"I don't mean to tell you what's right or wrong..." My friend.... This is math. This isn't opinion. You are absolutely right. Feel free to say so. :) Very well done, Sir! If this doesn't convince people, nothing will.
Did you mean 31%, not 21%? In the 50x50 block example, there are 13 mined branches in the 3-block method, versus 17 mined out in the 2-block method. The 2-block method is doing 4 more halls, and 4/13=30.77% more work. In a larger expanse, the 3-block method is mining out every 4th block, or 25% of the material. A 2-block method mines out 33.33% of the earth. So a 2-block method is mining out 8.33% more of the total, or 8.33/25=1/3 or 33% more work being done overall.
A spacing of 4 is even slightly better in my opinion. Here's why. The blocks of mineral are often spreaded on a width of 2 or 3. So sometimes you'll come across the other stripes by mining the minerals, lowering the efficiency. With a spacing of 4 or 5, you're limiting the chances of stripes intersection. Now you may say "but with a 4-spacing you'll miss two blocks", yes, but Minecraft ressources are infinite, you're not limited to a certain area, so either you use a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 15 spacing, you're always missing blocks: those that you aren't exposing. I think that it's rationally more efficient to use a 4 spacing rather than a 3 spacing. But only by 2 or 3%, probably
I ran tests on this myself, to get a more accurate numbers. I had no means to record, but I have gathered the data over 100 separate tests. Even tested other block spacing: 1 block, 4 block, and even 5 block. All in the name of science. 100 tests for each. 3 block Spacing versus 2 block spacing: As Kulprit Gaming said, there is a 38% increase in the amount of work to do 2 block spacing. Over 100 tests, I can confirm that it is accurate. You gain only an average of 5% in material gain. The amount of effort, and the amount gained back, is not worth the extra 38% increase in work. That increase, with minimal return, actually decreases the efficiency, by a large margin, by comparison.3 block spacing versus 4 block spacing:You are doing roughly 23% more work with the 3 block spacing, than the 4 block spacing. A material gain increase of 33% actually makes it worth the extra work. Not a surprise.3 block spacing versus 5 block spacing: with 3 block spacing you have an increase of 33% work load by comparison. However, an increase of 53% in material gain. Not a surprise. 3 block spacing versus 1 block spacing: To do 1 block spacing, you increase your work by 50%. You only have a material gain of 6%. Making 1 block spacing less efficient than 2 block spacing. No surprise there. Over all, the most efficient branch mining style, is to leave 3 blocks between each tunnel. I even tested 2 block height, and 3 block height as well. You have a 5% increase in material gain, and roughly a 10% increase in work. So I say that it is worth it personally. 3 blocks between each tunnel, with 3 blocks in height, after multiple tests, I have found to be the most efficient method for mining minerals.
+Death's Heir If your looking for efficiency you need also look at efficiency of movement. Mining 3 blocks high means more mouse movement (across at least one full block per column) where as 2 blocks high you can hover at the edge of the blocks and barely move it at all which will increase speed.
I did account for that, but I look at it like this: Dig down to y=5 (feet location) the reason is because bed rock is major problem at layers 1-4, and start your branch mining. 5/6/7 are the y blocks you are digging out. Let's say you limit yourself to a 200x200 area for mining. Once you branch mine all that out, what do you do next to maintain efficiency? You dig up, skipping block 8 (ceiling of 5/6/7) and 9(floor of 10/11/12), and dig out 10/11/12. next using the same method. When you run out of your 200x200 digging area, you go up to the next level: skipping 13 and 14, digging out 15/16/17... y=18 will be the ceiling. y=18 is the maximum y coordinate in which diamond spawns in. Now for the 2 height: Dig down to y=5. 5/6 will be dug out. finish your 200x200 area. Dig up skip 7 and 8. Dig out 9/10. You then dig up again skipping 11 and 12, and dig out 13/14. Dig up again, dig out 17/18. This is why I said both are equally efficient. It ultimately depends if you want to mine out the full height possible (with minimal interference from bedrock).
WoutFP Good catch. Don't know why I said 10%. Thank you for pointing that out. However, it is only +50% if you work in a single layer. As in: digging out blocks 5/6 or block 5/6/7 only. When digging from y=5 (layers 1-4 is bedrock heavy) up to y=18 (maximum height for diamond spawning) Three high mining 5/6/7/10/11/12/15/16/17 9 blocks on the y axis is being mined 2 high mining: 5/6/9/10/13/14/17/18 8 blocks on the y axis are being mined That is only a 12.5% increase. Which puts my 10% closer to the truth, than 50%.
On another note: Ever since I learned that 3 wide is better than 2 wide, I learned another trick, which I still need to do testing with, to see if it is viable, or just a waste of time. On the first layer y=5-y=7, you space them 3 apart as normal. So inside a 201x201 area (when actually playing you wouldn't limit yourself to such a small area) You start at x=1 z=1 for simplicity. From then on you would simply add 4 to which ever axis you're traveling along, and that'll tell you where it is you dig next. So if traveling on the z axis, you would start each branch at x=1 z=1, x=1 z=5, etc. All the way to x=1 z=201 The next layer up, you are skipping y=8 and y=9, and starting at y=10. Instead of starting the branches the same, x=1 z=1, you offset the branch to minimize the loss of the resources that are in y=9 and y=8. The offset could be by a single block so x=1, z=2. Or by two blocks x=1 z=3. Offsetting by 3 blocks creates a similar result as offsetting by 1 block. As I said, I still need to test to see if this is viable, but it is a thought that I had.
Another good way test this would be to create two worlds with the same seed and mine at the exact same coords and see which one is better. That'd probably give you a good representation.
My problem with branch mining is I usually go and just mine into infinity with one branch and never move on, I'm always like ok if I move to the next branch I know theres diamonds like 2 blocks in front of me.
haha I totally get that, but tell yourself "I know there are probably diamonds two blocks to my side this entire shaft that I can't see!" A lot of times I will give myself a limited number of torches, so I will mine a branch until they run out, or until I hit lava or some other obstruction.
The thing is since the world is infinite, if you make a branch 7 deep, or 10, deep, or 20 deep, or 40 deep, there is ALWAYS the possibility that a diamond is "just in front of you" :) At least going 20 deep you are guarenteed to cross into at least 1 new chunk.
Most people wouldn't agree with you on this one. I do agree however because if we are talking about mining we are talking about speed and efficiency. To miss 5% is not a big deal when you consider out of 100 diamonds found that means 5 missing. This is a good example mate, good example indeed.
thanks man, really appreciate that. Most people confuse "efficiency" with "perfection" or basically getting ALL the ore. That's not what efficiency is, as you seem to know, it's a balance between work and time and your returns.
KulpritGaming It would have been very helpful to your video to compare the time it took to mine each technique. I totally agree with your logic; I'm excited to give this three block technique a try. I have never done branch mining or anything like that. I pretty much just found caves and followed them down as far as I could mining every mineral I saw on my way down :P
Benjamin Cook Perhaps that is also very efficient way since you don't have to tunnel yourself but just pick the ripe fruit without really putting effort into it.
Roughly 30% more work for only about an average of only 10% more return equals "waste of time and overhead". That is a very bad business model. Your 3 spacing makes so much more sense, I feel like an idiot for doing wrong for the last 3 years I've been playing Minecraft. Lol
EVLfreak666 I am new to minecraft, but I have watched tons of videos so I knew how to play already. But I love mining so much! I don't even care about efficiency lol. It is just such a fun game.
+EVLfreak666 If you're going for speed, caving is probably the most efficient way to find enough diamonds for things like an enchanting table, a diamond weapon, etc. If you find a good cave system you can come out with enchanted iron gear and a diamond pick, maybe even a diamond weapon, in 30 minutes or less. Watch some good Ultra HardCore minecraft videos for pure speed of materials gained. If you want full diamond gear, or if you just want diamond everything, though, you'll need to branch mine. In that case, for pure speed, 3 block branch mining is the way to go. The last option is to cheat with an X-ray resource pack, which makes Stone transparent, so you can just see any resources and head straight to them. That's pretty lame though.
+EVLfreak666 the way I do it is mine 3by2it is a good way to mine but you can mine how you want to you now they is no real way to do it tale me if it helps . :D
My mining style entirely suits my playing style. I go down with 45 torches, dig a 1x2 tunnel three spaces away from the last, straight across and ignoring all ores in the walls, and placing a torch about whenever it gets too dark to see the next block. After using 40 torches, I stop and head back, gathering all the ores (using a Fortune pick where appropriate) and occasionally stopping to plop down a crafting table to consolidate all the coal/redstone/lapis into blocks to conserve space. The last five torches are to light up any large holes I dig while following ore veins. When I get back to the beginning of the mineshaft, my inventory is usually completely full of both ore and cobblestone, with no waste, and so I head back up to home. I keep all the cobble because I smelt it into stonebricks for stuff I'm building up on the surface. If you weren't doing what I am doing, wasting all that time keeping ten stacks of cobble doesn't make sense. But it does for me. It's not the most efficient, mathematically, but it is the most efficient for what I need.
Nathan Gorton It should also be noted that emeralds are primarily useful for trading with villagers, and you can much more easily get them by selling items to villagers than by mining. When I mine I almost see emeralds as annoying.
Nathan Gorton Emeralds are found in extreme hills biomes. So, switch to the 2 block technique when you hit extreme hills. But, then again, why would you mine for emeralds? Trade them with villagers. There's almost always a cleric around to trade your heaps of rotten flesh away for a few emeralds.
