Diamond Guides reference 2 points
1. Mine Layer 12
2. Branch Mine roughly 20 blocks in a direction
My method uses statistics to rule out these as the best ways to find diamonds. Yet People worship them as law. allow me to debunk this and show my true best method to finding diamonds.
First, background on Diamond Ore http://minecraft.gam...com/Diamond_Ore
And Diamond Distribution http://minecraft.gam...amond_D_28x.jpg
Ok So Statement #1 - Mine Layer 12
People do this since Layer 12 has proven to hold the most diamonds, however; this is misguided. You Expose layers 11-14 in the process, 14 has a terrible diamond distribution compared to the other layers.
My Method: Layer 11
Exposes layers 10-13. Technically layer 10 would be the best to mine on but lava complicates the mechanics to that, I feel.
Statement #2 - Branch Mine
Branch Mining Works. Mine a line, move over 3 blocks on the other dimensional plane and repeat. The suggested method is ~20 blocks. this is completely inefficient and when precision is taken into account, you can gain incredible amounts of efficiency. heres how
My Method: Chunk Mining
With this, I found enlightenment
There is an average of 3.097 diamond ore per chunk.
This is why I believe in chunk mining. If you find diamonds in a chunk, it is extremely likely you wont find more in the chunk. This means if you find a vein of diamonds early in a chunk, there is no point to mining that chunk more, therefore you save time. There is a small chance you might miss a diamond, but the odds are better to just try a new chunk.
Pretty much you want to branch mine chunks (16x16 spaces) until you hit diamonds and then move to the next xhunk immediately since you have statistically drained the current chunk of all its diamonds. Saves time overall and gets you to the next vein faster
I hope you enjoyed and see understanding in this guide. while there are layer discrepancies, I havn't seen anyone make a point of the chunk mining style and skipping over the rest of a chunk with diamonds already found in it. This is my method, it works well, and I have gotten banned on servers for X-Ray suspicion from it. that good!
Visual Reference Guide
DISCLAIMER
Tl;DR You wont find all the diamonds, but you find more of them faster.
Welcome to my signature! I'm on the forums almost everyday (even if its just for a few minutes) So if you have something to tell me or tell me about, just send me a PM (private message) Note- I do not usually check the places I post to see if there are replies, so the above applies. ~Notch
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
11/19/2012
Posts:
54
Minecraft:
R0kdad
Member Details
This is all assuming, of course, that you have no interest in all the other ores. If you move on to another chunk as soon as you hit a diamond vein then you're going to be missing all the gold, redstone, iron, coal and lapis. Seems a bit of a waste to me.
This is a misunderstanding of chance and averages, and is a worse way to mine than just normal branch mining.
Finding diamonds does not mean you are less likely to find more diamonds nearby, in the same way flipping a heads on a coin does not mean you're less likely to flip a heads the next time. This is because there is no set amount of diamonds per chunk. There could be 20 ores or there could be no ores. Chunks aren't even really taken into consideration when spawning diamonds. There is an average per chunk, but only in the same way there's an average for any arbitrary area. You can test a world in MCEdit or with an XRay mod and see this easily.
There's the same chance of finding diamonds in the rest of the chunk that you've already found diamonds in as there is for finding diamonds anywhere else, if you expose the same number of blocks.
Covering all of a specific area doesn't matter either, and if you have to make bends or intersections to do this then you're lowering your efficiency of blocks exposed per pickaxe uses. Covering 1/2 of 2 chunks (Or any other area) is the same as covering 1/4 of 4 chunks or the whole of 1 chunk; you're still exposing the same amount of blocks.
Because of how veins can join between tunnels and turns make mines less efficient, I think somebody worked out the maximum spacing between branch mines to be 6 blocks.
People have been trying to come up with better ways for roughly 4 years now. Sorry if I sound harsh, but you're not going to stumble across some arbitrary pattern that's better than what people have already found out.
Branch mining as you described isn't the most efficient method either. The most efficient for blocks exposed vs pickaxe uses is simply a 1*2*1 tunnel, although you'll have to walk all the way back which can take a while.
