Exploration value formulae

LP Garnell · Jun 21, 2017

Revisited my data and did more analysis.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u39n8adiisahlpi/Explo$1_WWv.7.XX.xls?dl=0

Terraformable WWs are a mystery to me. Just came back from another trip, and did a visual spot check. The WW terras are still all over the place.

Clicking on the rightmost column will reveal the entire journal entry on that body.

Redfox · Jun 21, 2017

LP Garnell said:
Revisited my data and did more analysis.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u39n8adiisahlpi/Explo$1_WWv.7.XX.xls?dl=0

Terraformable WWs are a mystery to me. Just came back from another trip, and did a visual spot check. The WW terras are still all over the place.

Clicking on the rightmost column will reveal the entire journal entry on that body.

Nice - data! Thanks for sharing. Would you mind if I take over your WW TC and HMC TC data? I still hope to see if the additional/speculative k-values (see img below) for HMC TC get some more plot points.

LP Garnell · Jun 22, 2017

Redfox said:
Nice - data! Thanks for sharing. Would you mind if I take over your WW TC and HMC TC data? I still hope to see if the additional/speculative k-values (see img below) for HMC TC get some more plot points.

Please, be my guest. I just want to understand.

BTW, how did you back into your possible k factors?

Redfox · Jun 22, 2017

LP Garnell said:
Please, be my guest. I just want to understand.

BTW, how did you back into your possible k factors?

Thanks. As for your Q, I'm not quite sure I understand it. If you're asking how the additional/speculative were derived: If at least two data points (not just one as in the first version linked above) optically/eyeball-mk1 fit a curve then MattG's formula can be turned around and the k-value can be calculated if you have the mass and sell-value of those bodies. The it is evident, if the curve fits all inolved data points. That said, I'd really like to have more than just two data points per curve, reducing the risk that it's just coincidence.

So if anyone has any more sell-values for WW or HMC that would be greatly appreciated. Unfortunately both my CMDRs quite far out atm, so I can't do a short TC WW farming tour just outside the bubbly myself...

MattG · Jun 22, 2017

Redfox said:
Thanks. As for your Q, I'm not quite sure I understand it. If you're asking how the additional/speculative were derived: If at least two data points (not just one as in the first version linked above) optically/eyeball-mk1 fit a curve then MattG's formula can be turned around and the k-value can be calculated if you have the mass and sell-value of those bodies. The it is evident, if the curve fits all inolved data points. That said, I'd really like to have more than just two data points per curve, reducing the risk that it's just coincidence.

So if anyone has any more sell-values for WW or HMC that would be greatly appreciated. Unfortunately both my CMDRs quite far out atm, so I can't do a short TC WW farming tour just outside the bubbly myself...

Out of interest, what was your k value for the ones under the curve?

Remember, the k value is split between the planet type and terraformability. The portion dedicated to planet type doesn't change - we see no variability in non-terraformables, and we have a small collection of water worlds that despite being terraformable get no terraformable bonus - but still get exactly what we predict for planet type. So we should be focusing on the k factor for the terraformable portion. For HMCs, this is 241607. Now, I have a bunch of HMCs that are close to the full bonus - but not quite there. Turns out their k value for terraformability looks to be more like 233502. And we can repeat this down, the first few ks for the terraformability of HMCs look something like this:

k value	% of max k
241607	100
233502	96.65
225441	93.31
217423	89.99
209450	86.69
201523	83.41

The values could be +/-2, but they're roughly correct. It's not quite a linear progression, and there are a few outliers that don't fit this (though I'm suspecting incorrect data for those). The pattern also exists for WWs - but the values and ratios are different. For now, HMCs look bnetter to focus on as there's less crazy going on.

It doesn't help to work out _why_ they're getting less, but we might still at least be able to start putting correct k values in against our data and maybe it'll start to highlight some commonality. (I'm still of the mind that there's something else in play that we don't have access to, but maybe I'm wrong).

Redfox · Jun 22, 2017

MattG said:
Out of interest, what was your k value for the ones under the curve?

They are listed in the respective post in the Payout Analysis thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...tion-Payouts?p=5615323&viewfull=1#post5615323

The k-values listed there are the sum of "planet type and terraformability", as you correctly point out; while using the "planet type" value provided by you in your OP. I hope that helps?

