Exploration value formulae

[Gono]

(I'm guessing this got stuck in moderation queue or something because this wasn't here when I replied to another response yesterday. Anyway.)

I take your point and get what you're trying to achieve - but a few caveats. To me, both tools are equally wrong if they're 8M out, regardless of positive or negative. If tool2 states 56M as a MAXIMUM value for data, and the explorer decides that's good enough for 50M, well, the explorer is in the wrong as it's clearly a maximum value. Ideally both tools say "at least x, and up to y".

I'm not even sure if the various tools account for things like first discovered / first mapped because it's hard (or sometimes impossible) to infer from Journals, making it kinda moot anyway (I might be wrong on this, I don't use any 3rd party tools myself (except my own))

For your purposes, I'd suggest going back earlier in the thread and finding all the data you can for expected and actual sold values for all terraformables (a few people provided impressive amounts of data), then working out the percentage and using that as your percentage to apply. I'd also suggest separating out HMCs and WWs - I suspect the average percentage for HMCs if higher than that of water worlds, which seem much more volatile.

(Yeah, I was wondering why you replied to newer message lol)

Yes, they would be both wrong, the difference is that a decision coming from looking at a negative difference is way more impactful than one coming from a positive one.
Giving the "Maximum value" alone could be deceptive in a scenario like this.

For what concerns First Discovery I think that pulling system info from EDSM/EDDB could make it easier to determine it (even if not sure), probably the best way is the other option you said "your scan data worths at least ###cr, maximum projected value: ###cr".

Regarding HMC and WW, the percentage you are talking about is the probability on which the bonus is calculated (i.e. HMC get the bonus more often than WW) or the bonus increment value?

 

[MattG]

Regarding HMC and WW, the percentage you are talking about is the probability on which the bonus is calculated (i.e. HMC get the bonus more often than WW) or the bonus increment value?

What I mean is, rather than the flat 50% or 70% you mentioned, you could go through the expected and actual data submitted earlier in this thread and compare expected(max) and actual sale values for terraformables to work out the percentage to apply to everything. My feeling is if you split out HMCs from WWs that HMCs should get a higher average percentage than WWs. Feels like a lot more HMCs get the full terraforming bonus than WWs.

 

[iain666]

When you say that "most tool writers assume maximum" do you think its a right choice? Since we don't know how much % of terraformable bonus we are going to get, if any, wouldn't be less deceptive to consider it at 50% all the times?

In EDDiscovery we assume maximum CFT bonus, but we also assume no first discovered/first mapped bonus. These things are determined only at point of sale and so we cannot know in advance - and assuming an EDSM first-contributed will equate to a tag is much more of an assumption than full terraformable bonus (an option to calculate assuming always getting the tags has been requested and may appear, it will be switchable and off by default if it ever does).

If you're following the Road To Riches or a similar guide and going to fully tagged systems where you are guaranteed no UC bonuses then, yes, we will be giving you an over-estimate. You don't need to do a lot of exploring in virgin systems before the tagging bonuses will outstrip anything you've lost from not getting the full terraformable bump and so the estimate will be below what you'll actually get in the vast majority of cases.

 

[MozartMcLaus]

Hi, I tried to estimate incidence of the most valuable planets for each of the star classes. Evaluation is based on 168 million body records from EDSM.

As most valuable I considered FSS+FD+DSS > 1.000.000 Cr.
This includes ammonia, earth like and water worlds.
But also terraformable high metal content and rocky bodies (the results count only terraformable ones).

Second column is the number of systems or bodies found.
Third column: occurance percentage = number of valuable bodies / number of systems of given class * 100%.
Here 100% would mean one body in every system (on average).

The ESDM database only stores bodies discovered by CMDRs. Many systems are not fully discovered. Therefore the computed occurance here is lower than actual, but it shows the "trend".

The evaluation shows that star classes A and F are obviously the most profitable. Fortunately these are the most common in the galaxy
Also it shows that terraformable high metal count and rocky bodies (2M cr.) are much more common than earth like (3M Cr.). Instead of hunting earth like only, it is more convenient to scan every A and F system as 1/3rd of them will have 2M Cr. terraformable body on average (actually much more than 1/3rd).
Also water worlds are relatively common. Terraformable WW is a jackpot.

