Diamonds are hard to find. I prefer cave diving the most. When I'm at the bottom (around the -5 to -15 y range), I tend to mine everything I see and make small branches off the cave walls in hopes for any diamonds.
But honestly, I feel each player who will answer here will have a different opinion. My friend has done the straight tunnel thing and finds diamonds. Every mining method has it's pros and cons. Just pick which you prefer and go with it.
3)Every fourth block, mine out a branch to each side at eye level and as far as you can reach.
4)Profit.
That what I do. Branching only every fourth block means you're leaving 3-block gaps so the only veins you can miss are 1-block wide - missing these isn't that important and they're among the rarest veins anyway. Sacrificing these also means you cover a greater area than leaving 2-block gaps so you're likely to find more diamond in a given timeframe. Other than that, make sure you're using the best pickaxe you have access to (enchanted with efficiency and unbreaking, ideally) and you're set. Good luck.
I've often said this as well but according to the Wiki you should space your tunnels further apart, with a yield of up to 1.7% or 1 in 59 of all blocks being diamond ore - if you mine one block per second (even a stone pickaxe takes less than a second to mine stone) that's nearly a stack of diamond per hour:
A maximum efficiency is reached at a spacing of around 6 blocks (that is, 6 solid blocks left in-between the tunnels). At this spacing, efficiency is about 0.017, corresponding to 1.7% of blocks removed being a diamond. At this spacing, the tunnels effectively become independent of each other and so, statistically speaking, the chance of encountering an ore are maximized because there is no chance the ore has been removed by an adjacent tunnel.
Note that a spacing of 3 blocks between tunnels (one tunnel every 4 blocks) has only half the yield per block mined, which is a big difference. Even then (I've always used a spacing of 3) I don't consider Fortune to be worthwhile and the time spent enchanting to get it may as well be spent on mining (you hardly need diamonds once you have full diamond gear, especially with Mending).
Sure, you may miss more veins but unless you are really space constrained there is no reason not to take advantage of the immense size of a Minecraft world (of course, a single 1x2 tunnel would get rather long; a stack of diamond would require a tunnel about 1.9 km long).
Also, despite my name I do not go caving to find diamonds - on average I find less than 4 per hour this way, just terrible when compared to branch-mining, despite the amount of resources I collect in general (I save caving, which is something I do for fun, not to get resources, for the "end-game").
I've often said this as well but according to the Wiki you should space your tunnels further apart, with a yield of up to 1.7% or 1 in 59 of all blocks being diamond ore - if you mine one block per second (even a stone pickaxe takes less than a second to mine stone) that's nearly a stack of diamond per hour:
Note that a spacing of 3 blocks between tunnels (one tunnel every 4 blocks) has only half the yield per block mined, which is a big difference. Even then (I've always used a spacing of 3) I don't consider Fortune to be worthwhile and the time spent enchanting to get it may as well be spent on mining (you hardly need diamonds once you have full diamond gear, especially with Mending).
Sure, you may miss more veins but unless you are really space constrained there is no reason not to take advantage of the immense size of a Minecraft world (of course, a single 1x2 tunnel would get rather long; a stack of diamond would require a tunnel about 1.9 km long).
Also, despite my name I do not go caving to find diamonds - on average I find less than 4 per hour this way, just terrible when compared to branch-mining, despite the amount of resources I collect in general (I save caving, which is something I do for fun, not to get resources, for the "end-game").
Hmm, may try that tunnel-every-9-blocks strategy. I usually make my mineshaft right in the middle of a chunk and mine to either edge, with the 3-spacing, and still manage a lot of ore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just took the Minecraft Noob test! Check out what I scored. Think you can beat me?!
Also, despite my name I do not go caving to find diamonds - on average I find less than 4 per hour this way, just terrible when compared to branch-mining, despite the amount of resources I collect in general (I save caving, which is something I do for fun, not to get resources, for the "end-game").
I was waiting for that. End thread right there.
However, aren't you also a Y=12 kinda guy? That is, when looking at F3, it says Y=12? I know I am.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My short story-like journals; quick-and-easy reads:
Hmm, may try that tunnel-every-9-blocks strategy. I usually make my mineshaft right in the middle of a chunk and mine to either edge, with the 3-spacing, and still manage a lot of ore.
Just to note - the peak at 9 blocks is just an artifact of the limited map size they used; you'd otherwise expect it to level off slightly above what is shown for 8 blocks:
Note: in the above graph, efficiency appears to drop-off at a spacing of 10. This is simply a limitation of the size of the level used to model the process, resulting in a large error at high spacings. If a larger level were used, the line would smoothly come to a maximum efficiency and stay there.