Great video! This is the kind of tedious, base-level research that really makes a difference. I know it can be thankless work sometimes, so I'd like to personally say thank you for taking the time to do this. I will make sure to utilize this knowledge.
I would really be interested in knowing the exact time you spent mining the 2 block method vs the 3 block method in your 50x50 control test. After all, it's the time that we all want to save when mining.
+Jam4Cash I personally don't mind mining for a longer period of time, but I find running back after annoying, so the 2-block spacing is better for me. However given 3 blocks between you're mining less of the 2500 stone (given a 50x50 area), you will spend significantly less time mining every 3rd block. Most likely however you're going to spend about the same amount of time mining for resources unless you're mining for a very specific amount of a particular resource and intend to stop the moment you get that amount (or at the end of the branch you get that amount in).
I know this video is old but you have done a bloody good job explaining and having proof to back up your system. I have always had three block gap because I had the same theory you did.
I started mining this way. I cannot recall ever finding an isolated 1x1 ore block in a wall or from branch mining. I think even if you may miss the 1x1 which is probably ultra-rare, you will cover much more ground this way. Also factor the time, you won't fill up with cobblestone as often and need to go back and unload.
I got a easier way to scientificly test the efficency of 2-space vs. 3 spaces (or any other method): * Craft 2 diamond pickaxes * Use the "2 space method" until the first one is broken * count the minerals * use the "3 space method" until the second pickaxe is broken. * count the minerals the method with the more minerals wins. You can lower the randomness of the terrain by using more pickaxes or simply repeating the test.
+Ra Star this test would fail since it wouldn't keep the area that is mined constant. you'd cover way more area with the 3 space method simply because you mine less blocks = your pick lasts longer and you mine more blocks with the 2 space method = your pick dies 50% faster almost.
+Ra Star Or simply keep the time and measure the minerals/minute ratio. For example, let's assume it took @KulpritGaming 100 minutes to mine all the shafts in the two-space condition. The three-space condition would take up about 38% less time (not accounting for the increased mine-duration for the extra different minerals you find). So the three-space condition took about 62 minutes to mine. His diamond/minute ratio would be 30/62 so 0.48/minute. In the two-space condition it would be 24/100 so 0.24/minute. Same goes for coal: 7.45/minute (three-space) v.s. 5.25/mintue (two-soace). Clearly based on this sample, the three-space condition comes out on top. Try it for yourself: mine 30 minutes or so in the two-space form and mine all the minerals you find. Do the same for the three-space form and calculate your mineral/minute score! Let me know what you guys end up with:)
+Bilaal A That's the point. You'd cover more area, therefore finding more minerals. Efficiency is highest payout for cheapest materials. Assuming youre constantly mining, both pickaxes will break at the same time, so time is not a factor. The difference is that you cover more area, and have a higher payout. this test only showed how many materials you miss (about 5%) with the 3 space as opposed to the 2 space. 300 block area. the 3 space mining will be mining 100 of the blocks. The 2 space will mine 150 blocks for only 5% extra payout. Therefore, the 3 space mining is better, because you get (lets say) 95 diamonds after mining 100 blocks, and the 2 space will get 100 diamonds over 150 blocks. You can mine 300 blocks in the time it takes the 2 space method to mine 200.
You make a very good argument KulpritGaming and after reading some of the comments explaining efficiency and how speed is only one of the factors of efficiency, i can say that i will be using this method from now on. Thanks.
yes, because that really is the true point of 3 block spacing. Less time spent in one area means you can fan out and find more minerals quicker it is why it is a more effective method so he probably should have mentioned how long it took to do both methods.
+futbolluva +August karbowski I did consider this but unfortunately do to the fact I was making a video things don't go smoothly so a straight timer wouldn't work. I probably should have assigned a time per block and just done the math based on how many blocks I mined for at least a rough idea! Good points!
it would also be difficult because it's also about luck, unless you do a massive sample size. because some paths might go straight through veins, and other might go through lava and gravel
I agree but understand about the video issue. I too would be interested in knowing how long each 500 block took to mine in either fashion. Also maybe how many iron picks you went through during that amount of area using each method. As someone else commented, for true parity, using the same seed to duplicate the same terrain would yield better data. Thanks for sharing your methods.
KulpritGaming you could have saved, mined one section using the three block method, timed how long it took while showing what you found, and then exited without saving and mined the same area again using the two block method while showing how much more you found vs how much longer it took to cover the same area I suppose. Idk, you're the guy doing the video though I'm sure you had your reasons
This dude needs to be giving lectures. I've been using the two space method and you've convinced me otherwise. This video's completely clean and professional, very well done.
A more fair test would be to mine a section with the 2 space method, then using a copy of that same world save, mine the same exact area with the 3 space method, assuming you'd make a game save copy first :) Great Video!
You can do that just as easily by digging a section with the 2-space method, and making a mental note of whether that vein could be seen with the 3-space method as well. To get an accurate read about the percentages you'd miss, you're going to need a very large sample size, of course - say, 500-1000 veins.
Deo Gabuan nah I don't mind them, been doing YT too long to let it effect me. Can't please everyone all the time. I just focus on the good interactions, like yourself and that makes it all that much more enjoyable for me. Have a good holiday man!
I like the way you demonstrated your point about the ore veins by showing them in 3D, and did your best to make a standardized test to compare yields. Albeit sample size was a bit small, except coal (obviously) since that stuff's all over the place. Redstone and lapis ores drop several items each, so there might be some bias there: we don't know how many ore blocks you mined, chances are you didn't find more of it than gold. - [PS: To answer your implicit question, lapis-lazuli is used as dye.]
KulpritGaming Dude, awesome video! I like it alot. I'll try this out right away. Sorry for asking since I either missed it or you didn't mention it but, what depth did you build this test at?
+KulpritGaming looks like Rei's Minimap hasn't been updated since 1.7.2-ish -- there's a Zan's Minimap that appears to supersede it, but is still showing 'not yet released' for 1.8.8 -- which was a while ago. when a modder gives up, they should post the code (with the notes) on github for someone else to fork it and pick up the slack.
Yea man it's going on 3 years old. The fact that this video is still that popular baffles me. Heck it's quite the statement that Minecraft itself is still so popular 3 years later! lol
Myself I mine around lvl 12 as it puts you juuust above the majority of the lava pits that occur down around there. (learned that watching Dataless822's lets' plays)
At first I really doubted the 3 block space between each of the tunnels, but you really changed my mind on that. With doing 2 spaces between tunnels, you'll only miss 1x1 ores of diamond (at most), so it covers close to 100% of the area you're mining in, but that doesn't make it the best diamond mining technique. With 3 blocks between tunnels (considering the dimensions that diamond ores come in), the biggest vein you'll miss is a 1x2, but when you think about it, you end up covering about 33% more area (lengthwise in perspective of the main tunnel). Downside to 3 block spacing, you *might* miss a 1x1 or 1x2 vein of diamond, upside, you cover so much more ground, and thus find more diamonds since the veins are much more likely to take up a 2x2 space- so in the eyes of the most efficient diamond mining technique; this is the most superior technique I've seen! Thanks kulpritgaming!
thank you for this video. I had been doing the 2 block method up until now without too much thought, but I think I will be switching to the three block system now . 38% more mining for 15% more minerals is just not worth it
I like that you put it into the same terms that the game is created. Probability. Facts. The only opinion that comes into it is the interpretation of the data. well done man, thank you for the help.
I started to play minecraft not too long ago, and I agree on the 1-3-1 system, you could not have explained the reasons I had for choosing this better. :)
wow you put a lot of effort in this...what do you think is the best strategy for tools... is a diamond pick the best? is it worth the sacrifice of the diamonds?
Tim Leach normaly yes it should because diamond pickaxe can mine enough blocks to show the diamonds in chunks in every chunk there is at least vine of diamond ore so that means it worth it
Tim Leach Some nice enchantments on a diamond pickaxe (efficiency, unbreaking, and fortune) will give you an enormous advantage in mining speed, endurance and yield. Plus, hat else are you gonna do with the diamonds, if not just that? ;)
Tim Leach Get 3 pickaxes. The first one should have efficiency 4 (or 5), and unbreaking 3. This is for the branch mining itself. The second pick should have the above enchantments and silk touch. You want to silk touch all your ores so they do not take up as much space in your inventory (mostly lapis and redstone). The third one should have eff 4 and unbreaking 3 and also fortune 3 to mine your ores once you're done.
Sparky Tunes That's a rather inefficient way to go about mining, as you're essentially mining every ore block twice. Mine the ores directly with fortune, bring a crafting table to convert redstone/lapis/diamonds to blocks. That way they take up even less space. Use the silk touch to mine clean stone blocks to save time/coal if you need the bricks.
+Chretze only inefficient if you don't value time spent. there are different efficiency goals. Mine is time spent out "in the wild" mining. the silk touch method is best for those with my efficiency goals.