O                                  |   49630 |      0,4 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |       4 |      0,0 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |       1 |      0,0 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |     112 |      0,2 %
  RockyBody                        |      33 |      0,1 %
  WaterWorld                       |      68 |      0,1 %

B                                  |  465338 |      8,7 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |     344 |      0,1 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |     774 |      0,2 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |   20194 |      4,3 %
  RockyBody                        |    3639 |      0,8 %
  WaterWorld                       |   15376 |      3,3 %

A                                  | 1885673 |     52,4 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   25705 |      1,4 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   31534 |      1,7 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |  566974 |     30,1 %
  RockyBody                        |   30862 |      1,6 %
  WaterWorld                       |  333205 |     17,7 %

F                                  | 3764118 |     50,0 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   70205 |      1,9 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   61141 |      1,6 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            | 1095075 |     29,1 %
  RockyBody                        |   45873 |      1,2 %
  WaterWorld                       |  610388 |     16,2 %

G                                  | 2757516 |     34,8 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   39517 |      1,4 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   32870 |      1,2 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |  568731 |     20,6 %
  RockyBody                        |    9846 |      0,4 %
  WaterWorld                       |  309023 |     11,2 %

K                                  | 6794144 |     21,5 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   78097 |      1,1 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   47804 |      0,7 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |  785267 |     11,6 %
  RockyBody                        |    6974 |      0,1 %
  WaterWorld                       |  544102 |      8,0 %

M                                  | 9936882 |      6,1 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   44382 |      0,4 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   10671 |      0,1 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |  278837 |      2,8 %
  RockyBody                        |     778 |      0,0 %
  WaterWorld                       |  275507 |      2,8 %

L                                  |  377884 |      1,1 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |     350 |      0,1 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |      44 |      0,0 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |    1732 |      0,5 %
  WaterWorld                       |    2209 |      0,6 %

T                                  |  390040 |      0,0 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |       5 |      0,0 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |       2 |      0,0 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |      23 |      0,0 %
  WaterWorld                       |      58 |      0,0 %

Y                                  |  327900 |      0,0 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |       1 |      0,0 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |       1 |      0,0 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |       6 |      0,0 %
  WaterWorld                       |       3 |      0,0 %

Proto                              |  398342 |      5,8 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |    2541 |      0,6 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |     389 |      0,1 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |    9512 |      2,4 %
  RockyBody                        |     352 |      0,1 %
  WaterWorld                       |   10449 |      2,6 %

Carbon                             |   31946 |     29,9 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |     175 |      0,5 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |     377 |      1,2 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |    5834 |     18,3 %
  RockyBody                        |     381 |      1,2 %
  WaterWorld                       |    2791 |      8,7 %

WolfRayet                          |   18664 |      0,2 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |       2 |      0,0 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |       2 |      0,0 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |      23 |      0,1 %
  WaterWorld                       |      17 |      0,1 %

WhiteDwarf                         |  137126 |      2,5 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |     250 |      0,2 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |      93 |      0,1 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |    1820 |      1,3 %
  RockyBody                        |       1 |      0,0 %
  WaterWorld                       |    1259 |      0,9 %

Other                              | 1821395 |     18,8 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   10073 |      0,6 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   11881 |      0,7 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |  196972 |     10,8 %
  RockyBody                        |   14508 |      0,8 %
  WaterWorld                       |  109044 |      6,0 %

 

[MattG]

I recently embarked on another attempt to try and narrow down the factors affecting the candidate for terraforming (CFT) bonus. Nearly 2000 systems, and making a note of every value of each CFT before I sold the data. Yes, it was as fun as it sounds.

For those playing catchup, there are 2 parts to the amount you sell a CFT for - a base value (that is the same as for non-CFTs), and the terraformable portion. Often, a CFT gets the full terraformable bonus - but there are times when it does not, and it is not understood why this is (though we do know certain things that can affect it).

Working backwards, I believe there are 35 steps in the terraformable bonus. Step 0 is no reduction and step 34 is no terraforming bonus at all - the body sells for the same as if it was not a CFT at all. Previously, I'd noticed that these were not linear increases in the steps but they were close.

For my current set of data I split out the HMCs and WWs, and determined the percentage reduction of "terraforming k" all the bodies that hadn't received the full bonus were getting (so step 34 would be 100% reduction). There are some steps missing but I believe the steps are numbered correctly - or the lines wouldn't be smooth.
This is the graph:

If you squint, you can see a slight curve in both lines - but more importantly, they diverge a little bit in the middle before converging back at step 34. I plotted the difference between the HMC and WW "k reduction" (where both values were present for any given step) to highlight it more:

The curve is smooth, so again I think the data is sound. But what am I looking at here? What mechanism in the formula could create these "steps"? I am struggling to come up with any answer here that doesn't have the steps as a linear progression - and I'm even more confused why this would be different for different body types.