This has worked for me as one of the fastest ways to find diamonds. since chunks generate separately, the ores inside of them generate separate from the rest of the world. With the average of 3 per chunk, it pretty much shows the extreme rarity of diamonds, maybe one vein in a chunk or none. if there are more, the probability of beating the average is lower than going to a fresh chunk
This is all assuming, of course, that you have no interest in all the other ores. If you move on to another chunk as soon as you hit a diamond vein then you're going to be missing all the gold, redstone, iron, coal and lapis. Seems a bit of a waste to me.
well when im sitting on sacks of iron and coal, I just want mah diamons :3
You're limiting yourself to a chunk by chunk basis, and you're also not getting other resources. Part of Diamond Mining is about collecting other resources as much as possible as you move through and get diamonds. I've been playing since alpha, had a server for 1 1/2 years called Scions of Fate. and I can tell you strip mining on level 12 is the most efficenet way to play the game and get diamonds. Your mathmatics are based on your chunk mining, while a strip mine incorporates several dozen chunks.
Here is the best way to mine, Take your self down to level 12. Make a 20 by 20 room. Have a starting hole 2 by 1 wide10 times on each side, Go roughly 200 meters on every single row, and I bet by the time your done could take 4 or 5 days, you will have 8 to 10 stacks of diamonds, 20+ stacks of Iron 5+ stacks of gold.
You're going to sit here as a new player and tell a pro, that level 12 strip mining is wrong? keep being poor my friend.
You're limiting yourself to a chunk by chunk basis, and you're also not getting other resources. Part of Diamond Mining is about collecting other resources as much as possible as you move through and get diamonds. I've been playing since alpha, had a server for 1 1/2 years called Scions of Fate. and I can tell you strip mining on level 12 is the most efficenet way to play the game and get diamonds. Your mathmatics are based on your chunk mining, while a strip mine incorporates several dozen chunks.
Here is the best way to mine, Take your self down to level 12. Make a 20 by 20 room. Have a starting hole 2 by 1 wide10 times on each side, Go roughly 200 meters on every single row, and I bet by the time your done could take 4 or 5 days, you will have 8 to 10 stacks of diamonds, 20+ stacks of Iron 5+ stacks of gold.
You're going to sit here as a new player and tell a pro, that level 12 strip mining is wrong? keep being poor my friend.
You think I'm new? K I was back in alpha but whatevs. Depending on what plugins are on the server, it could work just as well to mine a 2x1 tunnel through a stack of wood, refreshing your iron pickaxes until you are 5K blocks from home and just tp home... or sprint with stacks of diamonds. I like how your method is the least efficient and you are calling me new. (layer 11 is the best still)
On average you will find less diamonds doing your way. You may have been lucky, or your experience may be biased by what you expected.
Chunks generate individually, but diamond ore is not affected by that; just like trees or pretty much anything else. You can get veins spanning across up to 4 different chunks.
Here are a few images I took in about 5 minutes. Many chunks have 0 ores, and many have 15-20. There is certainly no 3-4 diamond ore limit as you described.
1. did not say "Limit" averages are 3 diamond per chunk. The idea being, finding 1 vein means you have hit the average, time to go to the next chunk since going above average is rarer.
2. the ones with multiple veins don't have the veins on the same layer every time. if there are a low number of diamonds per chunk statistically, its even lower for an above average amount to be on the same layer.
The level to be mined (12) stems back to sometime in the beta when F3 reported the y coord as eye level. 12 being 12.6 at eye, with feet at 11. A 1x2 shaft exposes layers 10-13 as you stated and is commonly considered to be mining at layer 12, with lava lakes being below your feet at 10.
As to the chance to find ore per chunk, colorfusion states the problem correctly. Although it is admittedly easy to assume that once an event with a percentage chance to occur has happened, it is less likely to happen in the near future. Would you really bet the bank that given only two flips of a coin, that upon seeing heads, the next flip will inevitably be tails because the 50/50 event has already occurred? I see diamond ore has a roughly .0846% chance of forming in its preferred layers. So you really want to expose 1182 blocks as quickly as possible without undue redundancy.