Also, another thing to consider is how diamonds are distributed throughout a chunk:
From this visualization a few things can be seen:
1. The range of 8 through 6 (i.e. blocks 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) always contains at MOST one vein.
2. Veins can (and frequently do) overlap block 7, sometimes from block 8 and sometimes from 7.
This is due to the fact that ores are aligned not to chunks but "offset-chunks", which are offset by 8 blocks due to the way the game populates chunks with features like ores, and veins placed near the edges of each 16x16 block region can touch or slightly overlap into adjacent regions. I have not seen any tests done (note that both of these used a program to simulate mining; you'd need to do a lot of mining to get a good sample size) but this suggests that you might find more diamond by mining down the center of a chunk (block 7) since you can expose veins from two adjacent offset-chunks. This would however require a rather large spacing of 16 blocks between tunnels, though you could make a grid of tunnels going east-west and north-south with a slight loss in efficiency due to intersections.
I've actually done a simulation myself before, with a result of one diamond ore per 84 blocks for a spacing of 8; I modified the game's code to count all blocks within each vein that intersected a set of imaginary 1x2 tunnels (or air, as I originally did it to see how many ores are exposed by caves):
For comparison, this is the result I got for caves:
The area covered by the tunnel test was around 2326 chunks (length / 16 / 2; there were 33 parallel "tunnels") so this means that even with such a large spacing you only have to cover about 1/6 the area to find the same number of diamonds as caving, with about 24.5% of all diamond ore harvested vs 4.1% by caving; assuming you mined an average of one block every 2 seconds (more realistic for such a large amount of mining, plus ores in the walls contribute to the mining you need to do) you'd take about 138 hours to mine 2948 diamonds (about 250000 blocks from the tunnels) by branch-mining while it would take around 800 hours for caving (based on how long it would take me to explore such an area). Note that this used 1.6.4 ore and cave generation (veins are slightly bigger since 1.8 and caves smaller since 1.7), and veins not exposed behind other veins were not included (diamond ore is about 20% more common in 1.8+ which would give around 1 ore per 70 blocks, still less than the 1 in 59 in the Wiki, so they probably did account for this; a diamond vein is only 2x2 at the most so a spacing of 3 ought to be enough), which favors branch-mining even more; conversely, caving can be better than indicated here if you are doing it specifically to find diamonds as opposed to exploring and mining everything as I do.
A 1x2 tunnel at y=12 directly exposes layers 11-14 (floor-ceiling) while y=11 exposes layers 10-13; you can see that layer 14 has significantly less ore (about half as much) as layer 13, plus any veins that you find won't extend up as high (there is only a 1/16 chance of a vein generating with its starting y-coordinate at y=15; veins always extend downwards from their start and can cross up to 4 layers in the case of diamond, so a vein at y=15 can extend down to y=12 - hence the drop off above that point).
Of course, that's assuming I ever start a new "vanilla" world again; all of my recent worlds have modded ore distribution (lower down) plus a new mod ore that is most common at y=1 (one layer of bedrock at y=0) so I mine on that layer (this does reduce what I find but I still found plenty of diamond, much more than I needed even if I did use it for more than a few tools and items not using my mod's material). Here is a look at the branch-mine I made in my most recent world, which yielded 91 diamond ore, as well as the previous world, which yielded 85 ore; in both cases tunnels are every 4 blocks (3 between tunnels):
I also have a smaller, less organized branch mine in my first world; even back then I used the more efficient spacing of 4 blocks (compared to 3); this was before I developed my "caving" playstyle and I explored the caves I ran into (nowadays I only explore caves I run into enough to see if they lead anywhere, not whole cave systems, though if I find a mineshaft I'll explore the whole thing as I did in another world) and also used Fortune:
I just don't like Y=11 because one runs into lava.
Lava is at y=10 and below; the chance of running into lava at y=11 (your position when standing on top of y=10) is virtually the same as at y=12 since caves (air or lava filled) reach their maximum density just around this layer (here is an old chart for Beta 1.7.3 which accurately shows lava below y=11; the "current" one for 1.5 does not since they appear to have only counted stationary lava while caves generate with flowing lava. Note that the vertical distribution of caves alone (ravines and mineshafts were not present in Beta 1.7.3) is still the same as of the latest version). If anything, y=12 is more dangerous because lava will be one block below the block your feet are standing on, creating a 1 block drop - if you fall in you won't be able to just jump out. Also, are you using a minimap or some sort of coordinate display which uses your eye position (not feet position as the game gives in F3)? Very old (Alpha, Beta) versions did in fact give your eye position so y=12 (12.62) was equivalent to y=11 in modern versions (1.6.4 actually gives both coordinates).
