You keep stating that you get different results ... what are those results and where do you get them from?
The formula on the Mining rules page is the one used to determine whether you find something. I don't know who has written the skill description, maybe whoever wrote it can shed some light on that 6% number.
So, I found 6H36 for Comps Ops 5 and 7H48 for Comps Ops 0, so the rules formula is false, probably there is a round fonction somewhere that was omitted (6H30 and 7H30 are the real times).
As for the skill description, our main problem is that it has been constantly said that each deposit is associated with a certain difficulty to be found, and if we have enough sensors and Comps Ops, the deposit will be found. So it's useless to prospect the same square many times. The skill description is misleading in that way, letting us believe that there is a roll to find the deposit, or that the rules have changed. If the prospection still works the same, we could make a suggestion to change the skill description to something like : "each rank allows you to find more elusive deposit".
"bottom line is we need to see what admin reason is.jenos obviously doesnt just ban for shits n giggles.i am sure he will report to us what the evidence is in this matter."
That skill description was unchanged. I updated most of the skill descriptions for the skills that we actually changed, but as that one was already implemented with that use, I left it alone, figuring that whoever wrote it originally had the correct information in there as I don't know enough about prospecting times myself.
Didn't Kyle used to handle the mining side of the coding, I remember how he used to regularly purge bugged deposits. He also may have been the one who explained how prospecting strength stacked each time, making it harder every time you go through again?
He may have been, but mining/prospecting was before he coded I thought. I could have sworn Khan handled initial coding of the mining stuff (along with the equations), but I could potentially be wrong. They certainly look like Khan maths though.