Greetings CMDR,
Since we're starting to have a decent amount of star and planetary logs in the Borderlands Venture, I wanted to confront the exploration data value estimate guides to our data.
To estimate the value of all our logs, we use Canonn's formula by Nicodemous. It takes mass into account. The guides I compared our data to are:
Visual guide v.1 (most shared around the web)
Visual guide v.1.3 (filename says 'v4'; found on french forum a while ago)
Dognosh's Holo Icons chart (recently updated)
I didn't use the First Discovery values obviously, and for what it's worth, for each price range I used the average value. I have no data on the amount of logs used to obtain the ranges, but I assume there's enough of them to have a statistically acceptable range of masses and thus an aceptable average, away from low or high extremes.
Here are the results.
The colour formatted columns show the difference between the BV values and each guide's values. Without surprise, BV is way above V1 since the buff in exploration data value (or was it after Canonn's Handout was published?). Common stars appear to be worth less than expected, but consistent among each others and with the guides' values. More curious is the TC HMC, largely underestimated by Dognosh or overestimated by Nicodemous.
The overall trend is in favour of a light underestimate; our values fit well into the latest guides' price ranges, close enough to the guides' averages, as ICY and HMC show (with more than 1,000 logs each). For the other planets, it's still a tad early to have satisfying results, methinks...
As for the guides, Dognosh's and V1.3 being very close, they are both satisfyingly accurate (somewhere around 80% accurate for the bodies taken into account). Will come back with new results when we reach 10,000 logs
Since we're starting to have a decent amount of star and planetary logs in the Borderlands Venture, I wanted to confront the exploration data value estimate guides to our data.
To estimate the value of all our logs, we use Canonn's formula by Nicodemous. It takes mass into account. The guides I compared our data to are:
Visual guide v.1 (most shared around the web)
Visual guide v.1.3 (filename says 'v4'; found on french forum a while ago)
Dognosh's Holo Icons chart (recently updated)
I didn't use the First Discovery values obviously, and for what it's worth, for each price range I used the average value. I have no data on the amount of logs used to obtain the ranges, but I assume there's enough of them to have a statistically acceptable range of masses and thus an aceptable average, away from low or high extremes.
Here are the results.
The colour formatted columns show the difference between the BV values and each guide's values. Without surprise, BV is way above V1 since the buff in exploration data value (or was it after Canonn's Handout was published?). Common stars appear to be worth less than expected, but consistent among each others and with the guides' values. More curious is the TC HMC, largely underestimated by Dognosh or overestimated by Nicodemous.
The overall trend is in favour of a light underestimate; our values fit well into the latest guides' price ranges, close enough to the guides' averages, as ICY and HMC show (with more than 1,000 logs each). For the other planets, it's still a tad early to have satisfying results, methinks...
As for the guides, Dognosh's and V1.3 being very close, they are both satisfyingly accurate (somewhere around 80% accurate for the bodies taken into account). Will come back with new results when we reach 10,000 logs