 

[Redfox]

Working backwards, I believe there are 35 steps in the terraformable bonus. Step 0 is no reduction and step 34 is no terraforming bonus at all - the body sells for the same as if it was not a CFT at all. Previously, I'd noticed that these were not linear increases in the steps but they were close.

For my current set of data I split out the HMCs and WWs, and determined the percentage reduction of "terraforming k" all the bodies that hadn't received the full bonus were getting (so step 34 would be 100% reduction). There are some steps missing but I believe the steps are numbered correctly - or the lines wouldn't be smooth.

Wow, you're taking it to the next level? I admire your persistence!

I can reproduce those 35 steps based on the graphs a few pages/months/years back, but never noticed the steps were not linear. Not sure what to make of that either. Do you know if that slight bend has been around "forever"?

Spoiler

 

[Deleted member 240115]

Something like this? About a year ago, I'd heard people saying the money was in AFGK systems.
Naturally, I wanted to see if the actual data (well, best I could get with a full EDSM dump) supported that notion.

Since then, when I'm out in deep space exploring, my route plotter is set to AFGK, and it's a literal gold mine.

Source: https://github.com/Elite-IGAU/publi...-Class-Distribution-of-Galactic-Phenomena.pdf

Hi, I tried to estimate incidence of the most valuable planets for each of the star classes. Evaluation is based on 168 million body records from EDSM.

As most valuable I considered FSS+FD+DSS > 1.000.000 Cr.
This includes ammonia, earth like and water worlds.
But also terraformable high metal content and rocky bodies (the results count only terraformable ones).

Second column is the number of systems or bodies found.
Third column: occurance percentage = number of valuable bodies / number of systems of given class * 100%.
Here 100% would mean one body in every system (on average).

The ESDM database only stores bodies discovered by CMDRs. Many systems are not fully discovered. Therefore the computed occurance here is lower than actual, but it shows the "trend".

The evaluation shows that star classes A and F are obviously the most profitable. Fortunately these are the most common in the galaxy
Also it shows that terraformable high metal count and rocky bodies (2M cr.) are much more common than earth like (3M Cr.). Instead of hunting earth like only, it is more convenient to scan every A and F system as 1/3rd of them will have 2M Cr. terraformable body on average (actually much more than 1/3rd).
Also water worlds are relatively common. Terraformable WW is a jackpot.

O                                  |   49630 |      0,4 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |       4 |      0,0 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |       1 |      0,0 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |     112 |      0,2 %
  RockyBody                        |      33 |      0,1 %
  WaterWorld                       |      68 |      0,1 %

B                                  |  465338 |      8,7 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |     344 |      0,1 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |     774 |      0,2 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |   20194 |      4,3 %
  RockyBody                        |    3639 |      0,8 %
  WaterWorld                       |   15376 |      3,3 %

A                                  | 1885673 |     52,4 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   25705 |      1,4 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   31534 |      1,7 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |  566974 |     30,1 %
  RockyBody                        |   30862 |      1,6 %
  WaterWorld                       |  333205 |     17,7 %

F                                  | 3764118 |     50,0 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   70205 |      1,9 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   61141 |      1,6 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            | 1095075 |     29,1 %
  RockyBody                        |   45873 |      1,2 %
  WaterWorld                       |  610388 |     16,2 %

G                                  | 2757516 |     34,8 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   39517 |      1,4 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   32870 |      1,2 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |  568731 |     20,6 %
  RockyBody                        |    9846 |      0,4 %
  WaterWorld                       |  309023 |     11,2 %

K                                  | 6794144 |     21,5 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   78097 |      1,1 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   47804 |      0,7 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |  785267 |     11,6 %
  RockyBody                        |    6974 |      0,1 %
  WaterWorld                       |  544102 |      8,0 %

M                                  | 9936882 |      6,1 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   44382 |      0,4 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   10671 |      0,1 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |  278837 |      2,8 %
  RockyBody                        |     778 |      0,0 %
  WaterWorld                       |  275507 |      2,8 %