An aside to branch mining, perhaps tunneling 4 rows apart, leaving 3 rows between tunnels. This has the chance of leaving vertically oriented pockets of ore undiscovered. Small pockets could be missed but by the time an ore deposit has reached any size it will have branched laterally, allowing discovery along one side or the other. Something to consider- it feels like it works faster...and you certainly cover more territory. Also if you have zones devoid of lava lakes at 10, it would make sense to drop a few tunnels to layer 7 (eye) and take a peek at layers 5-8. Especially if you ally with the OP's stochastic theory, haven't found any diamonds in the chunk above, and really needs those 3.097 diamonds that certainly must lie within this chunk ; )
Ok So Statement #1 - Mine Layer 12
People do this since Layer 12 has proven to hold the most diamonds, however; this is misguided. You Expose layers 11-14 in the process, 14 has a terrible diamond distribution compared to the other layers.
My Method: Layer 11
Exposes layers 10-13. Technically layer 10 would be the best to mine on but lava complicates the mechanics to that, I feel.
No one ever said layer 12 has the "most" diamonds. Or, I suppose, maybe they did (like you just did, for example), but if so, they were mistaken. Diamonds are distributed roughly evenly between layers 5-12, inclusive (see here), with slightly fewer appearing on layers 4 and 13, then dropping off sharply after that in either direction. Layer 12 (*see next paragraph) isn't chosen because it has the most diamonds (it doesn't), it's chosen because it has just as many as the lower layers, while still remaining safely above the lava flood-level.
Also, prior to version 1.3 or thereabouts (I don't remember when it changed, exactly) the height shown in the F3 screen didn't reference feet level, just "camera height" or eye level. So when mining at the ideal height, the display would read "Y: 12.62" and we called it "layer 12", because "12" is the number that was shown on-screen. Now it shows feet level, and the display reads "Y: 11 (feet level, eyes 12.62) and we call it level 11, but we're actually talking about the same thing as when we used to say "level 12." You can call it "11" or you can call it "12," they both mean the same thing. The point is that you want to be just above the tops of the lava lakes, so that when you come across one you don't have to let it get in your way. Just dump out your trusty water bucket, pick it back up, and walk safely across your nice new obsidian floor.
Statement #2 - Branch Mine
Branch Mining Works. Mine a line, move over 3 blocks on the other dimensional plane and repeat. The suggested method is ~20 blocks. this is completely inefficient and when precision is taken into account, you can gain incredible amounts of efficiency. heres how
I've never seen anyone recommend a particular length for your branches. Most people's strategy seems to be "go straight until I hit lava, then turn around." I don't think it really matters how long you make your branches, the key to efficiency here is digging 1x2 tunnels, and not putting them too close together (you want at least two blocks separating tunnels, and farther apart is better up until about six blocks in between where it levels off.)
Efficiency in mining is all about blocks exposed (or veins exposed, technically) versus blocks mined. The more blocks you can actually look at, while keeping the time it takes to do so and the wear incurred on your tools (i.e. "the number of blocks you have to break to look at them") to a minimum, the better off you will be. I actually use this "Phoenix mining" or "X-mining" technique which sacrifices a little bit of efficiency (in that the tunnels are only 2 blocks apart instead of further) in return for near-100% total coverage of the local area (not at all important) and a handy central return-path to always get back out of the mine quickly, no matter how far in you are (this is the important bit. Much more important than the 100% coverage, that part's just a side-note, really.)
My Method: Chunk Mining
With this, I found enlightenment
There is an average of 3.097 diamond ore per chunk.
This is why I believe in chunk mining. If you find diamonds in a chunk, it is extremely likely you wont find more in the chunk. This means if you find a vein of diamonds early in a chunk, there is no point to mining that chunk more
This thinking is what's known as the Gambler's Fallacy which is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during one period, then it must necessarily happen less frequently in the future. It's called a fallacy because that simply is not the way random numbers (or even a halfway-decent computer simulation of them) work. In the large scale, you will find approximately that many diamonds per chunk, that is true, but on the small scale, it's rather useless information. A given chunk could have no diamonds in, or it could have a dozen, there's no way to really know until you dig it up and look for them. And just because you find one vein in a chunk doesn't mean you can't find another one, too. Statistics are tricky things, and "random" is not the same thing as "evenly distributed."
There are two possible ways that the random number generator could be be placing diamond ore.
