This is abit of a long post but please hear me out. If nothing else please consider the suggestions I make at the end of this post.
While I understand that rank progression is a challenging grind that is supposed to mean something when one hits elite rank in any profession, but I felt that exobiology was excessive, to the point where I questioned if the person who put in the xp thresholds did it arbitrarily without play testing it for reasonability.
Before I continue I want to emphatically state that no one is forced to grind ANYTHING, it is a personal choice you make and you can choose to just 'play the game' and ranks will come naturally, some cmdrs get their first elite after 5 years and that is perfectly fine. The point of this post is to highlight that I feel the rank thresholds set for exobiology is excessive comparatively and should be reconsidered, or allow for 1st discovery bonus to count towards rank... but more of that in the conclusion. With that said, let us move along.
I figured that explorer was considered an acceptable challenging grind that exobiology should be the on-foot equivalent of, it being one of the higher time investment professions. Both explorer and exobiologist use BASE PROFIT (that is, no 1st discovery bonuses count toward rank). So I set out to see how they stacked up comparatively... needless to say, I was rather dismayed by the results as you shall soon see.
Thus I made it a point to carefully track my exobiology progress using both the in-game codex stats and INARA (you can see your rank progression % on INARA, but only to a whole number) and now I have enough samples and data that my confidence interval is sufficiently high enough for me to assert that the profit threshold for exobiology elite rank is very likely $360,000,000 base profit. Then I went and did time ROI testing.
I have been tracking rank/profit progression since Taxonomist so the thresholds that I've personally confirmed are:
Taxonomist: $36,000,000
Ecologist: $70,000,000
Geneticist: $150,000,000
Elite: $360,000,000 (pending)
I understand that there is quite a fair bit of artificiality in trying to produce a credit-to-time-investment ratio because most times there will be many additional factors that will add to the time spent, but please bear with me since I needed to make an apples to apples comparison the best I could.
Method: Start clock from moment of hyperspace drop into target system. For Explorer, the clock stops the moment the planet scan is complete (meaning you generally can move onto the next planet). For Exobiology the clock stops when I reach the orbital cruise line after take off. We assume the most efficient point to point search for 3 samples on the planet surface (meaning you find the first sample the moment you land and travel the minimum distance between samples for genetic diversity). I chose to use a 6 probe planet at a distance of 444Ls from main star (drop in point) as the reference for this, and this comparison assumes that you ignore all other planets/plants that have lower payouts for time efficiency.
Caveats: I use a fully engineered DBX with 72LY range, ~420m/s speed, a 40% increased coverage tech broker DSS, and sufficient shields/0E boosters/GSRPs to lithobrake (smack the planet to stop when landing). If you need to tip toe your way around in a larger ship or don't have the capacity to survive nearly full speed lithobraking it will increase your time SIGNIFICANTLY. I consider this build to be the most efficient exobiology ship possible (with the exception of a Viper III with 820m/s, but it has bad jump range for practical purposes). Practically, each exobio sample run should take 1.5x or 2x as long, but if we consider too many variables it will make this more complicated than it already is. I also understand that if you use EDSM or Spansh to filter for only high value worlds, you might need to take 2-3 jumps per scan, increasing time per scan.
So in all I consider that both will cancel each other out in the long run.
Explorer (using $1M DSS scan payout per planet Terraformable ELW/Waterworld)
| Time to complete | 150s (2min 30s) |
| Payout | $ 1,000,000 |
| Credits earned/sec spent | $ 6,666.67 |
Exobiologist (using Stratum Tectonicas $806,300 per specimen/planet)
| Time to complete | 450s (7min 30s) |
| Payout | $ 806,300 |
| Credits earned/sec spent | $ 1,791.78 |
Then we take the credits earned/sec spent and plug them into the following tables
Explorer
| Rank | Title | Rank Profit Threshold | Times of prev rank | Profit req. for tier | In-Game time cost per rank (Hours) | Time req. compared to Exobiology |
| 6 | Pathfinder | 10,000,000 | - | - | - | - |
| 7 | Ranger | 35,000,000 | 3.50 | $ 25,000,000 | 1.0 | 20% |
| 8 | Pioneer | 116,000,000 | 3.31 | $ 81,000,000 | 3.4 | 27% |
| 9 | Elite | 320,000,000 | 2.76 | $ 204,000,000 | 8.5 | 26% |
Exobiology
| Rank | Title | Profit Threshold | Times of prev rank | Profit req. for tier | In-Game time cost per rank (Hours) | Time req. compared to Explorer |
| 6 | Taxonomist | 36,000,000 | - | - | - | - |
| 7 | Ecologist | 70,000,000 | 1.94 | $ 34,000,000 | 5.3 | 506% |
| 8 | Geneticist | 150,000,000 | 2.14 | $ 80,000,000 | 12.4 | 367% |
| 9 | Elite | 360,000,000 | 2.40 | $ 210,000,000 | 32.6 | 383% |
As you can clearly see, on the surface, the thresholds may SEEM comparable and reasonable when looked at compared to explorer if you only look at the raw profit numbers, but when one factors in the time investment and ROI, that comparison goes COMPLETELY out the window. It takes 383% MORE time to get from rank 8 to rank 9 (elite) in exobiology than it is compared to explorer. Plus with explorer, you can choose to run exploration xp granting passenger missions if you so choose for variety, for exobiology there is no such alternative.
