that you make more money, the lower your turnover, generally speaking. one miner alone with medium sized amps could provide all resources that are needed for crafting... only thing you can do to profit is low turnover (probably 500 peds or less) daily and accumulate and sell when prices are slightly better than usual.
(low turnover due to stupid resource caps / waves whatever that prevent you from actually getting MU 95% of the time)

i'd rather eat a plate of shit and get banned by PCF mods again than spend 6-9h/day mining unamped outdoors to make 13 ped per month. I;ve pulled 260k ped out of this game... i'd just go play somthing else.
 

GxB

Guardian
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Posts
212
i'd rather eat a plate of shit and get banned by PCF mods again than spend 6-9h/day mining unamped outdoors to make 13 ped per month. I;ve pulled 260k ped out of this game... i'd just go play somthing else.
Black Desert Online is hella fun ;-)
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
i'm over 120k cycled now with TT well under 90% so this should be an interesting next two weeks.


raw hit rate is fine, i'm just not hitting multipliers at all.
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
still at 86.9% TT - closing in on 175k cycled.
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
TT in: 84274.74

TT out: 73093.11 (86.73%)

Gross: -11,181.63

markup avg: 112.43%

net pnl: -3683.99


$400 to play the game for a month with a really solid markup average (given the state of the market)

at 90% TT i'm in profit, but 90% seems unattainable so yeah.

Sent another support case, not sure what the issue is regarding TT returns, all of this was done planetside, arkadia, dual dropping and spacing effectively, etc....... markup took a huge shit because i wasn't doing the ashi grind... TT returns didn't improve at all

I asked for some clarification as to what the mean TT return % should be over time. MA told me last time every avatar is bound by the same system, so they have more than the means to figure out/tell me what my average, expected TT return should be.

I won't put up with sub-90% tt though, at all.
 

GxB

Guardian
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Posts
212
maybe MA calculates like this:

Player A drops 10 bombs and gets a good "run". tt in 10 peds, tt out 15 peds => 150% tt return

player B drops 1000 bombs and has shit luck, tt in 1000 peds, tt out 500 peds => tt return 50%

now MA calculated Player A 150% + Player B 50% = 200% tt return / 2 players = 100% tt return on average per player. so they go and reduce the returns down so "average return per player" is down to 90%. rinse n repeat
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
maybe MA calculates like this:

Player A drops 10 bombs and gets a good "run". tt in 10 peds, tt out 15 peds => 150% tt return

player B drops 1000 bombs and has shit luck, tt in 1000 peds, tt out 500 peds => tt return 50%

now MA calculated Player A 150% + Player B 50% = 200% tt return / 2 players = 100% tt return on average per player. so they go and reduce the returns down so "average return per player" is down to 90%. rinse n repeat

no.

system spits out TT over time at X% - usually 90% - but some players will miss out on larger multipliers because of resource caps and MA won't really do anything about it, resulting in lower TT % over time.
 

kingofaces

Alpha
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Posts
693
Location
US
Avatar Name
Tony KingofAces Hans
no.

system spits out TT over time at X% - usually 90% - but some players will miss out on larger multipliers because of resource caps and MA won't really do anything about it, resulting in lower TT % over time.
Resource "caps" and TT don't seem to be tied, or at least I've never seen anyone present decent data to justify the claim. If some resource isn't showing up, you'll typically just be getting more of the common ones in that area.
 

Alukat123

Stalker
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Posts
1,650
Avatar Name
Son Alukat Goku
Resource "caps" and TT don't seem to be tied, or at least I've never seen anyone present decent data to justify the claim. If some resource isn't showing up, you'll typically just be getting more of the common ones in that area.
from what i've seen, like on devil's tails, the claim sizes usually were 1-2 sizes smaller than on the common stuff...
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
Resource "caps" and TT don't seem to be tied, or at least I've never seen anyone present decent data to justify the claim. If some resource isn't showing up, you'll typically just be getting more of the common ones in that area.
when you see an ignisium, terrudite, pyrite, gazz, garcen/cave/typo tower let me know


since i've been back i've never see a tower on any resource other than uncapped bullshit which i don't mine.

only reason i'm continuing is because strash went through a similar 200k cycle with ~85% tt

there are areas in game where you can completely avoid common ores.
 

kingofaces

Alpha
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Posts
693
Location
US
Avatar Name
Tony KingofAces Hans
when you see an ignisium, terrudite, pyrite, gazz, garcen/cave/typo tower let me know
Yes, it does seem like multipliers are less common on rarer resources but that doesn't address the lower TT you brought up at all. You just get a different resource type in those cases. As always, we need to be careful about random speculation that's just searching for a trend that falls into confirmation bias or correlation ≠ causation without good data, which as been the point of my doing those analysis threads. If someone really wants to claim TT is lower, that wouldn't be hard to put together a spreadsheet of TT / drop and analyze it.