This is by far the best video over anything with mining techniques I've seen. It was properly supported by evidence, statistics, and just pure common sense. You, my friend, have earned a subscriber. :)
The most efficient spacing is NOT 2 or 3 blocks between branches. It's actually 9 blocks. The reason is that Minecraft still works on a 16x16x16 chunk system for distributing resources. There's exactly 1 cluster of diamond in each 16x16 on the map. The number of clusters is different for other resources, but the idea holds true. The most efficient system will minimize chances of looking in a chunk after you've found the valuable resources. Skipping the long and weird statistical math, the next branch should be half way through the chunk. This would be 8.5 squares, since that's not possible we round to 9; leaving 8 unbroken blocks between branches of the mine. The difference between 8 and 9 is minimal because the optimum would be 8.5. I prefer to use 8 block spacing (7 unbroken blocks between branches) as the number are close to optimal and the travel time becomes a real factor once you have a large mine. My long-running local map has a mine with just over 200 shafts, each 1km long. It takes over 4 minutes to run from a corner to the processing facility in the middle with an un-modded MC. It would take an extra 30 seconds if the mine was laid-out with 9 block spacing. Since I glossed over the math here's a nice little graph of the efficiency vs block spacing: imgur.com/DYXtnFL Others on this video have discussed the mining level. Everything appears in layers 0 to 20, with the most being found between 5 and 16. Therefor the most efficient level would be 9.5, rounded to 10. Lava also appears up to level 10, so I highly recommend mining at level 11, where you will typically have 1 block separating you from most lava flows, while sacrificing a minimal amount of efficiency. A graph of where resources are found by level: imgur.com/O5xTFlq Apologies for posting on such an old video, but people seem to watch it still, and comment here enough that I hope they read this.
There is one more thing you can do for a lot more efficient mining, is to get diamond pickaxes with efficiency 5, and beacon with Speed 2 and another with Haste 2. You can get the same amount of ores with those in 10 minutes compared to few hours without them!
TheRetroSnake Yes but it would still be more efficient I think to mine in straight lines as demonstrated in the video. This is because the speed of the pick is irrelevant to the ratio of the efficiency of one method to the next. That being said, I still prefer the method you outlined, which Etho nicknamed speed-mining.
You don't get at all more ore in speedmining than regular stripmining, but you do get a quite bigger area done in less time. Plus I much prefer my speedmining with speed 2 beacon and doing strips. THAT is where all the diamonds are at
what can be done to keep efficency and increase return is on a second level offset your tunnels be in that middle row so you hit those one/two tall ore that was missed on the upper level. this can be done on the level above aswell thus eliminating any missed blocks(aside from those pesky diagonal blocks)and again keeping that efficency. let me know what your thought is on this.
Hm. What can i say? I've used to dig just a HUGGGEE pit of 64X64 and used to waste so much time and tools.. but ever since I've started seeing the branch mining, I now see this is the best method afterall ^_^ Thanks for the professionally made video, keep up the good work man! ^_^
If you revisit this test, I'd be curious as to what you find on a time trial. 100 minutes of 2 wide vs 3 wide for 50 blocks deep or do an even number of branches each way (20, for example). To me, when talking about efficiency, you need to discuss the time element - spent or gained.
Hey Kulprit, really nice way to show the differences between the two systems. One idea if you area interested: do another comparison, but this time, use the number of blocks as the control parameter instead of the area. This way the "energy" and time invested in both methods would be the same. I hope you see this comment.
Redmac McHamster I would much rather trade to villagers for emeralds than hunt them down. With certain large scale farms, I can get hundreds of emeralds every hour, if not thousands. Mining? LOL Perhaps 5-15 emeralds every hour. It's just not worth it to me. Not to mention the time spent mining versus each branching system... Sure, you will miss emeralds with the 3 spaced branches, but you will still do just about the same amount of branches in the same amount of time as the 2 spaced branches, still equating to the same amount of emerald gains in the same amount of time. Also, I'd like to mention that this video is missing one very important test. 17 branches of 3 spaces versus 17 branches of 2 spaces. It will be a slight amount more time spent digging the extra 1 space each branch totalling 2 extra blocks on one side, and 2 extra blocks on the other side probably equating to about 0.1-1% more time spent for the 17 branches depending on how long each branch is, BUT you will get FAR more GAINS from 17 branches of 3 spaces versus 17 branches of 2 spaces. Compare those 2 chests, and you will be surprised. At least 30% more of every mineral for the same amount of time spent. The only mineral gain that will be the same is emeralds.
If you were to mine for the same amount of time on each type of branch the 3 block spacing would cover more ground, so in all fairness you would get more minerals, than the 2 block spacing, even though in your example 2 block spacing had more minerals.
I'm not saying I disagree but you would have only got two of those diamonds. They are diagonal so they wouldn't have been visible that was a bad example.
The very beginning in the cleared out room your explaining how everything would be found digging a three block tunnel. You would have never seen two of the diamonds had it been a three wide tunnel. Not being critical but it was going through my mind the entire time you were explaining it.
Well no of course I would t initially see them, but once I see 1 diamond block I am gonna mine around it completely to make sure I get them all. As long as the mineral vein goes 2 blocks horizontally I will find the vein. I will then mine it all out completely to get all the resources.
I would to but your target audience is someone that wouldn't know. Not meant to criticize. Thanks for the reply that's pretty rare for a fairly large amount of followers.
Daniel Martinez you make a fair point and things can always be more clearly explained, definitely agree. No worries, I welcome any feedback especially critical feedback, it's how we get better at what we do. Thanks for watching man and taking the time to comment. I try to reply to every comment I get. It might take a few days or a week before I get a chance to sit down and do it, but I try. If you take time out of your day to comment to me, it's the least I can do to reply!
I agree with you. When you uncover some diamonds, it's worth it to dig in another block deeper to search for a possible extra one or two. I'm actually pretty tenacious with my deep mining. I like to mine on layer 7 and I encounter lava pools frequently. I use gravel and sand to fill in the lava pools when I encounter them. I'm stubborn that way. :P
I used to do the 2 block spacing but after this video I went to the three block spacing and got better outcomes, I was getting almost the exact same income, but was able to find more because my materials lasted longer. I've seen people say 3 block is better before, but your video is great for me because I always need the science.
I prefer mining out in like four branching T shapes... like the tetragrammaton symbol from equilibrium. And doing that off in different directions from a main shaft. So in a way it covers a greater over all area but misses a lot more blocks. I find it to be quick and good at finding veins. Its also less repetative than just mining straight lines all the time. What about laying some TNT along the length of your branches after you have done the 3 spacing and detonating it in a chain reaction.
Excellent intelligent approach to a seemingly simple issue. I hope you're still making content of some kind. This just came across my feed and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Many thanks.
my mining system is the two-block gap method, except in the first and last columns, and along the back row, every ten blocks I place a torch and every five blocks I dig one block to the inside (but every third on the back instead). the benefit of this is that I mine the rows with four blocks between and place a torch every ten blocks and then go along the columns without having to place any additional torches. I also happen to be working with a concept for a second layer which utilizes glass above the torches to minimise the amount of torches for the second layer and still have. 0% chance of mobs spawning.
xray didn't exist when this video was made unfortunately. And I personally wouldn't use it, ruins the point to me. But then again I am not fully up on what xray does.
I've always run a 2 block branch but after seeing this I may swap to 3 branch. I'm all for speed since I play on PS and with the smaller maps I'm trying to mine an entire level. Your reasoning sounds solid to me.
Please (everyone) don't take this like I'm being a pompous ass here, but to lend some credibility to your point: I have a B.S. in Economics, a M.S. in Econometrics (Economics + Statstics + Calculus = Econometrics) and a PhD in Economics and I think you make a very good point. Engineers and Econometricians live and die by efficiency and your video does a very good job on this topic. This video makes sense. A very good post and a very well-reasoned argument that makes statistical sense. Well done, Sir. Well done indeed.
One thing I would have like to have seen is for you to mine out the missed rows in the 3 spacing system and record exactly how many minerals were missed. And you're absolutely right that since the goal to get the most minerals in a given amount of time, not extract every resource the game has, then 3 spacing is 33% more efficient.
I've never really been concerned with efficiency. I too enjoy mining. I still get excited every time I find diamonds. I'm also not trying to get every mineral in the map. I like finding anything, diamond, lapis, mineshafts, chasms, etc. Nicely done video, always appreciate techniques and a different way of looking at getting things done in Minecraft!
Great video, man. I've been using the two method when I branch mine and it hadn't even occurred to me that ore veins rarely appear in such a way that I would miss them by leaving an extra row between my tunnels.
compare 3-space to feather mining, as it is said to be far better than 3-space. incase u dont know feather mining, the shafts are 13 blocks apart instead of 3, and every 4 blocks through each the shaft, you dig a 1x1 hole at eye level to the left and right 5 blocks. if this is confusing, its on the wiki
You know your stuff. Great tutorial! I am teaching kids how to play Minecraft in a summer program, and I'll share your tutorial with them. Your point about how ore stretches across multiple blocks is spot-on. Keep rocking!
there is a way with the three wide to reduce the ores missed. if you go up 2 blocks above the middle of your three wide and start your next branch, you will only miss one block, which further increases your chances of finding all of the minerals.
I was using the 2-spacing technique thinking I was doing alright for quite some time. Then I ran out of luck or something, could not find any gold at all and thought to myself "someone has to have a better way to mine". So, I found your analysis and the 3-spacing technique made sense right away. While I think the most of the video just for explaining why it is more efficient was a bit over the top, I appreciate the time and effort you put into it :-)
Good stuff man. I've been doing to 2 space method for years but I'm definitely going to do 3 from now on. I hadn't considered the shape of the mineral veins. The people disagreeing with you don't understand that in an infinitely generated world, your productivity becomes a function of time, and is not dependent on you gathering 100% of the minerals.
If you still have that test world available, you can use Cartographer to map out the ore and stone level by level, and you'll be able to see if you missed any using either technique.
Makes total sense, I think I'll addopt your mining method, I think I even have a way of improving it, keeping the speed increase you mentioned AND maintaining 100% coverage.
I love your perspective and your testing. Personally I am used to using the 2 block spacing. I have never really questioned my thinking behind it. I will grab a pick with efficiency III or maybe efficiency V and mine. Its incredible how much time you save with the 3 block spacing.
