I have made some silly assumptions based on loose observations. Is there any truth behind my beliefs?
I always assumed when scanning a bunch of bio that profits were maximum if:
a) The planet was previously unexplored. Not really because it was unexplored but nobody had landed on it and scanned the bios before me. Really if there was no first footfall.
b) I had not yet bioscanned this sample in this galactic region. If it was a new codex discovery that was a good indication I haven't scanned it yet.
c) If I go to a new galactic region (I've never been there before) both the codex and bio scans start over.
I thought this because after a session of scanning 20 samples:
Are my thoughts correct?
I always assumed when scanning a bunch of bio that profits were maximum if:
a) The planet was previously unexplored. Not really because it was unexplored but nobody had landed on it and scanned the bios before me. Really if there was no first footfall.
b) I had not yet bioscanned this sample in this galactic region. If it was a new codex discovery that was a good indication I haven't scanned it yet.
c) If I go to a new galactic region (I've never been there before) both the codex and bio scans start over.
I thought this because after a session of scanning 20 samples:
- In the bubble or other highly visited areas seems to have less profits. Unexplored systems seams better.
- If my codex discoveries are relatively high, so is my exobiology cash-in.
- If I scan a dozen planets in the same system and they all have the same bio, profits seem low.
- If I stay in the same location and keep scanning unexplored systems, after scanning about 100 bio samples my profits will start going down. along with my new codex discoveries.
Are my thoughts correct?