If nobody else provides additional payout values for TC WW and HMC until I get back in a few weeks I'll then go out to specifically gather some of those.

MattG · Jun 22, 2017

Ah yes, I thought I'd seen them somewhere... I blame thursday.

Anyway, your values 256671 and 248609 happily become 233503 and 225441 without the planet type k - which matches the table above. I'm sure if/when I fill in the rest of the table, your other values will match up nicely

iain666 · Jun 22, 2017

I've been scanning a fair number of HMC and WW CFTs on my current trip, I'll pull the scan data out of EDD and see how much patience I have for adding the sale values when I get back...

Oh for individual planet values in the journal so I could automate the whole thing, we'd have enough data to nail it in no time.

Redfox · Jun 23, 2017

iain666 said:
I've been scanning a fair number of HMC and WW CFTs on my current trip, I'll pull the scan data out of EDD and see how much patience I have for adding the sale values when I get back...

Oh for individual planet values in the journal so I could automate the whole thing, we'd have enough data to nail it in no time.

That would be MUCH appreciated. Depending on what you consider "a fair number" you could just snap a screenshot* of the relevant payout-values within UC, which would save you a lot of time transcribing. I could then automatically run those through OCR, automatically match the body-IDs with my/our DB containing the latest EDDB-export and voilà - have a nice and complete set of new data points.

With some screenshot-tools (I used the Snagit Trial version) one can...
- ...define the screen-area to be 'shot'
- ...have the shot saved automatically (incrementally numbered)
- ...trigger the shot via configurable hotkey

LP Garnell · Jun 24, 2017

Just got back from a 5 day jaunt, and added a good number of HMC TCs to the list previously posted.

All below the blue line on first tab and all of the second tab are new (75+). Also added 5 or so WW TCs on the WW (3rd) page.

The column on left "LO Graphic" is for one of five (HMC) graphics you get when in system and locking onto a body. Only place you can glean that info, so just kept track of it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tag3kvsupmnq8pq/Explo$1_HMC-WW_24Jjun17.xls?dl=0

Redfox · Jun 25, 2017

LP Garnell said:
Just got back from a 5 day jaunt, and added a good number of HMC TCs to the list previously posted.

Lovely - thanks for sharing!

I've added the data to the chart (yellow outline), from which I gather the following:

TC WW: Most data points fit the pattern
TC WW: There are also a few additional outliers which might require looking into
TC HMC: Most data points fit the pattern
TC HMC: There are data points which conform to the praphs of the proposed k-values - very nice!
TC HMC: There are also a few additional outliers which might indicate additional k-values - more data needed

LP Garnell · Jun 25, 2017

Very cool!

I haven't had a chance to dig thru it all yet myself.

The 3 and 6 % reductions were pretty consistent and apparent tho.

There are the two hmcs I have as 54.31% reductions (4 and .379 EM). If they are to be considered as new distinct k factor, believe it would be 110,391.

LP Garnell · Jun 25, 2017

iain666 said:
I've been scanning a fair number of HMC and WW CFTs on my current trip, I'll pull the scan data out of EDD and see how much patience I have for adding the sale values when I get back...

Oh for individual planet values in the journal so I could automate the whole thing, we'd have enough data to nail it in no time.

More data is better!

I set up my spreadsheet ahead of time; use Open Office. Pulled the data out of EDD as you said. What eventually best worked for me ended up being a three step process (lost 30%+ data before this, plus it's a lot faster):

(Edited to add: Set ED to windowed mode!)

-Look for system total payouts in excess of 100k.

-Look at the system payout breakdown for any in excess of 85k

-If there are any, go back to your spreadsheet and do a "search for" on the middle three letter system designator, such a "AP-X". OO has that search function at the top of the spreadsheet; no need to use drop down menus.

This will get you a pretty quick indication that you probably have one. Match up precise star system and planet designation.

Whether you record directly or take screenshot is ur pref.

More data is better!

Redfox · Jul 10, 2017

A few days ago my alt-CMDR Redfoxxx returned from an expedition researching Helium-rich Gas Giants. Interesting stuff that will be reported in a separate post.

