Do multiple Long-Range Mineral Scanners stack?

[IronSquid501]

Title

[Gyger]

I would like to know too.

[VJ]

They don't stack, as in you can't use two to find something faster, but you can use as many as you want if you have the researchers to use them. They operate independently even if tuned to the same resource.

To clarify further - if you have two tuned to the same resource you'll simply pop two mineral events rather than one mineral event faster.

[AI Roguelite: AI-generated RPG]

Originally posted by VJ:

They don't stack, as in you can't use two to find something faster, but you can use as many as you want if you have the researchers to use them. They operate independently even if tuned to the same resource.

To clarify further - if you have two tuned to the same resource you'll simply pop two mineral events rather than one mineral event faster.

This answer is very ambiguous and confusing because of the wording "you can't use two to find something faster" which is precisely contradicted by the rest of the answer. If two things independently have their own chance of finding something, the expected total time it takes is obviously faster than using just 1 thing. For example if the goal is to get a roll of 6 on a die each time you roll, it will happen much more often when rolling 3 dice than if rolling 1 die at a time.

[Astasia]

Originally posted by www.maxloh.com:

This answer is very ambiguous and confusing because of the wording "you can't use two to find something faster" which is precisely contradicted by the rest of the answer. If two things independently have their own chance of finding something, the expected total time it takes is obviously faster than using just 1 thing. For example if the goal is to get a roll of 6 on a die each time you roll, it will happen much more often when rolling 3 dice than if rolling 1 die at a time.

The semantics of the explanation are important here in understanding exactly how the process works, and I think VJ did a pretty good job of explaining it. The word I think you skipped over a bit is "something." Two scanners does not find "something" faster, two scanners finds two entirely different things in the same amount of time. This is important because you can have them finding different types of ore, and it's important because if you need something "right now" having a bunch of scanners will not usually get you that thing any faster, you just end up with more of it overall in the future.

IE If you need components "now" and you have one scanner, it might take 8 days of work. If you have 4 scanners, it's still probably going to take around 8 days of work, but you'll end up with 4 times as many resource deposits.

There is a little bit of RNG involved, but it's not truly a dice roll, the speed of finding resources is mostly based on work done and skill of the worker. It is an MTB value and it can fire earlier, but on average it will not.

[AI Roguelite: AI-generated RPG]

Originally posted by Astasia:

Originally posted by www.maxloh.com:

This answer is very ambiguous and confusing because of the wording "you can't use two to find something faster" which is precisely contradicted by the rest of the answer. If two things independently have their own chance of finding something, the expected total time it takes is obviously faster than using just 1 thing. For example if the goal is to get a roll of 6 on a die each time you roll, it will happen much more often when rolling 3 dice than if rolling 1 die at a time.

The semantics of the explanation are important here in understanding exactly how the process works, and I think VJ did a pretty good job of explaining it. The word I think you skipped over a bit is "something." Two scanners does not find "something" faster, two scanners finds two entirely different things in the same amount of time. This is important because you can have them finding different types of ore, and it's important because if you need something "right now" having a bunch of scanners will not usually get you that thing any faster, you just end up with more of it overall in the future.

IE If you need components "now" and you have one scanner, it might take 8 days of work. If you have 4 scanners, it's still probably going to take around 8 days of work, but you'll end up with 4 times as many resource deposits.

There is a little bit of RNG involved, but it's not truly a dice roll, the speed of finding resources is mostly based on work done and skill of the worker. It is an MTB value and it can fire earlier, but on average it will not.

What you said is completely mathematically false! If all are independent cases, having more scanners on the same object will reduce the *expected* amount of time for the first hit to happen. If 1 scanner takes on average 8 days, then 2 scanners on average takes 4 days for the first hit, 4 scanners takes on average 2 days for the first hit, etc. An easy way to see it intuitively is to imagine 1,000 scanners. If each of those 1,000 scanners has their own independent random hit between 0 to 8 days, you would expect to be getting a hit on one of them extremely soon (on average, .008 expected days).