Yesss. Expertly laid out and solid logic. It occurred to me while watching that you could perform the same test in two game saves of the same seed. Mark your starting point in the exact same spot in both saves, then do the 2-spacing technique in one and the 3-spacing technique in the other. That way, you could see how many resources you spot in the same area using separate techniques, then weigh that against the time/resources spent on each. Ideally, I'd like to see this replicated in several areas of the world, or in several seeds. Or maybe this is all just a waste of time because it's a video game. What am I doing with my life?
I think a great way to compare the techniques would be to do a three space system of a given size and then mine out the blocks that you can't see in-between the branches, that way you would know how much extra resources you would get with a two space system on the same area. You have me convinced though, I'll be 3 space mining from now on.
There's also the fact that it doesn't matter if you miss veins, because the world is infinitely generated, and therefore you aren't really missing out on anything as you are just as likely to get it on, say, the next branch.
I think another important statistic to look at here, is ores per branch. Given that the 3 block spacing had 13 branches, and 2 blocks had 17, you divide the total number of ores collected by the the number of branches mined to obtain that amount. Diamonds 3 block: 30/13=2.3 ores per branch Diamonds 2 block: 24/17=1.4 ores per branch Iron 3 block: 171/13=13.15 OPB Iron 2 block: 179/17=10.5 OPB Lets skip to the biggest uptick of 14% and see how much that actually matters: Coal 3 block: 462/13=35.53 OPB Coal 2 block: 525/17=30.88 OPB As you can see, even in the "best case scenario" for 2 block mining, it still falls significantly short in the total amount of ores obtained for the given amount of branches dug. If you were to dig 13 branches with 3 block spacing, and the same amount, 13 branches with 2 block spacing, the total ore count would be significantly lower.
Your method has drastically improved my overall diamond mining efficiency and dramatically reduced wasted materials and my time!! Thank you for making the video Kulprit. =)
Although another point worth making is that the most efficient way to gather resources in both time and resources, is to look for open caverns to find the exposed minerals. There is more risk involved from mobs, but if you increase the # of torches that can be reduced. You mention early on your problem with mobs so you put little blocks up. You can solve that by placing torches every 6 blocks. Though every 8 (so you can space out a 16 x 16 chunk) will be ok too.
The 3 block spacing is also stackable. More so than the two block spacing. And if you stagger the stacks to the center of the last, then you will see every block. :)
+Joat1979 every block except for the exact center. It is definitely the best coverage method, if you are going to have a designated mining area and want to get as many resources out of it as possible.
This makes a lot of sense in efficiency and I can't be asked to read through comments so probably has been said before but it's worth noting that had you reversed the tests in the first place like where you did 3 spaces you did 2 spaces instead for the first test, you most likely would have come out with the same amount of ores. In other words, one side might have had more ores than the other so for this test to be conclusive you'd have to repeat it in several different worlds or create a duplicate of the world before hand and do the same area on each world but reverse the spacing and find the results out.
+Michael Whitney This is the reason he flipped halfway (between the two tests that is) and he acknowledged that over a larger area the anomalies (like diamonds, gold, and lapis, as well as coal in my opinion) would even out more. Over the same area the 2-block spacing will get a few more ore however that's at the cost of more time, which is his point. Due to how little more it would be, it's not more efficient (at least in regards to time and work, which is how he measured it, it's slightly more efficient in resources and space) to only leave 2 blocks.
+Sean Cannon For time spent or number of blocks mined, the three block method will yield 30% more resources on average. For a given area mined (which is basically what this test was), the 2 block method will yield about 5% more resources on average. In other words, if you mine for an hour, the three block method will give you 30% more resources than the two block method. But if you mine a 50x50 area under your base, the two block method will give you 5% more resources. The variations within those average results can be pretty high, though, so in a given mine the amount of resources you get is largely based on the luck of the RNG.
It's worth noting that there's always the risk that there's a block that's one wide at head level, then wider right above that, since you wouldn't be seeing diagonal up- that said, I don't feel the extra row's worth it. Pretty good feeling that I've never looked at an "efficient mining" video before, and happen to already mine like this.
I usually go for the two block spacing, the only reason why I stick to this method is because I usually will bring a high number of stone picks, and a couple of iron or one diamond pick, because you are mining so much stone with the stone picks you are gaining resources, Your 3 spacing method does make sense if you are using iron or diamond picks the whole time, but because I get so much stone from branch mining, I use some of that stone for stone picks and stone shovels, sure it takes more time to mine with them but I feel it is a very efficient way to mine if you go 2 block spacing, use the stone picks for all the stone blocks and the stone shovel for the dirt, then use the iron or diamond pick for the coal, iron, redstone and diamond blocks ( I don't even mine the lapis, its pointless unless you want a lapis block for some reason)
After a look around using the Xray mod diamonds are almost randomly spaced. It often seems the case that neighbouring groups of diamonds are at differing heights so mining shafts of alternate heights may yield more results. (i.e. rather than missing mining every 3 blocks, mine 2 across and 2 down in a ^ v ^ v ^ v kind of pattern)
I usually space out my branches by 7, taking your logic several steps further. To me, it's not about missing little diamond veins here and there, it's about covering as much ground as possible in the smallest amount of time. That's what mining efficiency is. On multiplayer servers with world protection or small PE or Xbox versions, that wouldn't fly as well, because land is more limited so squeezing out all possible diamonds there is more important than mining efficiency. Increasing ore yields in the smallest amount of time can also be improved by some pretty common sense things, like bringing water buckets to traverse lava pools in a small amount of time, or placing torches exclusively on one side of the mineshaft to make it easier to get back to the surface. The branch method with 7 block spacing looks better anyway, I usually add a a minecart track up to the surface for quick ore processing without it looking cramped.
![[Invention] The BEST Mob Proof Door (Always Open for You!)](/img/n.gif)
"I don't mean to tell you what's right or wrong..."
My friend.... This is math. This isn't opinion. You are absolutely right. Feel free to say so. :) Very well done, Sir! If this doesn't convince people, nothing will.
Courtney Foster convinced me
Bad math maybe, its not 38% more mining, its 21%
Did you mean 31%, not 21%? In the 50x50 block example, there are 13 mined branches in the 3-block method, versus 17 mined out in the 2-block method. The 2-block method is doing 4 more halls, and 4/13=30.77% more work.
In a larger expanse, the 3-block method is mining out every 4th block, or 25% of the material. A 2-block method mines out 33.33% of the earth. So a 2-block method is mining out 8.33% more of the total, or 8.33/25=1/3 or 33% more work being done overall.
A spacing of 4 is even slightly better in my opinion. Here's why.
The blocks of mineral are often spreaded on a width of 2 or 3. So sometimes you'll come across the other stripes by mining the minerals, lowering the efficiency. With a spacing of 4 or 5, you're limiting the chances of stripes intersection.
Now you may say "but with a 4-spacing you'll miss two blocks", yes, but Minecraft ressources are infinite, you're not limited to a certain area, so either you use a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 15 spacing, you're always missing blocks: those that you aren't exposing.
I think that it's rationally more efficient to use a 4 spacing rather than a 3 spacing. But only by 2 or 3%, probably
You seem intellectually chill, subscribed.
I ran tests on this myself, to get a more accurate numbers. I had no means to record, but I have gathered the data over 100 separate tests. Even tested other block spacing: 1 block, 4 block, and even 5 block. All in the name of science. 100 tests for each.
3 block Spacing versus 2 block spacing:
As Kulprit Gaming said, there is a 38% increase in the amount of work to do 2 block spacing. Over 100 tests, I can confirm that it is accurate.
You gain only an average of 5% in material gain. The amount of effort, and the amount gained back, is not worth the extra 38% increase in work. That increase, with minimal return, actually decreases the efficiency, by a large margin, by comparison.3 block spacing versus 4 block spacing:You are doing roughly 23% more work with the 3 block spacing, than the 4 block spacing. A material gain increase of 33% actually makes it worth the extra work. Not a surprise.3 block spacing versus 5 block spacing:
with 3 block spacing you have an increase of 33% work load by comparison. However, an increase of 53% in material gain. Not a surprise.
3 block spacing versus 1 block spacing:
To do 1 block spacing, you increase your work by 50%. You only have a material gain of 6%. Making 1 block spacing less efficient than 2 block spacing. No surprise there.
Over all, the most efficient branch mining style, is to leave 3 blocks between each tunnel.
I even tested 2 block height, and 3 block height as well. You have a 5% increase in material gain, and roughly a 10% increase in work. So I say that it is worth it personally.
3 blocks between each tunnel, with 3 blocks in height, after multiple tests, I have found to be the most efficient method for mining minerals.
+Death's Heir If your looking for efficiency you need also look at efficiency of movement. Mining 3 blocks high means more mouse movement (across at least one full block per column) where as 2 blocks high you can hover at the edge of the blocks and barely move it at all which will increase speed.
I did account for that, but I look at it like this:
Dig down to y=5 (feet location) the reason is because bed rock is major problem at layers 1-4, and start your branch mining. 5/6/7 are the y blocks you are digging out.
Let's say you limit yourself to a 200x200 area for mining. Once you branch mine all that out, what do you do next to maintain efficiency?
You dig up, skipping block 8 (ceiling of 5/6/7) and 9(floor of 10/11/12), and dig out 10/11/12. next using the same method. When you run out of your 200x200 digging area, you go up to the next level:
skipping 13 and 14, digging out 15/16/17...
y=18 will be the ceiling. y=18 is the maximum y coordinate in which diamond spawns in.