I never bothered to go more in-depth beyond what I have though because whether I look at the TT / claim or drop when dealing with cave sap, igni, etc. I just see normal variation in TT like I would with any other resource. It's very easy to notice the times when you get less TT just by chance because you really notice when a target resource comes up.
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
Yes, it does seem like multipliers are less common on rarer resources but that doesn't address the lower TT you brought up at all. You just get a different resource type in those cases. As always, we need to be careful about random speculation that's just searching for a trend that falls into confirmation bias or correlation ≠ causation without good data, which as been the point of my doing those analysis threads. If someone really wants to claim TT is lower, that wouldn't be hard to put together a spreadsheet of TT / drop and analyze it.

I never bothered to go more in-depth beyond what I have though because whether I look at the TT / claim or drop when dealing with cave sap, igni, etc. I just see normal variation in TT like I would with any other resource. It's very easy to notice the times when you get less TT just by chance because you really notice when a target resource comes up.

but every claim rolls for a multiplier, so if you roll several ignisium claims, but the system multi is capped, or set to multi at a lower rate than lyst for example, you will get worse TT returns due to lack of multipliers.
 

kingofaces

Alpha
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Posts
693
Location
US
Avatar Name
Tony KingofAces Hans
but every claim rolls for a multiplier, so if you roll several ignisium claims, but the system multi is capped, or set to multi at a lower rate than lyst for example, you will get worse TT returns due to lack of multipliers.

You'd just likely multiply say a base 3 ped lyst claim by the same multiplier instead of a base 3 ped igni claim in that case. That would only affect your MU. That matters, but that's different than TT returns. If someone is trying to claim a multiplier on a "capped" resource is only limited to what's available and might only give you 50x instead of 500x, that's definitely in speculation territory.

Even what I said first above is an assumption, but asserting you'd lose multipliers makes a few more assumptions about how the system works with what appears to be "caps". Theories obviously happen, but I'm cautious about runaway ones that build on other untested assumptions too much.
 

GxB

Guardian
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Posts
212
You'd just likely multiply say a base 3 ped lyst claim by the same multiplier instead of a base 3 ped igni claim in that case. That would only affect your MU. That matters, but that's different than TT returns. If someone is trying to claim a multiplier on a "capped" resource is only limited to what's available and might only give you 50x instead of 500x, that's definitely in speculation territory.

Even what I said first above is an assumption, but asserting you'd lose multipliers makes a few more assumptions about how the system works with what appears to be "caps". Theories obviously happen, but I'm cautious about runaway ones that build on other untested assumptions too much.
in general caps are quite visible though (for example on rare looted items in hunting). or why is it, that sometimes when an event starts suddenly 10 rare items of the same kind drop in a matter of an hour or two while it usually just drops once every months or less.
or how comes, that after a VU with the introduction of new items they tend to drop immediately after the server is up and then not anymore. and when there is something like this in place, why wouldnt they use it for other stuff as well (from a programming pov).
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
. If someone is trying to claim a multiplier on a "capped" resource is only limited to what's available and might only give you 50x instead of 500x, that's definitely in speculation territory..

i have 5.3 million TT cycle data that proves this is not speculation lmfao
 

kingofaces

Alpha
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Posts
693
Location
US
Avatar Name
Tony KingofAces Hans
in general caps are quite visible though (for example on rare looted items in hunting). or why is it, that sometimes when an event starts suddenly 10 rare items of the same kind drop in a matter of an hour or two while it usually just drops once every months or less.
or how comes, that after a VU with the introduction of new items they tend to drop immediately after the server is up and then not anymore. and when there is something like this in place, why wouldnt they use it for other stuff as well (from a programming pov).
The reason I put quotes around caps is because there are things that could give the appearance of caps that really aren't. Events are tricky because we don't know if MA is putting their finger on the scales temporarily though.

Part of this comes from some mining testing I've been working on (still figuring out what details would be best to present here), but basically it looks like some resources, especially rarer ones, have a tendency to co-occur (or rather not show up together) for periods of time. Most folks know this, but formal analysis of the variability on that is what gets interesting. So from a programmatic standpoint, it looks like there isn't just one loot table an area pulls from, but that there's structure within it that causes there to be multiple loot tables (or the appearance of them).

At its simplest, they could be adding in a sort of timer where the single rarer item is added to the loot table at X% for that limited time, and the chance of that window occurring is say 10%. After some amount of time, the loot table is randomly chosen again. That could become more complicated with many preset loot tables or even each resource just being resampled in the table over time. If I were trying to create both rarity with both temporary but somewhat unpredictable accessibility, this is actually a route I'd consider for both some simplicity while balancing other things on the developer side. No caps needed, but the appearance of them, and you could easily change rarity within too.