[Waylander]

Originally posted by www.maxloh.com:

What you said is completely mathematically false! If all are independent cases, having more scanners on the same object will reduce the *expected* amount of time for the first hit to happen. If 1 scanner takes on average 8 days, then 2 scanners on average takes less than 8 days. An easy way to see it intuitively is to imagine 10,000 scanners. If each of those 10,000 scanners has their own independent random hit between 0 to 8 days, you would expect to be getting a hit on one of them extremely soon.

Nope. I understand what you are saying but each one doesn't reduce the time at all because each one of them is producing the same outcome so the average is not reduced. 1 million times of 8 days does not mean the average will change to anything other than 8 days.

Sure building/manning one earlier will mean you get the event earlier but it still takes 8 days.

[Kittenpox]

If it takes me 10mins to walk to the shops, and I walk back with two full bags of groceries,
Then bringing a friend will let us carry four grocery-bags, but will not get us there in 5mins.
Even if they walk slightly faster than me (the RNG/skill component here), and it takes them 9.5mins instead of 10, that won't mean we have the grocery resources twice as soon as if either of us walked to the shops alone.

[AI Roguelite: AI-generated RPG]

Originally posted by Waylander:

Originally posted by www.maxloh.com:

What you said is completely mathematically false! If all are independent cases, having more scanners on the same object will reduce the *expected* amount of time for the first hit to happen. If 1 scanner takes on average 8 days, then 2 scanners on average takes less than 8 days. An easy way to see it intuitively is to imagine 10,000 scanners. If each of those 10,000 scanners has their own independent random hit between 0 to 8 days, you would expect to be getting a hit on one of them extremely soon.

Nope. I understand what you are saying but each one doesn't reduce the time at all because each one of them is producing the same outcome so the average is not reduced. 1 million times of 8 days does not mean the average will change to anything other than 8 days.

Sure building/manning one earlier will mean you get the event earlier but it still takes 8 days.

First of all, let me say the exact numbers I gave in my previous comment are incorrect (as I thought about it, it's actually *mean* time of 8 days, not 0 to 8 days). Still, you are wrong to say that more of them won't reduce the expected amount of time until the 1st hit. The math to prove you wrong is a little less obvious than I thought:

First, we agree 1 scanner expected time is 8 days. You're claiming no matter how many scanners, expected time is still 8 days even for just the first hit. Now imagine the 2-scanner case. The first scanner has an expected time of 8 days. If the 2nd scanner has a 0% chance of happening before the 1st scanner, then with 2 scanners the expected time for the *first* occurrence will be the same as the 1-scanner case. If the 2nd scanner has a non-zero chance of happening before the 1st scanner, then there are at least some situations where the amount of time to the *first* occurrence would've been reduced, hence it should be less than 8 overall. Obviously, the 2nd scanner doesn't have a 100% chance of happening after the 1st scanner.

An easier way is to simply imagine a huge number (e.g. 1 billion) scanners; will you still claim with a straight face that with 1 billion scanners each with expected time of 8 days, none of them will be below 8 days? In this case, it is virtually guaranteed at least one of them will be below 8 days. Hence this case must have expected time to first occurrence of less than 8 days.

[AI Roguelite: AI-generated RPG]

Originally posted by Kittenpox:

If it takes me 10mins to walk to the shops, and I walk back with two full bags of groceries,
Then bringing a friend will let us carry four grocery-bags, but will not get us there in 5mins.
Even if they walk slightly faster than me (the RNG/skill component here), and it takes them 9.5mins instead of 10, that won't mean we have the grocery resources twice as soon as if either of us walked to the shops alone.

The scanners aren't getting on metaphorical trains. They are independent cases each with their own time distribution. And as I've illustrated in my earlier comment you'd be wrong to claim that in such a case, increasing scanners won't decrease expected time of the first hit.