More relevant for this thread are some bodies that were picked up along the way (including their UC payouts):

HMC: 24 total (11 TC)
WW: 166 total (69 TC)

Below are the updated charts with the new data points marked in red. Observations:

HMC: Not many TC data points, but 3 of them seem to be on 'alternative' k-values
WW: Quite a few new rogue TC data points, possibly slowly forming a (to me) yet unrecognisable pattern

Thoughts?

LP Garnell · Jul 11, 2017

Redfox said:
A few days ago my alt-CMDR Redfoxxx returned from an expedition researching Helium-rich Gas Giants. Interesting stuff that will be reported in a separate post.

More relevant for this thread are some bodies that were picked up along the way (including their UC payouts):

HMC: 24 total (11 TC)

WW: 166 total (69 TC)

Below are the updated charts with the new data points marked in red. Observations:

HMC: Not many TC data points, but 3 of them seem to be on 'alternative' k-values

WW: Quite a few new rogue TC data points, possibly slowly forming a (to me) yet unrecognisable pattern

http://i.imgur.com/Orhp4fz.png

Thoughts?

I just noticed, but it looks like you might not have plotted the HMC Terras on the second tab in the file I uploaded. Has 39 additional HMC Terra datapoints.

Of particular note, the first below is on the first tab, and second on second tab,

Prua Dryoae IM-W d1-3 B 5 195,658 387,883 353,943 54.31 0.3739
Flyua Dryoae FR-N d6-2 2 233,383 462,672 422,188 54.31 4.0149

If they are to be considered as new distinct k factor, believe it would be 110,391.

Third tab has an additional 7 WW Terra candidates on and below the blue line at the bottom (ignore Prua Dryoae SY-S c3-0 A 6).

WW TCs continue to perplex me. Anytime I compare 3-4, where some make the max and some don't, cannot seem to find any correlation using available data.

Edited to add: Haven't looked at the host star type nor "habitable" distance from star.

Redfox · Jul 11, 2017

LP Garnell said:
I just noticed, but it looks like you might not have plotted the HMC Terras on the second tab in the file I uploaded. Has 39 additional HMC Terra datapoints.

Of particular note, the first below is on the first tab, and second on second tab,

Prua Dryoae IM-W d1-3 B 5 195,658 387,883 353,943 54.31 0.3739
Flyua Dryoae FR-N d6-2 2 233,383 462,672 422,188 54.31 4.0149

If they are to be considered as new distinct k factor, believe it would be 110,391.

Third tab has an additional 7 WW Terra candidates on and below the blue line at the bottom (ignore Prua Dryoae SY-S c3-0 A 6).

WW TCs continue to perplex me. Anytime I compare 3-4, where some make the max and some don't, cannot seem to find any correlation using available data.

Edited to add: Haven't looked at the host star type nor "habitable" distance from star.

You're absolutely right. Looks like I missed those entries for some reason - thanks for pointing that out!

They have now been added and are hightlighted in red. The two data points you mention do fit nicely on the new k-value-curve that has also been added.

Redfox · Jul 15, 2017

Added a new batch, focusing on HMC TC:

HMC: 74 total (40 TC)
WW: 15 total (7 TC)

HMC TC observations:

23 of the new data points are on the standard k-graph -> ok
12 of the new data points are on alternative k-graphs -> nice, confirms alternative k-graphs
1 of the new data points got no TC-bonus at all -> weird, but verified (PRU EUQ GB-X D1-17 A 1)
Overall, we've now got 10 HMC TC outliers, i.e. not sharing a k-graph with any other body. I've verified 'my' 5 outliers.

@LP Garnell, can you verify 'your' 5 outliers?

Swoilz XS-U d2-3 A 6; EM=3.9875; Payout=159'566
Prooe Dryeia RI-Z d1-2 5; EM=2.6185; Payout=405'683
Swoilz TN-T d3-1 7; EM=2.9574; Payout=382'670
Whuedie VA-U d4-0 9; EM=0.7761; Payout=52'809
Flyua Dryoae UD-T d3-0 A 3; EM=0.5277; Payout=87'702

Anyone got some fresj ideas on how to proceed?

@MattG: The outliers in the bottom-left seem to form a curve. Any chance you could apply your formula-skills to those 4 data-points? Or 5, if the no-TC-bonus one counts as well.