L                                  |  377884 |      1,1 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |     350 |      0,1 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |      44 |      0,0 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |    1732 |      0,5 %
  WaterWorld                       |    2209 |      0,6 %

T                                  |  390040 |      0,0 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |       5 |      0,0 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |       2 |      0,0 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |      23 |      0,0 %
  WaterWorld                       |      58 |      0,0 %

Y                                  |  327900 |      0,0 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |       1 |      0,0 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |       1 |      0,0 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |       6 |      0,0 %
  WaterWorld                       |       3 |      0,0 %

Proto                              |  398342 |      5,8 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |    2541 |      0,6 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |     389 |      0,1 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |    9512 |      2,4 %
  RockyBody                        |     352 |      0,1 %
  WaterWorld                       |   10449 |      2,6 %

Carbon                             |   31946 |     29,9 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |     175 |      0,5 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |     377 |      1,2 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |    5834 |     18,3 %
  RockyBody                        |     381 |      1,2 %
  WaterWorld                       |    2791 |      8,7 %

WolfRayet                          |   18664 |      0,2 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |       2 |      0,0 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |       2 |      0,0 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |      23 |      0,1 %
  WaterWorld                       |      17 |      0,1 %

WhiteDwarf                         |  137126 |      2,5 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |     250 |      0,2 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |      93 |      0,1 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |    1820 |      1,3 %
  RockyBody                        |       1 |      0,0 %
  WaterWorld                       |    1259 |      0,9 %

Other                              | 1821395 |     18,8 %
  AmmoniaWorld                     |   10073 |      0,6 %
  EarthLikeWorld                   |   11881 |      0,7 %
  HighMetalContentWorld            |  196972 |     10,8 %
  RockyBody                        |   14508 |      0,8 %
  WaterWorld                       |  109044 |      6,0 %

 

[Taen]

I recently embarked on another attempt to try and narrow down the factors affecting the candidate for terraforming (CFT) bonus. Nearly 2000 systems, and making a note of every value of each CFT before I sold the data. Yes, it was as fun as it sounds.

For those playing catchup, there are 2 parts to the amount you sell a CFT for - a base value (that is the same as for non-CFTs), and the terraformable portion. Often, a CFT gets the full terraformable bonus - but there are times when it does not, and it is not understood why this is (though we do know certain things that can affect it).

Working backwards, I believe there are 35 steps in the terraformable bonus. Step 0 is no reduction and step 34 is no terraforming bonus at all - the body sells for the same as if it was not a CFT at all. Previously, I'd noticed that these were not linear increases in the steps but they were close.

For my current set of data I split out the HMCs and WWs, and determined the percentage reduction of "terraforming k" all the bodies that hadn't received the full bonus were getting (so step 34 would be 100% reduction). There are some steps missing but I believe the steps are numbered correctly - or the lines wouldn't be smooth.
This is the graph:

If you squint, you can see a slight curve in both lines - but more importantly, they diverge a little bit in the middle before converging back at step 34. I plotted the difference between the HMC and WW "k reduction" (where both values were present for any given step) to highlight it more:

The curve is smooth, so again I think the data is sound. But what am I looking at here? What mechanism in the formula could create these "steps"? I am struggling to come up with any answer here that doesn't have the steps as a linear progression - and I'm even more confused why this would be different for different body types.

Perhaps these might change if you restricted the HMC's to some sort of subtype. For example, this graph shows surface composition, rock on horizontal, metal on vertical, for HMC in my collection that are terraformable. HA systems are not included. The appear to be (at least) three distinct lines (or two lines intersected be a paint program spraypaint effect)

While I'm at it, this is what just the landables look like:

I'm not sure how one would separate the data to just show one of those distinct groups, but I imagine it would be possible and might yield some different results.

- Cmdr Taen

 

[Orvidius]

But what am I looking at here? What mechanism in the formula could create these "steps"? I am struggling to come up with any answer here that doesn't have the steps as a linear progression - and I'm even more confused why this would be different for different body types.

Congrats, you've discovered Quantum Mechanics!

Seriously though, if it's quantized into 34 discrete steps, including 0% and 100% (or 35 steps, whatever), then it sounds like the algorithm is intended to operate in (roughly) 3% increments, based on some integer value. Maybe there's an internal "score" mechanism that adds up point values for different attributes?

 

[Redfox]

Maybe there's an internal "score" mechanism that adds up point values for different attributes?