[Waylander]

Originally posted by www.maxloh.com:

Originally posted by Waylander:

Nope. I understand what you are saying but each one doesn't reduce the time at all because each one of them is producing the same outcome so the average is not reduced. 1 million times of 8 days does not mean the average will change to anything other than 8 days.

Sure building/manning one earlier will mean you get the event earlier but it still takes 8 days.

First of all, let me say the exact numbers I gave in my previous comment are incorrect (as I thought about it, it's actually *mean* time of 8 days, not 0 to 8 days). Still, you are wrong to say that more of them won't reduce the expected amount of time until the 1st hit. The math to prove you wrong is a little less obvious than I thought:

First, we agree 1 scanner expected time is 8 days. You're claiming no matter how many scanners, expected time is still 8 days even for just the first hit. Now imagine the 2-scanner case. The first scanner has an expected time of 8 days. If the 2nd scanner has a 0% chance of happening before the 1st scanner, then with 2 scanners the expected time for the *first* occurrence will be the same as the 1-scanner case. If the 2nd scanner has a non-zero chance of happening before the 1st scanner, then there are at least some situations where the amount of time to the *first* occurrence would've been reduced, hence it should be less than 8 overall. Obviously, the 2nd scanner doesn't have a 100% chance of happening after the 1st scanner.

An easier way is to simply imagine a huge number (e.g. 1 billion) scanners; will you still claim with a straight face that with 1 billion scanners each with expected time of 8 days, none of them will be below 8 days? In this case, it is virtually guaranteed at least one of them will be below 8 days. Hence this case must have expected time to first occurrence of less than 8 days.

Why wouldn't the second scanner have a 0% chance of happening before the first?

If I program a robot to give you a series of consecutively numbered boxes day after day at the exact same time there will be no chance that you receive tomorrow's box today. You will never get 1,3,2.

[AI Roguelite: AI-generated RPG]

Originally posted by Waylander:

Why wouldn't the second scanner have a 0% chance of happening before the first?

If I program a robot to give you a series of consecutively numbered boxes day after day at the exact same time there will be no chance that you receive tomorrow's box today. You will never get 1,3,2.

Did we not agree each scanner operates *independently*? Your robot scenario is completely irrelevant to the scenario of independent scanners. Why do you get to number them in the first place, how do you determine which one gets what number if you start them simultaneously, and why would they follow any strict ordering at all if they are independent?

Imagine this instead: If I told you I have 2 timers, each with their own independent distribution with mean time of 8 minutes, how would you pick which one is the one which is guaranteed to ring "second" versus "first"? There's no such thing!

Even more obvious: If I told you I have 2 dice which I will now roll, each which can land between 1 and 6, why would you claim there is 1 particular die you can identify which will definitely have a higher number than the other one?

[AI Roguelite: AI-generated RPG]

Also, consider this quote you said earlier:

Originally posted by Waylander:

1 million times of 8 days does not mean the average will change to anything other than 8 days.

The key is you said the *average* will stay the same at 8 days which is true, but when you have multiple of them, the expected time to the *first* one is going to be earlier than the *average* expected time.

[Waylander]

Originally posted by www.maxloh.com:

Originally posted by Waylander:

Why wouldn't the second scanner have a 0% chance of happening before the first?

If I program a robot to give you a series of consecutively numbered boxes day after day at the exact same time there will be no chance that you receive tomorrow's box today. You will never get 1,3,2.

Did we not agree each scanner operates *independently*? Your robot scenario is completely irrelevant to the scenario of independent scanners.

Imagine this instead: If I told you I have 2 timers, each with their own independent distribution with mean time of 8 minutes, how would you pick which one is the one which is guaranteed to ring "second" versus "first"? There's no such thing!

Even more obvious: If I told you I have 2 dice which I will now roll, each which can land between 1 and 6, why would you claim there is 1 particular die you can identify which will definitely have a higher number than the other one?

