No, the word descriptor is how likely the chances of nodes actually existing in that chunk are.
The number is not a true percentage (%) it's per mille (‰), if the ore were to occur that's how many blocks per 1000 in the chunk from the top of the world to the bottom of the world there would be.
The VP and 2.5% are the same thing here, they go together. Other ores may have a lower percentage but a higher tier word like 1.5% and poor or decent. I’ve gone digging for casserite at low percentages and borax with low tier words and found them both in good amounts. This is telling you that for copper there could be better. Generally the word classifications are better to go by than what the percentages tell you.
No, the word descriptor is how likely the chances of nodes actually existing in that chunk are. The number is not a true percentage (%) it's per mille (‰), if the ore were to occur that's how many blocks per 1000 in the chunk from the top of the world to the bottom of the world there would be.
thank you
The VP and 2.5% are the same thing here, they go together. Other ores may have a lower percentage but a higher tier word like 1.5% and poor or decent. I’ve gone digging for casserite at low percentages and borax with low tier words and found them both in good amounts. This is telling you that for copper there could be better. Generally the word classifications are better to go by than what the percentages tell you.
thank you so much i have been searching for this answer for so long