Whuedie VA-U d4-0 9; EM=0.7761; Payout=52'809
Flyua Dryoae UD-T d3-0 A 3; EM=0.5277; Payout=87'702
PRU EUQ EV-Y D38 B 3; EM=0.4536; Payout=105'869
PRU EUQ GB-X D1-17 A 1; EM=1.3115; Payout=37'013
COL 359 SECTOR AF-Z D92 BC 1; EM=0.4441; Payout=125'330

LP Garnell · Jul 15, 2017

Can confirm the following for both EM and payout:

Prooe Dryeia RI-Z d1-2 5
Swoilz TN-T d3-1 7
Whuedie VA-U d4-0 9

The other two can confirm the EM only. Didn't screenshot those payouts.

What I will say is that I had my spreadsheet setup ahead of time with the EM and corresponding expected max payment based on Matts formula. Input them directly as the data was sold. Any payment that was not 100% max immediately stood out, and consequently did a double check on payment cr while that set of 50 systems (page) was still up.

Having said that, it's not impossible that those two are errors.

MattG · Jul 17, 2017

Redfox said:
@MattG: The outliers in the bottom-left seem to form a curve. Any chance you could apply your formula-skills to those 4 data-points? Or 5, if the no-TC-bonus one counts as well.

Whuedie VA-U d4-0 9; EM=0.7761; Payout=52'809

Flyua Dryoae UD-T d3-0 A 3; EM=0.5277; Payout=87'702

PRU EUQ EV-Y D38 B 3; EM=0.4536; Payout=105'869

PRU EUQ GB-X D1-17 A 1; EM=1.3115; Payout=37'013

COL 359 SECTOR AF-Z D92 BC 1; EM=0.4441; Payout=125'330

http://i.imgur.com/w7psIyr.png

You want the k-values for these, or something else? If k's, then:

Body	EM	Payout	k-value
Whuedie VA-U d4-0 9	0.7761	52809	11167
Flyua Dryoae UD-T d3-0 A 3	0.5277	87702	35374
PRU EUQ EV-Y D38 B 3	0.4536	105869	48208
PRU EUQ GB-X D1-17 A 1	1.3115	37013	0
COL 359 SECTOR AF-Z D92 BC 1	0.4441	125330	61444

FWIW, I have data points that match all but the last k - and the last one would fit in a gap. k=0 is more common in water worlds, but I've seen it with HMC too.

I've been spending my time trying to come up with a formula to describe the k-values rather than looking harder at the journal data. Not entirely sure why, maybe it'll shed some light on something. It's a real shame the journal doesn't record individual sell values for bodies - even if it didn't shed any further light on things we might at least be able to work out a better median value for k to estimate scan earnings.

Redfox · Jul 17, 2017

LP Garnell said:
Can confirm the following for both EM and payout:

Great, thanks for checking! Your process sounds very reliable - I might even adapt my own a little

MattG said:
You want the k-values for these, or something else? If k's, then:

Body EM Payout k-value
Whuedie VA-U d4-0 9 0.7761 52809 11167
Flyua Dryoae UD-T d3-0 A 3 0.5277 87702 35374
PRU EUQ EV-Y D38 B 3 0.4536 105869 48208
PRU EUQ GB-X D1-17 A 1 1.3115 37013 0
COL 359 SECTOR AF-Z D92 BC 1 0.4441 125330 61444

FWIW, I have data points that match all but the last k - and the last one would fit in a gap. k=0 is more common in water worlds, but I've seen it with HMC too.

I've been spending my time trying to come up with a formula to describe the k-values rather than looking harder at the journal data. Not entirely sure why, maybe it'll shed some light on something. It's a real shame the journal doesn't record individual sell values for bodies - even if it didn't shed any further light on things we might at least be able to work out a better median value for k to estimate scan earnings.

Actually, I was wondering if there might be a new 'inverted' curve coming down from top-left and flattening out to the bottom-right. The positions of those data points kind of suggest such a curve, but of course that's just speculation. So I was wondering if you could do your magic and check if there is such an 'inverted' curve/formula that fits those data points.

As for additional data points: Those sounds very interesting! Would you mind sharing those, so I can add them to the chart? Or shall we combine our data into a Google-sheet?