Of course another route is that no static hard caps on resources exist, but instead X amount is added to a server/planet's available pool over time. Some types functionally would be near impossible to deplete, while others could generally be with a few drops and tend to respawn at similar rates as other rare ores for that co-occurrence subject. I could buy that, and it's not an uncommon function, especially if you know the background on some games, especially those with restocking, etc. It could maybe explain the amp caps (that has some better data) on specific resources, but that also gets complicated with times where I could not hit dianthus whatsoever amped, but could for long strings unamped while I switched between amp and none every drop. With my above testing, there are ways to weigh whether this is more likely or the loot table example I gave, but that's a work in progress.

The point though is that there are many ways to approach what appear to be caps that we shouldn't really be saying anything definitive about the mechanics of them aside from knowing that resources become unavailable or much more rare over relatively short periods of time. There are multiple simple ways to regulate what is in the loot pool at a certain time and a given chance depending on what the intent is on the developer end, but even the simple examples above can get layered quickly. That's why I'm cautious about overly specific speculation in this area.
 
Last edited:

kingofaces

Alpha
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Posts
693
Location
US
Avatar Name
Tony KingofAces Hans
i have 5.3 million TT cycle data that proves this is not speculation lmfao
TT cycled is completely irrelevant for that question, just as my having a research background technically doesn't make my speculation more correct.

What you need is good non-confounded data that actually shows what you claim. What exactly did you do in gathering data, and what did you do while accounting for randomness to formally test that you had multipliers that are smaller than they should have been (and who even knows what their multiplier "should have been")? If it's possible to have it so concretely figured out, then show the data. Because of how often people can be confident about speculation or trends they thought they saw that didn't exist, that is extremely important for standing apart from that.

There's a pretty high bar for making these claims to this degree, so I think a lot of people would be interested to see it demonstrated.
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
There's a pretty high bar for making these claims to this degree, so I think a lot of people would be interested to see it demonstrated.
demonstrating this would take years and no one, nor myself, has the time or patience for that and moreover would not give this information for free.
 

kingofaces

Alpha
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Posts
693
Location
US
Avatar Name
Tony KingofAces Hans
demonstrating this would take years and no one, nor myself, has the time or patience for that and moreover would not give this information for free.
So you're basically saying you don't have data summarized that could show this, yet make the claim anyways. You can't go asserting things with that degree of certainty and based on multiple assumptions without backing it up as that is extremely misleading. It shouldn't be surprising that anyone would call that out. You can't just say nope, this is how it works because you've cycled X TT amount.

I do plenty of testing, some that doesn't really give me a huge advantage over others that I post publicly, and some things that keep my TT high that I don't reveal details on. If there were data on this, that wouldn't fall into the latter category as it would be no problem anonymize the methodology to just say method 1 and method 2 showing the apparent deviation in average claim sizes. Yet you're making an extremely extraordinary claim that you know what a multiplier "should be". Most any experienced miner is going to be highly skeptical of that without even slight evidence. You've put the claim out there with enough certainty the burden is on you to demonstrate it's not handwaving that can frequently happen in this subject. That wouldn't be the case if it were just our normal "here's my random theory" discussion, but you wanted to claim something more concrete, so there's a process to that if you're really serious about it.
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
So you're basically saying you don't have data summarized that could show this, yet make the claim anyways. You can't go asserting things with that degree of certainty and based on multiple assumptions without backing it up as that is extremely misleading. It shouldn't be surprising that anyone would call that out. You can't just say nope, this is how it works because you've cycled X TT amount.

I do plenty of testing, some that doesn't really give me a huge advantage over others that I post publicly, and some things that keep my TT high that I don't reveal details on. If there were data on this, that wouldn't fall into the latter category as it would be no problem anonymize the methodology to just say method 1 and method 2 showing the apparent deviation in average claim sizes. Yet you're making an extremely extraordinary claim that you know what a multiplier "should be". Most any experienced miner is going to be highly skeptical of that without even slight evidence. You've put the claim out there with enough certainty the burden is on you to demonstrate it's not handwaving that can frequently happen in this subject. That wouldn't be the case if it were just our normal "here's my random theory" discussion, but you wanted to claim something more concrete, so there's a process to that if you're really serious about it.
this is my thread, make a new discussion and we can talk about it.
 

Rocket192

Stalker
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Posts
2,124
Location
Michigan
Society
Apocalyptic
Avatar Name
Sean Rocket Connors
TT in: 152412.5

TT out: 134336(88.14%)

Gross: -18076.33

markup sold: 16697.43

net pnl: -1379.06



May results

Did mostly planetside - TT clawed back slightly, indoors is still pretty broken. Markups were still a bit too low and it was painful to camp my ass on ashi the last 30-40k cycled. Didn't get as much pyrite as I wanted - going back to doing whatever i want provided the markup output is approximately 120% - if i don't get 120% i won't play/drop.

Not seeing the TT/multis coming back, nothing over 2k for hofs so going for garbage ores/enmatters is just hurting in the long run. I'll grind markup and see what happens. Not going to tolerate lyst/cald/oil/melchi/etc... unless mixed with 200%+ resources.
 
Top