Now for the 2 height:
Dig down to y=5. 5/6 will be dug out.
finish your 200x200 area. Dig up skip 7 and 8. Dig out 9/10. You then dig up again skipping 11 and 12, and dig out 13/14. Dig up again, dig out 17/18.
This is why I said both are equally efficient. It ultimately depends if you want to mine out the full height possible (with minimal interference from bedrock).
+Death's Heir Wouldn't mining three blocks high instead of two make a 50% work increase instead of your 10%?
WoutFP Good catch. Don't know why I said 10%. Thank you for pointing that out.
However, it is only +50% if you work in a single layer. As in: digging out blocks 5/6 or block 5/6/7 only.
When digging from y=5 (layers 1-4 is bedrock heavy) up to y=18 (maximum height for diamond spawning)
Three high mining 5/6/7/10/11/12/15/16/17
9 blocks on the y axis is being mined
2 high mining: 5/6/9/10/13/14/17/18
8 blocks on the y axis are being mined
That is only a 12.5% increase. Which puts my 10% closer to the truth, than 50%.
On another note: Ever since I learned that 3 wide is better than 2 wide, I learned another trick, which I still need to do testing with, to see if it is viable, or just a waste of time.
On the first layer y=5-y=7, you space them 3 apart as normal. So inside a 201x201 area (when actually playing you wouldn't limit yourself to such a small area) You start at x=1 z=1 for simplicity. From then on you would simply add 4 to which ever axis you're traveling along, and that'll tell you where it is you dig next. So if traveling on the z axis, you would start each branch at x=1 z=1, x=1 z=5, etc. All the way to x=1 z=201
The next layer up, you are skipping y=8 and y=9, and starting at y=10.
Instead of starting the branches the same, x=1 z=1, you offset the branch to minimize the loss of the resources that are in y=9 and y=8.
The offset could be by a single block so x=1, z=2. Or by two blocks x=1 z=3. Offsetting by 3 blocks creates a similar result as offsetting by 1 block. As I said, I still need to test to see if this is viable, but it is a thought that I had.
Another good way test this would be to create two worlds with the same seed and mine at the exact same coords and see which one is better. That'd probably give you a good representation.
Lol
😂😂😂😂
My problem with branch mining is I usually go and just mine into infinity with one branch and never move on, I'm always like ok if I move to the next branch I know theres diamonds like 2 blocks in front of me.
When you start a branch, designate a number before hand.
"I am going to make 10 branches, each 40 blocks long."
haha I totally get that, but tell yourself "I know there are probably diamonds two blocks to my side this entire shaft that I can't see!"
A lot of times I will give myself a limited number of torches, so I will mine a branch until they run out, or until I hit lava or some other obstruction.
What I do is I make a stack of torches and I place them at set intervals. When I run out of torches, I know I've gone far enough down that shaft
The thing is since the world is infinite, if you make a branch 7 deep, or 10, deep, or 20 deep, or 40 deep, there is ALWAYS the possibility that a diamond is "just in front of you" :) At least going 20 deep you are guarenteed to cross into at least 1 new chunk.
***** yes but it is such a large and vast area for mining and building you might as well call it infinite
For a youtube video, this seems almost at thesis levels of research. I'll have to run my own experiments and see how it turns out.
Salem Andrada definitely let me know what you find, always looking for more insights
Will do.
Truly this is a great mining technique.
+Salem Andrada SO?!
*****
Eh. I don't have the time to replicate it completely anymore, but, from what tests I was able to do, it was, in fact, more productive.
Most people wouldn't agree with you on this one. I do agree however because if we are talking about mining we are talking about speed and efficiency. To miss 5% is not a big deal when you consider out of 100 diamonds found that means 5 missing. This is a good example mate, good example indeed.
thanks man, really appreciate that. Most people confuse "efficiency" with "perfection" or basically getting ALL the ore. That's not what efficiency is, as you seem to know, it's a balance between work and time and your returns.
KulpritGaming It would have been very helpful to your video to compare the time it took to mine each technique. I totally agree with your logic; I'm excited to give this three block technique a try. I have never done branch mining or anything like that. I pretty much just found caves and followed them down as far as I could mining every mineral I saw on my way down :P
This has helped me with resource gathering.
Benjamin Cook Perhaps that is also very efficient way since you don't have to tunnel yourself but just pick the ripe fruit without really putting effort into it.
Yeah the system is efficent. I love it and it has worked well for me.
Roughly 30% more work for only about an average of only 10% more return equals "waste of time and overhead". That is a very bad business model. Your 3 spacing makes so much more sense, I feel like an idiot for doing wrong for the last 3 years I've been playing Minecraft. Lol
EVLfreak666 I am new to minecraft, but I have watched tons of videos so I knew how to play already. But I love mining so much! I don't even care about efficiency lol. It is just such a fun game.
+EVLfreak666 thing is both are wrong.
+JaqiesGadgets what is the better way of doing it? I'm always willing to learn.
+EVLfreak666 If you're going for speed, caving is probably the most efficient way to find enough diamonds for things like an enchanting table, a diamond weapon, etc. If you find a good cave system you can come out with enchanted iron gear and a diamond pick, maybe even a diamond weapon, in 30 minutes or less. Watch some good Ultra HardCore minecraft videos for pure speed of materials gained.
If you want full diamond gear, or if you just want diamond everything, though, you'll need to branch mine. In that case, for pure speed, 3 block branch mining is the way to go.
The last option is to cheat with an X-ray resource pack, which makes Stone transparent, so you can just see any resources and head straight to them. That's pretty lame though.
+EVLfreak666 the way I do it is mine 3by2it is a good way to mine but you can mine how you want to you now they is no real way to do it tale me if it helps .
:D
My mining style entirely suits my playing style. I go down with 45 torches, dig a 1x2 tunnel three spaces away from the last, straight across and ignoring all ores in the walls, and placing a torch about whenever it gets too dark to see the next block. After using 40 torches, I stop and head back, gathering all the ores (using a Fortune pick where appropriate) and occasionally stopping to plop down a crafting table to consolidate all the coal/redstone/lapis into blocks to conserve space. The last five torches are to light up any large holes I dig while following ore veins.
When I get back to the beginning of the mineshaft, my inventory is usually completely full of both ore and cobblestone, with no waste, and so I head back up to home. I keep all the cobble because I smelt it into stonebricks for stuff I'm building up on the surface.
If you weren't doing what I am doing, wasting all that time keeping ten stacks of cobble doesn't make sense. But it does for me. It's not the most efficient, mathematically, but it is the most efficient for what I need.
wat about emeralds? they usually are only found in 1 block
Nathan Gorton at the time this video was made emeralds had just been added and didn't have any real usage so didn't really have much value
Nathan Gorton It should also be noted that emeralds are primarily useful for trading with villagers, and you can much more easily get them by selling items to villagers than by mining. When I mine I almost see emeralds as annoying.
Nathan Gorton Emeralds are found in extreme hills biomes. So, switch to the 2 block technique when you hit extreme hills. But, then again, why would you mine for emeralds? Trade them with villagers. There's almost always a cleric around to trade your heaps of rotten flesh away for a few emeralds.
Dana Baguley Move to another biome.
TheRCFanatic define "extreme hills" please.
When you made this vid lapis was only useful as a dye but in 1.8 it's going to be used for enchanting
Does that really matter? Lapis still formes in veins just like every other ore.
Yeah but he said it was useless or that he didn't know any good use for it. Just mentioned it.
***** Uhmmm... What? I suggest you're just going to watch some 1.8 snapshot reviews...
This video was made over a year ago before anyone knew lapis would have a use
i like blue dye...
This is the video I never knew I was searching for. THANK YOU
Great video! This is the kind of tedious, base-level research that really makes a difference. I know it can be thankless work sometimes, so I'd like to personally say thank you for taking the time to do this. I will make sure to utilize this knowledge.
very professional and well made, stumbled upon this video wasn't exactly searching for it, but it has definitley inspired me to check out your channel
lizardkingzach thanks man, appreciate the kind words!
No idea why but I like your personality and your logical thinking in this video. Subbed.
I would really be interested in knowing the exact time you spent mining the 2 block method vs the 3 block method in your 50x50 control test. After all, it's the time that we all want to save when mining.
+Jam4Cash only some of us.
+Jam4Cash I personally don't mind mining for a longer period of time, but I find running back after annoying, so the 2-block spacing is better for me. However given 3 blocks between you're mining less of the 2500 stone (given a 50x50 area), you will spend significantly less time mining every 3rd block. Most likely however you're going to spend about the same amount of time mining for resources unless you're mining for a very specific amount of a particular resource and intend to stop the moment you get that amount (or at the end of the branch you get that amount in).
+Sean Cannon You're more likely to hit that point sooner with the 3-block method than the 2-block.
I know this video is old but you have done a bloody good job explaining and having proof to back up your system. I have always had three block gap because I had the same theory you did.
I started mining this way. I cannot recall ever finding an isolated 1x1 ore block in a wall or from branch mining. I think even if you may miss the 1x1 which is probably ultra-rare, you will cover much more ground this way. Also factor the time, you won't fill up with cobblestone as often and need to go back and unload.
I got a easier way to scientificly test the efficency of 2-space vs. 3 spaces (or any other method):
* Craft 2 diamond pickaxes
* Use the "2 space method" until the first one is broken
* count the minerals
* use the "3 space method" until the second pickaxe is broken.
* count the minerals
the method with the more minerals wins.
You can lower the randomness of the terrain by using more pickaxes or simply repeating the test.
+Ra Star Also make a copy of the world first, then you can use the same seed in the same spot removing the mineral spawn randomness
+Ra Star this test would fail since it wouldn't keep the area that is mined constant. you'd cover way more area with the 3 space method simply because you mine less blocks = your pick lasts longer and you mine more blocks with the 2 space method = your pick dies 50% faster almost.