Firstly I apologise in that I misunderstood that they operated on a mean rather than a set period of time. I feel like pointing that out probably would have helped your case more.

That said the Mean time according to the Wiki is 9.2 days with a guaranteed success of 8 days.

So yes it can take less than 8 days to get a result and yes a second scanner can throw a result earlier than the first. This does mean that having more scanners could potentially provide results faster than having simply 1 scanner.

Still doesnt mean that scanning times are reduced though just that the more scanners you have the higher your chances that one of your scanners will roll a lower random number than the others.

[AI Roguelite: AI-generated RPG]

Originally posted by Waylander:

Originally posted by www.maxloh.com:

Did we not agree each scanner operates *independently*? Your robot scenario is completely irrelevant to the scenario of independent scanners.

Imagine this instead: If I told you I have 2 timers, each with their own independent distribution with mean time of 8 minutes, how would you pick which one is the one which is guaranteed to ring "second" versus "first"? There's no such thing!

Even more obvious: If I told you I have 2 dice which I will now roll, each which can land between 1 and 6, why would you claim there is 1 particular die you can identify which will definitely have a higher number than the other one?

Firstly I apologise in that I misunderstood that they operated on a mean rather than a set period of time. I feel like pointing that out probably would have helped your case more.

That said the Mean time according to the Wiki is 9.2 days with a guaranteed success of 8 days.

So yes it can take less than 8 days to get a result and yes a second scanner can throw a result earlier than the first. This does mean that having more scanners could potentially provide results faster than having simply 1 scanner.

Still doesnt mean that scanning times are reduced though just that the more scanners you have the higher your chances that one of your scanners will roll a lower random number than the others.

See comment #8. I honestly forgot about the "mean time" thing in the beginning too. But it actually doesn't matter whether it's mean time or not, as I explained in my other comments. I actually proved that in either case having more scanners will reduce the expected time to the 1st hit. My first "mistaken" comment (comment #5) proves why this would be true if it were a uniform distribution of 0-8 days (guaranteed success at x days, exact number doesn't matter), and my comment after that (comment #8) proves why this would still be true even if it were a more complicated distribution from 0-[any number] days with mean time of x days where x is less than the max.

By the way, the wiki doesn't make sense because if something is guaranteed to finish at 8 days or earlier then how can the mean time be greater than 8?

Originally posted by Waylander:

Still doesnt mean that scanning times are reduced though just that the more scanners you have the higher your chances that one of your scanners will roll a lower random number than the others.

Thank you yes I completely agree with your careful wording and I believe it's the same as what I said in the first comment about the dice rolls. I didn't say it'll reduce the scanning time per scanner; I'm just saying that when you have multiple of them it brings down the expected amount of time you'll have to wait until the 1st hit.

[Waylander]

Originally posted by www.maxloh.com:

See comment #8. I honestly forgot about the "mean time" thing in the beginning too. But it actually doesn't matter whether it's mean time or not, as I explained in my other comments. I actually proved that in either case having more scanners will reduce the expected time to the 1st hit. My first "mistaken" comment (comment #5) proves why this would be true if it were a uniform distribution of 0-8 days (guaranteed success at x days), and my comment after that (comment #8) proves why this would still be true even if it were a more complicated distribution from 0-[any number] days with mean time of x days where x is less than the max.

By the way, the wiki doesn't make sense because if something is guaranteed to finish at 8 days or earlier then how can the mean time be greater than 8?

I never said you'll reduce the scanning time per scanner; I'm just saying that when you have multiple of them it brings down the expected amount of time you'll have to wait until the 1st hit.

Nah we were arguing different things. I was under the impression that it was a flat set "it will take exactly 8 days".

It does make sense. The game uses a random number and the researchers skill to produce an scan time. That scan time averages out to 9.2 days. The game then limits it to 8.