Furthermore to this, as an explorer, alot of time is spent in SC where you could go do other things or tab out. With exobiology you have the same SC time, but then you have the planetary approach/landing/point-to-point/sampling that are focused activities that require full attention of the player that is 70-80% of the time per sample compared to maybe 10-20% for explorer. It is a much much more involved activity.
I have not even accounted for the time need to reorbit and reenter if you happen to choose a spot where the heatmap says the plant should be but come up empty, and/or you get a planet where the colors make it hard to spot the plants from the air. I also assume that you are using a small ship for point to point, I know may players who choose to use an SRV or hoof it, the permutations that result in much longer sample times is endless for exobiology.
Conclusion and Suggestions
This simple exercise uses the level MOST efficient assumption which is not likely to occur in actual practice, and already the time cost/investment/ROI is so mind bogglingly dismal.
I understand that for the 'elite' rank to mean something, it should not be 'easy' to earn. Normally one would come up with challenging gameplay to gate access to the coveted rank, but that will require changes to the foundation of the game and I understand is not likely achievable, so we are left with managing the degree of time sink gating. And my take is that the thresholds are ill-considered and were made without taking into account how the game is played in actuality.
It would be remiss of me to just make criticism without offering suggestions of how to make the situation better. Here are 2 easy ways to remedy the situation:
1. Reduce the rank thresholds to bring the time cost investment in line with explorer. An example of which would be :
| Rank | Title | Profit Threshold | Times of prev rank | Profit req. for tier | In-Game time cost per rank (Hours) | Time req. compared to Explorer |
| 6 | Taxonomist | 10,000,000 | - | - | - | - |
| 7 | Ecologist | 17,000,000 | 1.70 | $ 7,000,000 | 1.1 | 104% |
| 8 | Geneticist | 39,000,000 | 2.29 | $ 22,000,000 | 3.4 | 101% |
| 9 | Elite | 95,000,000 | 2.44 | $ 56,000,000 | 8.7 | 102% |
2. Make 1st to log bonus count towards rank (which will give incentive to actually go out and explore rather than just use EDSM to go filter for high value plants already found and just reduce the rank thresholds by half) -
NOTE: This may need revision as new information is coming to light on 1st log bonuses
| Rank | Title | Profit Threshold | Times of prev rank | Profit req. for tier | In-Game time cost per rank (Hours) | Time req. compared to Explorer |
| 6 | Taxonomist | 18,000,000 | - | - | - | - |
| 7 | Ecologist | 35,000,000 | 1.94 | $ 17,000,000 | 2.6 (1.3 w/1st log bonus) | 253% (127% w/1st log) |
| 8 | Geneticist | 75,000,000 | 2.14 | $ 40,000,000 | 6.2 (3.1 w/1st log bonus) | 184% (92% w/1st log) |
| 9 | Elite | 180,000,000 | 2.40 | $ 105,000,000 | 16.3 (8.1 w/1st log bonus) | 192% (96% w/1st log) |
If FDEV feels that these suggestions have merit, please make sure that the changes are retroactively applied to count all bio data profit already turned in so that people (like myself) who have already put in the hard yards to get to the high ranks in exobiology do not feel cheated/gibbed/disregarded/insert-any-other-depressive-adjective-here.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. Do post comments/suggestions on what you think and please ping the CMs/Fdev if you feel this has merit.
edit : spelling and grammar
[edit2: Important note, it may be that 50% of 1st log bonus counts towards rank, I am in the middle of verifying this, if so I may need to change my recommendations slightly]