First, it could be placing it on a per-chunk basis. That is, it could generate a number between, say, 0 and 6 as the number of blocks of diamond ore in each chunk, and then place those. Ore veins covering multiple chunk boundaries would then be just the coincidence of having the diamonds (or coal, or any other ore) patch from one chunk adjacent to that generated from another chunk.
If this was the case, the OP's idea of mining until each chunk's allotment of diamond ore was found, then moving on, would work.
Second, it could be on a per-block basis. That is, it could generate a number for each block and check it against, effectively, a table that returns what ore, if any, should be in that block. A hypothetical example of such a table, for some arbitrary depth, would look like this:
1-60 nothing
61-75 start a coal vein
76-85 start an iron vein
86-90 start a redstone vein
91-95 start a gold vein
96-98 start a diamond vein
99-100 one single emerald
With this system of generation, it would not matter if no diamonds had been generated already in that chunk, or if every single block that had been checked so far had been diamonds; chance has no memory, so every roll on that table would be independent of any other.
So what matters here is how Minecraft generates ore. And, honestly, I don't know which it is; someone who has looked at the actual code would have to answer this. Given the distribution I've seen with MCedit, I'm inclined to lean toward the latter. In that case, the fact that you just found diamonds wouldn't mean that the next block isn't just as likely to be diamond ore as the one you just mined.
So ... is there anyone here who has examined the actual generation system, and can tell us if it's per-chunk or per-block?
If someone wants to check this out another way (and has more time to poke around in MCedit than I do), they could check whether ore deposits that cross block borders are larger than those that do not. That won't prove per-block generation for sure (per-chunk could also be limiting the total size of an ore deposit), but if they are larger, it would be some pretty solid evidence for per-chunk.
So ... is there anyone here who has examined the actual generation system, and can tell us if it's per-chunk or per-block?
If someone wants to check this out another way (and has more time to poke around in MCedit than I do), they could check whether ore deposits that cross block borders are larger than those that do not. That won't prove per-block generation for sure (per-chunk could also be limiting the total size of an ore deposit), but if they are larger, it would be some pretty solid evidence for per-chunk.
One Reason I believe its per chunk is because emeralds ONLY generate per chunk. The generation tests for an emerald generation 3-8 times per chunk. That means in a chunk there will only be 3-8 times an emerald might spawn. This signaled to me that emeralds work per chunk, so all the ores should. while diamonds dont try to spawn a set amount, there rarity mean that a lot arent going to spawn in the chunk.
One Reason I believe its per chunk is because emeralds ONLY generate per chunk. The generation tests for an emerald generation 3-8 times per chunk. That means in a chunk there will only be 3-8 times an emerald might spawn. This signaled to me that emeralds work per chunk, so all the ores should. while diamonds dont try to spawn a set amount, there rarity mean that a lot arent going to spawn in the chunk.
Emerald generation is based on chunk because it's biome specific. No other ore has this specification.
1. Mine Layer 12
2. Branch Mine roughly 20 blocks in a direction
My method uses statistics to rule out these as the best ways to find diamonds. Yet People worship them as law. allow me to debunk this and show my true best method to finding diamonds.
First, background on Diamond Ore http://minecraft.gam...com/Diamond_Ore
And Diamond Distribution http://minecraft.gam...amond_D_28x.jpg
Ok So Statement #1 - Mine Layer 12
People do this since Layer 12 has proven to hold the most diamonds, however; this is misguided. You Expose layers 11-14 in the process, 14 has a terrible diamond distribution compared to the other layers.
My Method: Layer 11
Exposes layers 10-13. Technically layer 10 would be the best to mine on but lava complicates the mechanics to that, I feel.
Statement #2 - Branch Mine
Branch Mining Works. Mine a line, move over 3 blocks on the other dimensional plane and repeat. The suggested method is ~20 blocks. this is completely inefficient and when precision is taken into account, you can gain incredible amounts of efficiency. heres how
My Method: Chunk Mining
With this, I found enlightenment
Pretty much you want to branch mine chunks (16x16 spaces) until you hit diamonds and then move to the next xhunk immediately since you have statistically drained the current chunk of all its diamonds. Saves time overall and gets you to the next vein faster
I hope you enjoyed and see understanding in this guide. while there are layer discrepancies, I havn't seen anyone make a point of the chunk mining style and skipping over the rest of a chunk with diamonds already found in it. This is my method, it works well, and I have gotten banned on servers for X-Ray suspicion from it. that good!