Also, the risk of lava is overrated IMO; I didn't have much trouble making large branch mines below lava level (of course, in the first image I posted you can see an extensive area of caves to the north so this is highly dependent on where you dig, but I've never had any issues with finding clear spots with only a few areas where I had to dig through lava (and I needed obsidian anyway for a Nether portal, Ender chests, and enchantment table).
If anything, y=12 is more dangerous because lava will be one block below the block your feet are standing on, creating a 1 block drop - if you fall in you won't be able to just jump out.
Okay, then I must have my mine at Y=11, though my F3 "debug screen" shows my Y-axis at . . .
Oh my god. I just went and checked and my branch mine—which I dug in 1.8.x—has a Y-axis of 11.
Haha! I'm so embarrassed! I swore it was at Y=12! Now all these Y=11 comments make sense!
Well, that's the first time in my life I've ever been wrong about anything. Better mark it on the calendar.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My short story-like journals; quick-and-easy reads:
I want to know, cause It takes me about 5 hours.
Diamonds are hard to find. I prefer cave diving the most. When I'm at the bottom (around the -5 to -15 y range), I tend to mine everything I see and make small branches off the cave walls in hopes for any diamonds.
But honestly, I feel each player who will answer here will have a different opinion. My friend has done the straight tunnel thing and finds diamonds. Every mining method has it's pros and cons. Just pick which you prefer and go with it.
I've often said this as well but according to the Wiki you should space your tunnels further apart, with a yield of up to 1.7% or 1 in 59 of all blocks being diamond ore - if you mine one block per second (even a stone pickaxe takes less than a second to mine stone) that's nearly a stack of diamond per hour:
Note that a spacing of 3 blocks between tunnels (one tunnel every 4 blocks) has only half the yield per block mined, which is a big difference. Even then (I've always used a spacing of 3) I don't consider Fortune to be worthwhile and the time spent enchanting to get it may as well be spent on mining (you hardly need diamonds once you have full diamond gear, especially with Mending).
Sure, you may miss more veins but unless you are really space constrained there is no reason not to take advantage of the immense size of a Minecraft world (of course, a single 1x2 tunnel would get rather long; a stack of diamond would require a tunnel about 1.9 km long).
Also, despite my name I do not go caving to find diamonds - on average I find less than 4 per hour this way, just terrible when compared to branch-mining, despite the amount of resources I collect in general (I save caving, which is something I do for fun, not to get resources, for the "end-game").
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Hmm, may try that tunnel-every-9-blocks strategy. I usually make my mineshaft right in the middle of a chunk and mine to either edge, with the 3-spacing, and still manage a lot of ore.
I just took the Minecraft Noob test! Check out what I scored. Think you can beat me?!
To take the test, check out
https://minecraftnoobtest.com/test.php
Don't click this link, HE is haunting it...
I was waiting for that. End thread right there.
However, aren't you also a Y=12 kinda guy? That is, when looking at F3, it says Y=12? I know I am.
My short story-like journals; quick-and-easy reads:
My Quest for Elytra Complete! (Pic Intense, End-Game Spoilers)
[Journal & Pics] After a Year and a Half, I Finally Found a Jungle
FrozenCore: Hardcore Death; 3/20/15 to 5/3/15; Eight Weeks on a Frozen World in Pictures
Just to note - the peak at 9 blocks is just an artifact of the limited map size they used; you'd otherwise expect it to level off slightly above what is shown for 8 blocks:
Also, another thing to consider is how diamonds are distributed throughout a chunk:
This is due to the fact that ores are aligned not to chunks but "offset-chunks", which are offset by 8 blocks due to the way the game populates chunks with features like ores, and veins placed near the edges of each 16x16 block region can touch or slightly overlap into adjacent regions. I have not seen any tests done (note that both of these used a program to simulate mining; you'd need to do a lot of mining to get a good sample size) but this suggests that you might find more diamond by mining down the center of a chunk (block 7) since you can expose veins from two adjacent offset-chunks. This would however require a rather large spacing of 16 blocks between tunnels, though you could make a grid of tunnels going east-west and north-south with a slight loss in efficiency due to intersections.