+Bilaal A so wouldn't that show efficient
+Ra Star Or simply keep the time and measure the minerals/minute ratio. For example, let's assume it took @KulpritGaming 100 minutes to mine all the shafts in the two-space condition. The three-space condition would take up about 38% less time (not accounting for the increased mine-duration for the extra different minerals you find). So the three-space condition took about 62 minutes to mine. His diamond/minute ratio would be 30/62 so 0.48/minute. In the two-space condition it would be 24/100 so 0.24/minute. Same goes for coal: 7.45/minute (three-space) v.s. 5.25/mintue (two-soace). Clearly based on this sample, the three-space condition comes out on top.
Try it for yourself: mine 30 minutes or so in the two-space form and mine all the minerals you find. Do the same for the three-space form and calculate your mineral/minute score! Let me know what you guys end up with:)
+Bilaal A That's the point. You'd cover more area, therefore finding more minerals.
Efficiency is highest payout for cheapest materials. Assuming youre constantly mining, both pickaxes will break at the same time, so time is not a factor. The difference is that you cover more area, and have a higher payout.
this test only showed how many materials you miss (about 5%) with the 3 space as opposed to the 2 space.
300 block area. the 3 space mining will be mining 100 of the blocks. The 2 space will mine 150 blocks for only 5% extra payout. Therefore, the 3 space mining is better, because you get (lets say) 95 diamonds after mining 100 blocks, and the 2 space will get 100 diamonds over 150 blocks.
You can mine 300 blocks in the time it takes the 2 space method to mine 200.
You make a very good argument KulpritGaming and after reading some of the comments explaining efficiency and how speed is only one of the factors of efficiency, i can say that i will be using this method from now on. Thanks.
you should of compared total ores found and total time spent.
yes, because that really is the true point of 3 block spacing. Less time spent in one area means you can fan out and find more minerals quicker it is why it is a more effective method so he probably should have mentioned how long it took to do both methods.
+futbolluva +August karbowski I did consider this but unfortunately do to the fact I was making a video things don't go smoothly so a straight timer wouldn't work.
I probably should have assigned a time per block and just done the math based on how many blocks I mined for at least a rough idea!
Good points!
it would also be difficult because it's also about luck, unless you do a massive sample size. because some paths might go straight through veins, and other might go through lava and gravel
I agree but understand about the video issue. I too would be interested in knowing how long each 500 block took to mine in either fashion. Also maybe how many iron picks you went through during that amount of area using each method. As someone else commented, for true parity, using the same seed to duplicate the same terrain would yield better data. Thanks for sharing your methods.
KulpritGaming you could have saved, mined one section using the three block method, timed how long it took while showing what you found, and then exited without saving and mined the same area again using the two block method while showing how much more you found vs how much longer it took to cover the same area I suppose. Idk, you're the guy doing the video though I'm sure you had your reasons
This dude needs to be giving lectures. I've been using the two space method and you've convinced me otherwise. This video's completely clean and professional, very well done.
A more fair test would be to mine a section with the 2 space method, then using a copy of that same world save, mine the same exact area with the 3 space method, assuming you'd make a game save copy first :) Great Video!
You can do that just as easily by digging a section with the 2-space method, and making a mental note of whether that vein could be seen with the 3-space method as well. To get an accurate read about the percentages you'd miss, you're going to need a very large sample size, of course - say, 500-1000 veins.
Awesome job! Me and my son are new to Minecraft. This helps tremendously
nevermind the negative comments kulprit. i found this video very helpful. i will try this mining strat... thank you so much!
Deo Gabuan nah I don't mind them, been doing YT too long to let it effect me. Can't please everyone all the time. I just focus on the good interactions, like yourself and that makes it all that much more enjoyable for me. Have a good holiday man!
I like the way you demonstrated your point about the ore veins by showing them in 3D, and did your best to make a standardized test to compare yields. Albeit sample size was a bit small, except coal (obviously) since that stuff's all over the place. Redstone and lapis ores drop several items each, so there might be some bias there: we don't know how many ore blocks you mined, chances are you didn't find more of it than gold. - [PS: To answer your implicit question, lapis-lazuli is used as dye.]
Great video, always had a feeling about this as well, love the way you put it into words and examples.
Joseph Walton thanks man, glad you enjoyed it! Seems a lot of people think the way we do by the reaction tot his video...
KulpritGaming Dude, awesome video! I like it alot. I'll try this out right away. Sorry for asking since I either missed it or you didn't mention it but, what depth did you build this test at?
yea man, well done
I genuinely appreciate the logic used in this video and how professionally executed, explained, tested, and demonstrated this was!
myself, I would really like to know what mapping mod you're using to get that circle on the right
Man I honestly can't remember off the top of my head. I think it was called Rei's Minimap or something like that!
+KulpritGaming Been that long, eh? :-)
+KulpritGaming looks like Rei's Minimap hasn't been updated since 1.7.2-ish -- there's a Zan's Minimap that appears to supersede it, but is still showing 'not yet released' for 1.8.8 -- which was a while ago. when a modder gives up, they should post the code (with the notes) on github for someone else to fork it and pick up the slack.
Yea man it's going on 3 years old. The fact that this video is still that popular baffles me. Heck it's quite the statement that Minecraft itself is still so popular 3 years later! lol
Myself I mine around lvl 12 as it puts you juuust above the majority of the lava pits that occur down around there. (learned that watching Dataless822's lets' plays)
At first I really doubted the 3 block space between each of the tunnels, but you really changed my mind on that. With doing 2 spaces between tunnels, you'll only miss 1x1 ores of diamond (at most), so it covers close to 100% of the area you're mining in, but that doesn't make it the best diamond mining technique. With 3 blocks between tunnels (considering the dimensions that diamond ores come in), the biggest vein you'll miss is a 1x2, but when you think about it, you end up covering about 33% more area (lengthwise in perspective of the main tunnel). Downside to 3 block spacing, you *might* miss a 1x1 or 1x2 vein of diamond, upside, you cover so much more ground, and thus find more diamonds since the veins are much more likely to take up a 2x2 space- so in the eyes of the most efficient diamond mining technique; this is the most superior technique I've seen! Thanks kulpritgaming!
thank you for this video. I had been doing the 2 block method up until now without too much thought, but I think I will be switching to the three block system now . 38% more mining for 15% more minerals is just not worth it
I like that you put it into the same terms that the game is created. Probability. Facts. The only opinion that comes into it is the interpretation of the data. well done man, thank you for the help.
I started to play minecraft not too long ago, and I agree on the 1-3-1 system, you could not have explained the reasons I had for choosing this better. :)
Mp57navy awesome man! I spend a lot of time mining so I chew on this type of stuff while doing it and always looking to improve on it.
this was honestly the best video I have found on branch mining. thank you very much for uploading this.
wow you put a lot of effort in this...what do you think is the best strategy for tools... is a diamond pick the best? is it worth the sacrifice of the diamonds?
Tim Leach normaly yes it should because diamond pickaxe can mine enough blocks to show the diamonds in chunks in every chunk there is at least vine of diamond ore so that means it worth it
Tim Leach Some nice enchantments on a diamond pickaxe (efficiency, unbreaking, and fortune) will give you an enormous advantage in mining speed, endurance and yield. Plus, hat else are you gonna do with the diamonds, if not just that? ;)
Tim Leach Get 3 pickaxes. The first one should have efficiency 4 (or 5), and unbreaking 3. This is for the branch mining itself. The second pick should have the above enchantments and silk touch. You want to silk touch all your ores so they do not take up as much space in your inventory (mostly lapis and redstone). The third one should have eff 4 and unbreaking 3 and also fortune 3 to mine your ores once you're done.
Sparky Tunes That's a rather inefficient way to go about mining, as you're essentially mining every ore block twice. Mine the ores directly with fortune, bring a crafting table to convert redstone/lapis/diamonds to blocks. That way they take up even less space. Use the silk touch to mine clean stone blocks to save time/coal if you need the bricks.
+Chretze only inefficient if you don't value time spent. there are different efficiency goals. Mine is time spent out "in the wild" mining. the silk touch method is best for those with my efficiency goals.
This is by far the best video over anything with mining techniques I've seen. It was properly supported by evidence, statistics, and just pure common sense. You, my friend, have earned a subscriber. :)
Is all of that made in survival ? :o anyway nice job ;)
Yes
The most efficient spacing is NOT 2 or 3 blocks between branches. It's actually 9 blocks. The reason is that Minecraft still works on a 16x16x16 chunk system for distributing resources. There's exactly 1 cluster of diamond in each 16x16 on the map. The number of clusters is different for other resources, but the idea holds true.
The most efficient system will minimize chances of looking in a chunk after you've found the valuable resources. Skipping the long and weird statistical math, the next branch should be half way through the chunk. This would be 8.5 squares, since that's not possible we round to 9; leaving 8 unbroken blocks between branches of the mine.
The difference between 8 and 9 is minimal because the optimum would be 8.5. I prefer to use 8 block spacing (7 unbroken blocks between branches) as the number are close to optimal and the travel time becomes a real factor once you have a large mine. My long-running local map has a mine with just over 200 shafts, each 1km long. It takes over 4 minutes to run from a corner to the processing facility in the middle with an un-modded MC. It would take an extra 30 seconds if the mine was laid-out with 9 block spacing.