Visual Reference Guide
DISCLAIMER
Tl;DR You wont find all the diamonds, but you find more of them faster.
Apparently not
Venit, quessit, induravit.
This has worked for me as one of the fastest ways to find diamonds. since chunks generate separately, the ores inside of them generate separate from the rest of the world. With the average of 3 per chunk, it pretty much shows the extreme rarity of diamonds, maybe one vein in a chunk or none. if there are more, the probability of beating the average is lower than going to a fresh chunk
well when im sitting on sacks of iron and coal, I just want mah diamons :3
Here is the best way to mine, Take your self down to level 12. Make a 20 by 20 room. Have a starting hole 2 by 1 wide10 times on each side, Go roughly 200 meters on every single row, and I bet by the time your done could take 4 or 5 days, you will have 8 to 10 stacks of diamonds, 20+ stacks of Iron 5+ stacks of gold.
You're going to sit here as a new player and tell a pro, that level 12 strip mining is wrong? keep being poor my friend.
You think I'm new? K I was back in alpha but whatevs. Depending on what plugins are on the server, it could work just as well to mine a 2x1 tunnel through a stack of wood, refreshing your iron pickaxes until you are 5K blocks from home and just tp home... or sprint with stacks of diamonds. I like how your method is the least efficient and you are calling me new. (layer 11 is the best still)
1. did not say "Limit" averages are 3 diamond per chunk. The idea being, finding 1 vein means you have hit the average, time to go to the next chunk since going above average is rarer.
2. the ones with multiple veins don't have the veins on the same layer every time. if there are a low number of diamonds per chunk statistically, its even lower for an above average amount to be on the same layer.
As to the chance to find ore per chunk, colorfusion states the problem correctly. Although it is admittedly easy to assume that once an event with a percentage chance to occur has happened, it is less likely to happen in the near future. Would you really bet the bank that given only two flips of a coin, that upon seeing heads, the next flip will inevitably be tails because the 50/50 event has already occurred? I see diamond ore has a roughly .0846% chance of forming in its preferred layers. So you really want to expose 1182 blocks as quickly as possible without undue redundancy.
An aside to branch mining, perhaps tunneling 4 rows apart, leaving 3 rows between tunnels. This has the chance of leaving vertically oriented pockets of ore undiscovered. Small pockets could be missed but by the time an ore deposit has reached any size it will have branched laterally, allowing discovery along one side or the other. Something to consider- it feels like it works faster...and you certainly cover more territory. Also if you have zones devoid of lava lakes at 10, it would make sense to drop a few tunnels to layer 7 (eye) and take a peek at layers 5-8. Especially if you ally with the OP's stochastic theory, haven't found any diamonds in the chunk above, and really needs those 3.097 diamonds that certainly must lie within this chunk ; )
No one ever said layer 12 has the "most" diamonds. Or, I suppose, maybe they did (like you just did, for example), but if so, they were mistaken. Diamonds are distributed roughly evenly between layers 5-12, inclusive (see here), with slightly fewer appearing on layers 4 and 13, then dropping off sharply after that in either direction. Layer 12 (*see next paragraph) isn't chosen because it has the most diamonds (it doesn't), it's chosen because it has just as many as the lower layers, while still remaining safely above the lava flood-level.
Also, prior to version 1.3 or thereabouts (I don't remember when it changed, exactly) the height shown in the F3 screen didn't reference feet level, just "camera height" or eye level. So when mining at the ideal height, the display would read "Y: 12.62" and we called it "layer 12", because "12" is the number that was shown on-screen. Now it shows feet level, and the display reads "Y: 11 (feet level, eyes 12.62) and we call it level 11, but we're actually talking about the same thing as when we used to say "level 12." You can call it "11" or you can call it "12," they both mean the same thing. The point is that you want to be just above the tops of the lava lakes, so that when you come across one you don't have to let it get in your way. Just dump out your trusty water bucket, pick it back up, and walk safely across your nice new obsidian floor.