Agreed, which is exactly where we (or rather I) gave up mid 2018, as the only explanation seemed to be values we had no access to. But having a fresh look at it can't be a bad thing

 

[MattG]

Perhaps these might change if you restricted the HMC's to some sort of subtype. For example, this graph shows surface composition, rock on horizontal, metal on vertical, for HMC in my collection that are terraformable. HA systems are not included. The appear to be (at least) three distinct lines (or two lines intersected be a paint program spraypaint effect)

Yep, I'm working on splitting them into subtypes, and I definitely believe mass is a factor. Also hadn't considered rock vs metal, definitely something worth looking at - even if just to eliminate. If I remember rightly, don't the handful of terraformable metal rich bodies have a certain amount of rock in them rather than being 100% metal ?

But I don't think this will explain the curve in something I'm expecting to be linear - or why it's different for WW vs HMC.

Congrats, you've discovered Quantum Mechanics!

Seriously though, if it's quantized into 34 discrete steps, including 0% and 100% (or 35 steps, whatever), then it sounds like the algorithm is intended to operate in (roughly) 3% increments, based on some integer value. Maybe there's an internal "score" mechanism that adds up point values for different attributes?

Yep, definitely believe there is some scoring happening. Certain steps are very common, some are missing, definitely not an even distribution. But I'm back to trying to understand why the steps aren't where I expect them. For a linear distribution, step 20 should be ~58.824% of terraformable k - but for WW it's ~60.876% and for HMC it's 63.179%.

Maybe I just need to accept "it's a thing" and ignore it, get back to trying to work out the scoring.

 

[robbyp]

When I came back from DW2, EDD was pretty right in the ball park on how much I would make. So I think the formulae works pretty well, good enough to give you a close estimate of what your making.

 

[MozartMcLaus]

Something like this? About a year ago, I'd heard people saying the money was in AFGK systems.
Naturally, I wanted to see if the actual data (well, best I could get with a full EDSM dump) supported that notion.

Since then, when I'm out in deep space exploring, my route plotter is set to AFGK, and it's a literal gold mine.

View attachment 169661

Source: https://github.com/Elite-IGAU/publi...-Class-Distribution-of-Galactic-Phenomena.pdf

Hmm... According to my data, valuable terraformables are quite evenly distributed between A and F and occur much more frequently compared to G/K. I really only focused on Planets > 1M Cr. so my results may appear different.
Recently returned from Beagle Point scanning A and F only and yes theese were gold mine. The actual occurance of valuable planets was much higher as I already indicated.
Would love to do more exploration analysis, but currently I am making real BIG money with diamonds in Borann A2. Smell the nerf hammer coming...

 

[schlowi123]

That is super interesting

On a first and hasty look the shape of each of the 35 curves seems to be the same multiplied by some factor. If it is determined (by some unknown factor) which curve to use it seems to be solely the mass that sets the payout. So normalize the data with respect to the mass and on which curve it sits. That should give you "bundles" of planets. Now look what the difference between these bundles is.
Is it the rock to metal ratio? Or the temperature? Or the gravity? Or the atmosphere composition? … Mhmmm … all of this screams "principal component analysis" to me … I could do it but for that I would need your complete data … well, that is the name of the planets and how much credits you got for it, the rest I will grab from the EDSM file (if you've uploaded your data) … I also would need a lot of free time to do it (which likely won't be in the near future) … I also have the feeling that this may not lead to much but is maybe worth a try.

Hmm... According to my data, valuable terraformables are quite evenly distributed between A and F and occur much more frequently compared to G/K.

Argh! The star class is another principle component … I hope that it doesn't depend on the galactic coordinates.

 

[MozartMcLaus]

Distance to sun and temperature might be important. Just my guess

 

[ReXxX]

Hi all, and thank you for the payout chart, it really helps me determine what to scan/ignore when I'm out in the black

One question, though, with an apology if this has been answered before:

According to the payout chart, an ELW is worth ~Cr3,2M if it's first discovered, as well as first mapped. But what is the turn-in value of it if I'm only the first to map it?
I'm seeing quite a few 'remnants' from before the exploration update, a LOT of systems have been discovered, but since they were discovered before the changes in exploration were made, the terraformables and AW's and ELW's are unmapped.

I would assume the value to be somewhere between the 3,2M for both 'first' tags, and the 1,1M for none of them?

Fly safe

O7

 

[MattG]

Checking my calculations, a median mass ELW works out as 1,126,206 for FSS+DSS. The same ELW should pay 2,735,195 if it was already discovered but you're first mapper.