Since I glossed over the math here's a nice little graph of the efficiency vs block spacing: imgur.com/DYXtnFL
Others on this video have discussed the mining level. Everything appears in layers 0 to 20, with the most being found between 5 and 16. Therefor the most efficient level would be 9.5, rounded to 10. Lava also appears up to level 10, so I highly recommend mining at level 11, where you will typically have 1 block separating you from most lava flows, while sacrificing a minimal amount of efficiency.
A graph of where resources are found by level: imgur.com/O5xTFlq
Apologies for posting on such an old video, but people seem to watch it still, and comment here enough that I hope they read this.
There is one more thing you can do for a lot more efficient mining, is to get diamond pickaxes with efficiency 5, and beacon with Speed 2 and another with Haste 2. You can get the same amount of ores with those in 10 minutes compared to few hours without them!
Thought it was still very good video and good explanation, maybe carried on it a bit too much
Agreed! I saw that from etho XD
I learned from Xisuma. Done it quite much and got half a stack of diamond blocks in 1 day.
TheRetroSnake Yes but it would still be more efficient I think to mine in straight lines as demonstrated in the video. This is because the speed of the pick is irrelevant to the ratio of the efficiency of one method to the next. That being said, I still prefer the method you outlined, which Etho nicknamed speed-mining.
You don't get at all more ore in speedmining than regular stripmining, but you do get a quite bigger area done in less time. Plus I much prefer my speedmining with speed 2 beacon and doing strips. THAT is where all the diamonds are at
what can be done to keep efficency and increase return is on a second level offset your tunnels be in that middle row so you hit those one/two tall ore that was missed on the upper level. this can be done on the level above aswell thus eliminating any missed blocks(aside from those pesky diagonal blocks)and again keeping that efficency. let me know what your thought is on this.
Hm. What can i say? I've used to dig just a HUGGGEE pit of 64X64 and used to waste so much time and tools.. but ever since I've started seeing the branch mining, I now see this is the best method afterall ^_^ Thanks for the professionally made video, keep up the good work man! ^_^
Kyuhan Youn thanks man, very nice things for you to say! appreciate it!
KulpritGaming hi I watch all ur vids:-)it helped me a lot!
If you revisit this test, I'd be curious as to what you find on a time trial. 100 minutes of 2 wide vs 3 wide for 50 blocks deep or do an even number of branches each way (20, for example). To me, when talking about efficiency, you need to discuss the time element - spent or gained.
Most efficient?
/give [username] minecraft:diamond_pickaxe 1 0 {ench:[{id:32,lvl:10000},{id:34,lvl:10000}]}
+SquidPlays Added fortune would make that even more efficient, as long as you don't overdo it or your game might lag or crash. :)
Star Hopper True
Hey Kulprit, really nice way to show the differences between the two systems.
One idea if you area interested: do another comparison, but this time, use the number of blocks as the control parameter instead of the area. This way the "energy" and time invested in both methods would be the same.
I hope you see this comment.
When mining for emeralds, this won't work. They only show up with the one ore.
well yes but this is for deep mining
dodo Goodwin ...You find emeralds that deep while under a mountain biome, that isn't making a difference here
well i didn't know that thanks now i do i still wont go looking for them :P
ehh
Redmac McHamster I would much rather trade to villagers for emeralds than hunt them down. With certain large scale farms, I can get hundreds of emeralds every hour, if not thousands. Mining? LOL Perhaps 5-15 emeralds every hour. It's just not worth it to me. Not to mention the time spent mining versus each branching system...
Sure, you will miss emeralds with the 3 spaced branches, but you will still do just about the same amount of branches in the same amount of time as the 2 spaced branches, still equating to the same amount of emerald gains in the same amount of time.
Also, I'd like to mention that this video is missing one very important test. 17 branches of 3 spaces versus 17 branches of 2 spaces. It will be a slight amount more time spent digging the extra 1 space each branch totalling 2 extra blocks on one side, and 2 extra blocks on the other side probably equating to about 0.1-1% more time spent for the 17 branches depending on how long each branch is, BUT you will get FAR more GAINS from 17 branches of 3 spaces versus 17 branches of 2 spaces. Compare those 2 chests, and you will be surprised. At least 30% more of every mineral for the same amount of time spent. The only mineral gain that will be the same is emeralds.
If you were to mine for the same amount of time on each type of branch the 3 block spacing would cover more ground, so in all fairness you would get more minerals, than the 2 block spacing, even though in your example 2 block spacing had more minerals.
I'm not saying I disagree but you would have only got two of those diamonds. They are diagonal so they wouldn't have been visible that was a bad example.
Daniel Martinez give me a time in the video, I don't remember off-hand but I will re-watch and take a look if you let me know what part of the video
The very beginning in the cleared out room your explaining how everything would be found digging a three block tunnel. You would have never seen two of the diamonds had it been a three wide tunnel. Not being critical but it was going through my mind the entire time you were explaining it.
Well no of course I would t initially see them, but once I see 1 diamond block I am gonna mine around it completely to make sure I get them all.
As long as the mineral vein goes 2 blocks horizontally I will find the vein. I will then mine it all out completely to get all the resources.
I would to but your target audience is someone that wouldn't know. Not meant to criticize. Thanks for the reply that's pretty rare for a fairly large amount of followers.
Daniel Martinez you make a fair point and things can always be more clearly explained, definitely agree. No worries, I welcome any feedback especially critical feedback, it's how we get better at what we do. Thanks for watching man and taking the time to comment.
I try to reply to every comment I get. It might take a few days or a week before I get a chance to sit down and do it, but I try. If you take time out of your day to comment to me, it's the least I can do to reply!
I agree with you. When you uncover some diamonds, it's worth it to dig in another block deeper to search for a possible extra one or two. I'm actually pretty tenacious with my deep mining. I like to mine on layer 7 and I encounter lava pools frequently. I use gravel and sand to fill in the lava pools when I encounter them. I'm stubborn that way. :P
I love mining so much. I went mining for iron and came back with 9 diamonds tons of redstone and coal and 20 iron. I love minecraft too!
Wow so many iron...
+Kiersten Rozema Im dam proud son.
+Kiersten Rozema pee pee
Give this man an award
I love how you proved efficiency with math and did a test. Also the visual of the "veins" of minerals with the hollowed out section. Very well done.
Finally someone who Finally knows what there talking about XD
Nah
You earned yourself a new sub. Your logic is unparalleled within the Minecraft TH-cam community.
i disagree. the most efficient mining system is (// replacenear stone air 5). lol
I used to do the 2 block spacing but after this video I went to the three block spacing and got better outcomes, I was getting almost the exact same income, but was able to find more because my materials lasted longer. I've seen people say 3 block is better before, but your video is great for me because I always need the science.
You use lapis lazuli to enchant.
+Jacob Moody That's what I was thinking. This video is outdated now.
+Jacob Moody I think that element of the game is relatively new. in 2013, I think lazuli was not used for enchanting just yet.
Charles Kurtz No it wasn't, it was a new feature for 1.8 or whatever. That's why I said the video is outdated now. :)
+Jacob Moody When this video was made, Lapis was not used for enchanting and was a purely cosmetic material.
+Suika Ibuki If you use give.. why you mine at all rofl. just spawn the ressources. You cant compare cheating with efficiency
I prefer mining out in like four branching T shapes... like the tetragrammaton symbol from equilibrium. And doing that off in different directions from a main shaft. So in a way it covers a greater over all area but misses a lot more blocks. I find it to be quick and good at finding veins. Its also less repetative than just mining straight lines all the time.
What about laying some TNT along the length of your branches after you have done the 3 spacing and detonating it in a chain reaction.
Its funny to be in 2019 and hear him saying "who gives a crap about lapis" lol
Excellent intelligent approach to a seemingly simple issue.
I hope you're still making content of some kind. This just came across my feed and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Many thanks.
but there is the most efficient way to get all the minerals on the entire map is called x-ray
+seth blanton We talking about SURVIVAL. No cheats.
Nice nerding on the numbers, I'd laugh to see your borderlands skill trees and justifications to those!! Thumb up.
Efficiency isn't an opinion.
my mining system is the two-block gap method, except in the first and last columns, and along the back row, every ten blocks I place a torch and every five blocks I dig one block to the inside (but every third on the back instead). the benefit of this is that I mine the rows with four blocks between and place a torch every ten blocks and then go along the columns without having to place any additional torches. I also happen to be working with a concept for a second layer which utilizes glass above the torches to minimise the amount of torches for the second layer and still have. 0% chance of mobs spawning.
Terrible method. Get Xray.
xray didn't exist when this video was made unfortunately. And I personally wouldn't use it, ruins the point to me. But then again I am not fully up on what xray does.
KulpritGaming if you are going to use xRay, you might as well just play in creative mode. Great video.
Doesn't work in 1.8. Which is coming out in at most 2 weeks. (and that's if a game breaking bug pops up.)
***** Well done :) somebody with a sense of humor/brain
KulpritGaming i know i love the surprise it gives when you find it.
I've always run a 2 block branch but after seeing this I may swap to 3 branch. I'm all for speed since I play on PS and with the smaller maps I'm trying to mine an entire level. Your reasoning sounds solid to me.
Please (everyone) don't take this like I'm being a pompous ass here, but to lend some credibility to your point: I have a B.S. in Economics, a M.S. in Econometrics (Economics + Statstics + Calculus = Econometrics) and a PhD in Economics and I think you make a very good point. Engineers and Econometricians live and die by efficiency and your video does a very good job on this topic.
This video makes sense.
A very good post and a very well-reasoned argument that makes statistical sense.
Well done, Sir. Well done indeed.