I've never seen anyone recommend a particular length for your branches. Most people's strategy seems to be "go straight until I hit lava, then turn around." I don't think it really matters how long you make your branches, the key to efficiency here is digging 1x2 tunnels, and not putting them too close together (you want at least two blocks separating tunnels, and farther apart is better up until about six blocks in between where it levels off.)
Efficiency in mining is all about blocks exposed (or veins exposed, technically) versus blocks mined. The more blocks you can actually look at, while keeping the time it takes to do so and the wear incurred on your tools (i.e. "the number of blocks you have to break to look at them") to a minimum, the better off you will be. I actually use this "Phoenix mining" or "X-mining" technique which sacrifices a little bit of efficiency (in that the tunnels are only 2 blocks apart instead of further) in return for near-100% total coverage of the local area (not at all important) and a handy central return-path to always get back out of the mine quickly, no matter how far in you are (this is the important bit. Much more important than the 100% coverage, that part's just a side-note, really.)
This thinking is what's known as the Gambler's Fallacy which is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during one period, then it must necessarily happen less frequently in the future. It's called a fallacy because that simply is not the way random numbers (or even a halfway-decent computer simulation of them) work. In the large scale, you will find approximately that many diamonds per chunk, that is true, but on the small scale, it's rather useless information. A given chunk could have no diamonds in, or it could have a dozen, there's no way to really know until you dig it up and look for them. And just because you find one vein in a chunk doesn't mean you can't find another one, too. Statistics are tricky things, and "random" is not the same thing as "evenly distributed."
Village Mechanics: A not-so-brief guide - Update 2017! Now with 1.8 breeding mechanics! Long-overdue trading info, coming soon!
You think magic isn't real? Consider this: for every person, there is a sentence -- a series of words -- which has the power to destroy them.
First, it could be placing it on a per-chunk basis. That is, it could generate a number between, say, 0 and 6 as the number of blocks of diamond ore in each chunk, and then place those. Ore veins covering multiple chunk boundaries would then be just the coincidence of having the diamonds (or coal, or any other ore) patch from one chunk adjacent to that generated from another chunk.
If this was the case, the OP's idea of mining until each chunk's allotment of diamond ore was found, then moving on, would work.
Second, it could be on a per-block basis. That is, it could generate a number for each block and check it against, effectively, a table that returns what ore, if any, should be in that block. A hypothetical example of such a table, for some arbitrary depth, would look like this:
1-60 nothing
61-75 start a coal vein
76-85 start an iron vein
86-90 start a redstone vein
91-95 start a gold vein
96-98 start a diamond vein
99-100 one single emerald
With this system of generation, it would not matter if no diamonds had been generated already in that chunk, or if every single block that had been checked so far had been diamonds; chance has no memory, so every roll on that table would be independent of any other.
So what matters here is how Minecraft generates ore. And, honestly, I don't know which it is; someone who has looked at the actual code would have to answer this. Given the distribution I've seen with MCedit, I'm inclined to lean toward the latter. In that case, the fact that you just found diamonds wouldn't mean that the next block isn't just as likely to be diamond ore as the one you just mined.
So ... is there anyone here who has examined the actual generation system, and can tell us if it's per-chunk or per-block?
If someone wants to check this out another way (and has more time to poke around in MCedit than I do), they could check whether ore deposits that cross block borders are larger than those that do not. That won't prove per-block generation for sure (per-chunk could also be limiting the total size of an ore deposit), but if they are larger, it would be some pretty solid evidence for per-chunk.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
One Reason I believe its per chunk is because emeralds ONLY generate per chunk. The generation tests for an emerald generation 3-8 times per chunk. That means in a chunk there will only be 3-8 times an emerald might spawn. This signaled to me that emeralds work per chunk, so all the ores should. while diamonds dont try to spawn a set amount, there rarity mean that a lot arent going to spawn in the chunk.
Minecraft PC Edition group!
Come join us, We all play as a community on servers and have fun!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1451420068484115/
Just send me a message and I will invite you!
since that puts you on the lava layer, i stick to 11 for safety and not complicating things even though 10 is better