Avg depth and depth enhancers

Read through Leeloo's great guide and got a few questions about depth.

About targeting a certain ore/enmat through avg depth from LBML.
If dianthus can be found between 583 and 1363 with avg depth of 885. Is the average important at all or is it just important to stay within that range?

Seems to me that average ore/enmat depth would be highly dependant on the miners supplying the data. If someone finds lyst really deep while searching for redu thats gonna increase LBML's reported lyst avg depth. Seems more reasonable to me that one should concentrate on the range. Am I wrong there? Is one actually more likely to find diathus with exactly 885m avg search depth than lets say a 1100m avg search depth wich is also purely within the dianthus range?

Secondly. Has it been tested that more depth enhancers give more tt return since it "expands the bubble" as leeloo puts it? Does it really expand the bubble or does it just move the same size bubble deeper?
Wouldn't range enhancers be the ones to increase tt?

Thanks again guys!

Steinmeyer said:

Seems to me that average ore/enmat depth would be highly dependant on the miners supplying the data.

Secondly. Has it been tested that more depth enhancers give more tt return since it "expands the bubble" as leeloo puts it? Does it really expand the bubble or does it just move the same size bubble deeper?
Wouldn't range enhancers be the ones to increase tt?

Thanks again guys!

Click to expand...

That is the key caveat with LBML depth data, and that the list is only from data in the last 90 days. Honestly, I just make sure I'm a bit below the minimum depth. Average and deepest don't really seem to matter, though I don't think there's been much formal testing on deepest. There's a certain point where you'll get fewer additional claims at depths beyond the minimum depth, so you increase the likelihood of redul or whatever you are targeting if it is available with more depth to a point. The more you increase depth from there, you start having diminishing returns since you aren't really increasing the percentage of rare stuff that much more.

That leads in to your second question. Give this thread a read. You'll get slightly lower TT on a enhanced finder than a higher decay one at the same depth. TT of claims is not affected by your enhancers. You just get the TT value of it back, and the MU is lost, so enhancers are pretty much entirely separate from the TT value system in mining.

Finder decay can act similar to an amp in that is slightly increases average claim size. That doesn't mean you should treat finder decay as an amp, but what it does mean is that finder decay is mostly returned to you, giving a huge advantage to mining without enhancers if you can because that MU on enhancers can add up. I sold my F-106 for that reason and just went limited. A low MU finder (~115% and below) will pretty much always be cheaper than using enhancers to reach that same depth. Depth enhancers have about a 0.30% break-rate on UL finders, so you'll have to pencil the math out yourself on what works best for you. Generally though, Terramasters are a good standby.

As for "expanding the bubble", hit rate or TT seems to be two-dimension (x-y coordinates) rather than three-dimensional (x-y-z or depth added). Depth pretty much just determines resource composition (and by proxy MU). As you increase depth, you'll generally see about a ±200 to 300m variation from the listed average. Otherwise, you could drop at 200m and then at 800m in the same spot and not have a drastic reduction in hit rate (if any claims at all). If you do any testing like that, it will be come pretty obvious claims are metered out on a 3-d plane.

Great answer, thanks man! Seems I need to spread around some reputation before I can give you more. Will do!