I've actually done a simulation myself before, with a result of one diamond ore per 84 blocks for a spacing of 8; I modified the game's code to count all blocks within each vein that intersected a set of imaginary 1x2 tunnels (or air, as I originally did it to see how many ores are exposed by caves):
For comparison, this is the result I got for caves:
The area covered by the tunnel test was around 2326 chunks (length / 16 / 2; there were 33 parallel "tunnels") so this means that even with such a large spacing you only have to cover about 1/6 the area to find the same number of diamonds as caving, with about 24.5% of all diamond ore harvested vs 4.1% by caving; assuming you mined an average of one block every 2 seconds (more realistic for such a large amount of mining, plus ores in the walls contribute to the mining you need to do) you'd take about 138 hours to mine 2948 diamonds (about 250000 blocks from the tunnels) by branch-mining while it would take around 800 hours for caving (based on how long it would take me to explore such an area). Note that this used 1.6.4 ore and cave generation (veins are slightly bigger since 1.8 and caves smaller since 1.7), and veins not exposed behind other veins were not included (diamond ore is about 20% more common in 1.8+ which would give around 1 ore per 70 blocks, still less than the 1 in 59 in the Wiki, so they probably did account for this; a diamond vein is only 2x2 at the most so a spacing of 3 ought to be enough), which favors branch-mining even more; conversely, caving can be better than indicated here if you are doing it specifically to find diamonds as opposed to exploring and mining everything as I do.
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Not y=12, y=11 - the reason is pretty simple:
https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/File:Diamond_D_28x.jpg
Of course, that's assuming I ever start a new "vanilla" world again; all of my recent worlds have modded ore distribution (lower down) plus a new mod ore that is most common at y=1 (one layer of bedrock at y=0) so I mine on that layer (this does reduce what I find but I still found plenty of diamond, much more than I needed even if I did use it for more than a few tools and items not using my mod's material). Here is a look at the branch-mine I made in my most recent world, which yielded 91 diamond ore, as well as the previous world, which yielded 85 ore; in both cases tunnels are every 4 blocks (3 between tunnels):
I also have a smaller, less organized branch mine in my first world; even back then I used the more efficient spacing of 4 blocks (compared to 3); this was before I developed my "caving" playstyle and I explored the caves I ran into (nowadays I only explore caves I run into enough to see if they lead anywhere, not whole cave systems, though if I find a mineshaft I'll explore the whole thing as I did in another world) and also used Fortune:
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
I just don't like Y=11 because one runs into lava.
My short story-like journals; quick-and-easy reads:
My Quest for Elytra Complete! (Pic Intense, End-Game Spoilers)
[Journal & Pics] After a Year and a Half, I Finally Found a Jungle
FrozenCore: Hardcore Death; 3/20/15 to 5/3/15; Eight Weeks on a Frozen World in Pictures
Lava is at y=10 and below; the chance of running into lava at y=11 (your position when standing on top of y=10) is virtually the same as at y=12 since caves (air or lava filled) reach their maximum density just around this layer (here is an old chart for Beta 1.7.3 which accurately shows lava below y=11; the "current" one for 1.5 does not since they appear to have only counted stationary lava while caves generate with flowing lava. Note that the vertical distribution of caves alone (ravines and mineshafts were not present in Beta 1.7.3) is still the same as of the latest version). If anything, y=12 is more dangerous because lava will be one block below the block your feet are standing on, creating a 1 block drop - if you fall in you won't be able to just jump out. Also, are you using a minimap or some sort of coordinate display which uses your eye position (not feet position as the game gives in F3)? Very old (Alpha, Beta) versions did in fact give your eye position so y=12 (12.62) was equivalent to y=11 in modern versions (1.6.4 actually gives both coordinates).
Also, the risk of lava is overrated IMO; I didn't have much trouble making large branch mines below lava level (of course, in the first image I posted you can see an extensive area of caves to the north so this is highly dependent on where you dig, but I've never had any issues with finding clear spots with only a few areas where I had to dig through lava (and I needed obsidian anyway for a Nether portal, Ender chests, and enchantment table).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Okay, then I must have my mine at Y=11, though my F3 "debug screen" shows my Y-axis at . . .
Oh my god. I just went and checked and my branch mine—which I dug in 1.8.x—has a Y-axis of 11.
Haha! I'm so embarrassed! I swore it was at Y=12! Now all these Y=11 comments make sense!
Well, that's the first time in my life I've ever been wrong about anything. Better mark it on the calendar.
My short story-like journals; quick-and-easy reads:
My Quest for Elytra Complete! (Pic Intense, End-Game Spoilers)
[Journal & Pics] After a Year and a Half, I Finally Found a Jungle
FrozenCore: Hardcore Death; 3/20/15 to 5/3/15; Eight Weeks on a Frozen World in Pictures
Ok.. .Can we get back on topic!?!?