So multiplying FSS+DSS amount by ~2.42 should give a decent approximation for the other values.

(Note, assumes mapping efficiency bonus, and full terraforming bonus)

 

[marx]

According to the payout chart, an ELW is worth ~Cr3,2M if it's first discovered, as well as first mapped. But what is the turn-in value of it if I'm only the first to map it?

Well, @MattG just answered your question, but I'd add an interesting bit to it: if you were the first discoverer before Chapter Four (FSS), and again went to map it, you'd actually get nearly twice the amount for mapping your earlier find. Which also means it's considerably more than what you'd get for an entirely undiscovered ELW these days. Bug or working as intended? No idea.

Either way, as you can see from Matt's reply, you get a surprisingly large amount of credits for mapping stuff that someone else discovered. I don't know about others, but personally, when the fleet carriers' price was announced, I went and looked through my earlier ELWs that I hadn't mapped yet. Turns out that seventy were already mapped by others in those 16 months, and that represented a quarter of mine. Interestingly, the majority of them were mapped by three Commanders in particular, so it looks like they were going after shared ELWs.

I'm seeing quite a few 'remnants' from before the exploration update, a LOT of systems have been discovered, but since they were discovered before the changes in exploration were made, the terraformables and AW's and ELW's are unmapped.

Well, yes: the majority of systems were explored before the FSS. As you get farther from the bubble, and farther from popular places, the less likely that previously discovered systems have been mapped.
Although about AWs... this is just an anecdote, but I'm not seeing a lot of them mapped. It makes sense, too, since they don't give all that many credits for mapping, and of course they have no surface POIs to be revealed. The time required to fly out to and map an AW would likely be better spent looking for other terraformables instead.

 

[ReXxX]

[...](Note, assumes mapping efficiency bonus[...]

Thanks for a reply I understand. I usually see myself as a somewhat(at least) smart guy, but the math part of this thread is going so far over my head, I don't even notice the passing

Also, thank you for reminding me of the other thing I forgot to ask before:
When it comes to mapping efficiency bonuses, does it matter how many probes I use, as long as it is under the "par" number? Like, if I have a WW that has an efficiency target of 8 probes and I use 7, would I have gotten a higher efficiency payout if I'd used only 5 instead? Or is it strictly a "bonus yes" or "bonus no" thing?

Well, @MattG just answered your question, but I'd add an interesting bit to it: if you were the first discoverer before Chapter Four (FSS), and again went to map it, you'd actually get nearly twice the amount for mapping your earlier find. Which also means it's considerably more than what you'd get for an entirely undiscovered ELW these days. Bug or working as intended? No idea.

That's great advice, I might try to retrace my steps at some point I have a total of 171 first discovered ELW's an 1,826 WW's on my list on EDSM, most of which were found pre-FSS, so it could be a really hefty payday if I went back and mapped them as well

[...]Although about AWs... this is just an anecdote, but I'm not seeing a lot of them mapped. It makes sense, too, since they don't give all that many credits for mapping, and of course they have no surface POIs to be revealed. The time required to fly out to and map an AW would likely be better spent looking for other terraformables instead.

I find that a bit surprising, actually. I ALWAYS take the trip if there are AW's to scan. I'll even travel 200kLs+ for Metal-rich bodies, at least if there's more than one. MRB's alone has earned me nearly half a billion credits, out of a ~Cr10bn total payout earned from exploration, so I'll keep scanning them

O7

 

[MattG]

When it comes to mapping efficiency bonuses, does it matter how many probes I use, as long as it is under the "par" number? Like, if I have a WW that has an efficiency target of 8 probes and I use 7, would I have gotten a higher efficiency payout if I'd used only 5 instead? Or is it strictly a "bonus yes" or "bonus no" thing?

It's a yes/no thing, you either get full bonus or nothing.

That's great advice, I might try to retrace my steps at some point I have a total of 171 first discovered ELW's an 1,826 WW's on my list on EDSM, most of which were found pre-FSS, so it could be a really hefty payday if I went back and mapped them as well

The same median ELW should net somewhere around 4.2million if you were original first discoverer, and then go back and become first mapper. Also, I don't believe this requirement actually needs you to have discovered the body pre-FSS - if you discover an ELW now, sell data then go back and map it, and sell mapping data you should still get the boosted payout. Probably more effort than it's worth though