Background
So a few years back I did some testing between different decay finders (F-211 (L) and Ziplex Z15 (L)) with a 1.25 PEC difference per drop to see if finder decay was returned in loot or not. This was started because there were claims that finder decay was returned in claims, but there was never any hard data to show it even though it’s not that difficult to test. These finders were selected for having nearly the exact same stats for depth, radius, etc. where only decay varied. At that time, there was no significant difference in claim sizes.
However, the recent changes to enhancers even after 2.0 got me thinking, and since I’m a scientist, I like to formally test things in the game. We now get the TT value back of the enhancer, meaning if finder decay wasn’t returned, UL finders with enhancers would have a significant advantage if nothing had changed. That was my assumption before enhancer changes, but I wanted to test this again since the new enhancer mechanics would help make decay-based differences more apparent using enhancers on a F-106 to control depth without additional decay.
New testing
So through Dec 2019-Jan 2020 I repeated this test with a larger decay difference: F106, 1.799 PEC decay with 7 depth enhancers and TerraMaster 6 (L), 4.372 PEC decay. If there was a difference, it should ballpark around 2.57 PEC difference in TT return / drop. Depth (885m) radius, etc. were also identical to control for any unknown confounding.
What I would do is alternate between F-106 and Terramaster 6 each time I hit an enmatter. I also dropped for ores and recorded those, but focused on enmatter since differences should be more apparent there with smaller claim size. Total TT of each claim was recorded, and repeated. This was unamped, so I also removed outliers (generally anything above size 7). That alternating was important since that’s basically the randomization of treatments to a degree. That prevents things like low TT in a certain area affecting the results if I had happened to use just one of the finders for say 30 drops and then switched to the other one when TT would have returned to normal.
For those not familiar with the statistical tests done on this type of data check out this round of testing a bunch of us did on hit rates. Those threads also get into things to account for that could be unintended confounding for comparing averages. Basically, there are ways to determine if differences in averages are due to random chance or some actual underlying cause if performed correctly. Basically, these are all averages, standard error of the mean (SEM), and t-tests where if the t-tests p-value is < 0.05, we’re confident those differences are not due to just random chance. No fancy graphs this time since it just boils down to a few numbers.
So like the testing I did a few years ago, I kept dropping and kept watching for differences to be detected. This time around, I actually did detect a difference for enmatter that was very definite at 160 enmatter claims:
Enmatter: Average F-106 claim size for enmatter was 1.3434 PED (SEM:0.0254) and average TerraMaster 6 claim size was 1.4415 PED (SEM:0.0262). The difference between those averages was statistically significant (p-value = 0.008).
Ore: Average F-106 claim size for enmatter was 2.7111 PED (SEM:0.6363) and average TerraMaster 6 claim size was 2.7865 PED (SEM:0.6232).The difference between those averages was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.311).
What was different this time is that the p-values for enmatter a few years ago had no trend towards being a significant difference as I increased sample size. This time, I could technically detect this difference at close to 100 claims, but I kept dropping to confirm. There was a slight similar trend in ore (absolutely no trend in the previous round), so I’m guessing there is a difference for ore too. However, since the decay effect is already minimal for enmatter, but ore has higher variation due to larger claim sizes, this could swamp out the decay effect until you have closer to say 1000 claims until the statistical test can detect it.
Why does this matter?
So it looks like something may have changed in mining mechanics in the last few years with finder decay, or I just wasn’t able to detect it years ago with smaller finders. Either way, more finder decay does increase claim size.
Now this isn’t going to matter for trying to increase your claim size much at all as a form of amping. Where it really matters though is there’s not a penalty for using finders like the TerraMasters with higher decay from an “eco” perspective. Using enhancers on an UL finder to get to a certain depth also costs more than L finders in many cases with this in mind.
If I’m using that F-106 I would pay about 1.73 PEC per drop in MU (i.e., just the MU on the enhancers) based on my historical break rates and 190% MU. For the TerraMaster 6, it’s about 0.67 MU PEC per drop. You’ll have to pencil this out for each L finder vs enhancing on an UL, but generally L finders under 120% MU seem to be a better deal. Enhancers still have plenty of use if you want to push depth down temporarily for a little bit or if you don’t have the skills for a deeper L finder.
I also can’t pin down exactly how much of that decay is returned in claims from this, but it looks like most of it is, while some goes to skills etc. That means eco for finders isn’t avoiding TT decay like it used to be and using enhancers to reach a specific depth, but simply comparing L finder MU or enhancer MU.
Update 6/2020: Since the last VU, enhancer break rates have changed to break quicker based on how much added effect they give. That means my calculations above for whether L or UL + enhancers is more eco are out of date. Not sure what direction that changes things though. Decay was not affected based on the VU notes though, so the core findings still remain.
). I see your account is rather new. Safest bet, until you get your own data/practices etc is to use tt excavator and, respectively, imperium b1 refiner and be selective what you refine. Some things under certain markup rather belong in tt (or if you have the patience and auction slots, sell small stacks overpriced).