One thing I would have like to have seen is for you to mine out the missed rows in the 3 spacing system and record exactly how many minerals were missed. And you're absolutely right that since the goal to get the most minerals in a given amount of time, not extract every resource the game has, then 3 spacing is 33% more efficient.
If you mine in the next layer in between the tunnels slightly overlapping you catch the 4x4 vertical ones too, with minimum waste.
I've never really been concerned with efficiency. I too enjoy mining. I still get excited every time I find diamonds. I'm also not trying to get every mineral in the map. I like finding anything, diamond, lapis, mineshafts, chasms, etc. Nicely done video, always appreciate techniques and a different way of looking at getting things done in Minecraft!
If you have issues with mobs spawning on your demo worlds, Hit F7 and just make sure there are no spawn locations unlit (Red can be spawned on)
Great video, man. I've been using the two method when I branch mine and it hadn't even occurred to me that ore veins rarely appear in such a way that I would miss them by leaving an extra row between my tunnels.
I watched this video and practiced your method via 3 block spacing and my yeild increased dramatically over time. Thank you for your explanations
compare 3-space to feather mining, as it is said to be far better than 3-space. incase u dont know feather mining, the shafts are 13 blocks apart instead of 3, and every 4 blocks through each the shaft, you dig a 1x1 hole at eye level to the left and right 5 blocks. if this is confusing, its on the wiki
You know your stuff. Great tutorial! I am teaching kids how to play Minecraft in a summer program, and I'll share your tutorial with them. Your point about how ore stretches across multiple blocks is spot-on. Keep rocking!
there is a way with the three wide to reduce the ores missed. if you go up 2 blocks above the middle of your three wide and start your next branch, you will only miss one block, which further increases your chances of finding all of the minerals.
I just started December 2015. This makes so much sense.
I was using the 2-spacing technique thinking I was doing alright for quite some time. Then I ran out of luck or something, could not find any gold at all and thought to myself "someone has to have a better way to mine".
So, I found your analysis and the 3-spacing technique made sense right away.
While I think the most of the video just for explaining why it is more efficient was a bit over the top, I appreciate the time and effort you put into it :-)
Good stuff man. I've been doing to 2 space method for years but I'm definitely going to do 3 from now on. I hadn't considered the shape of the mineral veins. The people disagreeing with you don't understand that in an infinitely generated world, your productivity becomes a function of time, and is not dependent on you gathering 100% of the minerals.
If you still have that test world available, you can use Cartographer to map out the ore and stone level by level, and you'll be able to see if you missed any using either technique.
Makes total sense, I think I'll addopt your mining method, I think I even have a way of improving it, keeping the speed increase you mentioned AND maintaining 100% coverage.
Thank you so much, I totally get your point and I think it very well suits the “efficiency” goal here
Really enjoyed this video. Thanks for taking the time to put this together and display the stats
I love your perspective and your testing. Personally I am used to using the 2 block spacing. I have never really questioned my thinking behind it. I will grab a pick with efficiency III or maybe efficiency V and mine. Its incredible how much time you save with the 3 block spacing.
What if you go even more than 3 and every 4 blocks you dig left and right 1x1 tunnel just to see through?
Yesss. Expertly laid out and solid logic. It occurred to me while watching that you could perform the same test in two game saves of the same seed. Mark your starting point in the exact same spot in both saves, then do the 2-spacing technique in one and the 3-spacing technique in the other. That way, you could see how many resources you spot in the same area using separate techniques, then weigh that against the time/resources spent on each. Ideally, I'd like to see this replicated in several areas of the world, or in several seeds. Or maybe this is all just a waste of time because it's a video game. What am I doing with my life?
I think a great way to compare the techniques would be to do a three space system of a given size and then mine out the blocks that you can't see in-between the branches, that way you would know how much extra resources you would get with a two space system on the same area. You have me convinced though, I'll be 3 space mining from now on.
This is one of the smartest and most carefully developed videos on minecraft. Thank you so much for this insight. Subscribed
There's also the fact that it doesn't matter if you miss veins, because the world is infinitely generated, and therefore you aren't really missing out on anything as you are just as likely to get it on, say, the next branch.
Great video bro. Love that fact that you went over the raw figures as well!
I think another important statistic to look at here, is ores per branch.
Given that the 3 block spacing had 13 branches, and 2 blocks had 17, you divide the total number of ores collected by the the number of branches mined to obtain that amount.
Diamonds 3 block: 30/13=2.3 ores per branch
Diamonds 2 block: 24/17=1.4 ores per branch
Iron 3 block: 171/13=13.15 OPB
Iron 2 block: 179/17=10.5 OPB
Lets skip to the biggest uptick of 14% and see how much that actually matters:
Coal 3 block: 462/13=35.53 OPB
Coal 2 block: 525/17=30.88 OPB
As you can see, even in the "best case scenario" for 2 block mining, it still falls significantly short in the total amount of ores obtained for the given amount of branches dug. If you were to dig 13 branches with 3 block spacing, and the same amount, 13 branches with 2 block spacing, the total ore count would be significantly lower.
Your method has drastically improved my overall diamond mining efficiency and dramatically reduced wasted materials and my time!! Thank you for making the video Kulprit. =)
B18cCivic awesome! I can't tell you how happy messages like this make me and make the effort I put in so worth it!
Although another point worth making is that the most efficient way to gather resources in both time and resources, is to look for open caverns to find the exposed minerals. There is more risk involved from mobs, but if you increase the # of torches that can be reduced.
You mention early on your problem with mobs so you put little blocks up. You can solve that by placing torches every 6 blocks. Though every 8 (so you can space out a 16 x 16 chunk) will be ok too.
Changed my perspective on branch mining, thank you!
your welcome! This video is pretty old so things may have changed, so just keep that in mind!
The 3 block spacing is also stackable. More so than the two block spacing. And if you stagger the stacks to the center of the last, then you will see every block. :)
Joat1979 yep that is definitely how i do it, the layer above will have my mined tunnels in line with the "middle" unseen block on the layer below.
+Joat1979 every block except for the exact center. It is definitely the best coverage method, if you are going to have a designated mining area and want to get as many resources out of it as possible.
you could also dig shafts underneath and above the "missed" row, while still finding new materials in the shaft
This makes a lot of sense in efficiency and I can't be asked to read through comments so probably has been said before but it's worth noting that had you reversed the tests in the first place like where you did 3 spaces you did 2 spaces instead for the first test, you most likely would have come out with the same amount of ores. In other words, one side might have had more ores than the other so for this test to be conclusive you'd have to repeat it in several different worlds or create a duplicate of the world before hand and do the same area on each world but reverse the spacing and find the results out.
+Michael Whitney This is the reason he flipped halfway (between the two tests that is) and he acknowledged that over a larger area the anomalies (like diamonds, gold, and lapis, as well as coal in my opinion) would even out more. Over the same area the 2-block spacing will get a few more ore however that's at the cost of more time, which is his point. Due to how little more it would be, it's not more efficient (at least in regards to time and work, which is how he measured it, it's slightly more efficient in resources and space) to only leave 2 blocks.
+Sean Cannon For time spent or number of blocks mined, the three block method will yield 30% more resources on average. For a given area mined (which is basically what this test was), the 2 block method will yield about 5% more resources on average. In other words, if you mine for an hour, the three block method will give you 30% more resources than the two block method. But if you mine a 50x50 area under your base, the two block method will give you 5% more resources.
The variations within those average results can be pretty high, though, so in a given mine the amount of resources you get is largely based on the luck of the RNG.
It's worth noting that there's always the risk that there's a block that's one wide at head level, then wider right above that, since you wouldn't be seeing diagonal up- that said, I don't feel the extra row's worth it. Pretty good feeling that I've never looked at an "efficient mining" video before, and happen to already mine like this.
most people mine at lvl 12 (feet) and anything above that isn't likely to be diamond anyway.
IAmCecilMan
Not true. I find diamond al the time at much higher elevations. They are just more rare and have smaller veins.
IAmCecilMan blocks are measured in meters o.o......
I usually go for the two block spacing, the only reason why I stick to this method is because I usually will bring a high number of stone picks, and a couple of iron or one diamond pick, because you are mining so much stone with the stone picks you are gaining resources, Your 3 spacing method does make sense if you are using iron or diamond picks the whole time, but because I get so much stone from branch mining, I use some of that stone for stone picks and stone shovels, sure it takes more time to mine with them but I feel it is a very efficient way to mine if you go 2 block spacing, use the stone picks for all the stone blocks and the stone shovel for the dirt, then use the iron or diamond pick for the coal, iron, redstone and diamond blocks ( I don't even mine the lapis, its pointless unless you want a lapis block for some reason)
This is an awesome way to figure out the most efficient method from your own personal methods
After a look around using the Xray mod diamonds are almost randomly spaced. It often seems the case that neighbouring groups of diamonds are at differing heights so mining shafts of alternate heights may yield more results. (i.e. rather than missing mining every 3 blocks, mine 2 across and 2 down in a ^ v ^ v ^ v kind of pattern)
I usually space out my branches by 7, taking your logic several steps further. To me, it's not about missing little diamond veins here and there, it's about covering as much ground as possible in the smallest amount of time. That's what mining efficiency is. On multiplayer servers with world protection or small PE or Xbox versions, that wouldn't fly as well, because land is more limited so squeezing out all possible diamonds there is more important than mining efficiency. Increasing ore yields in the smallest amount of time can also be improved by some pretty common sense things, like bringing water buckets to traverse lava pools in a small amount of time, or placing torches exclusively on one side of the mineshaft to make it easier to get back to the surface. The branch method with 7 block spacing looks better anyway, I usually add a a minecart track up to the surface for quick ore processing without it looking cramped.