New payout data visual chart (averages, I assume)
Exploration value formulae
- Thread starter MattG
- Start date
They also posted a corrected one. The first version had some blank space around the wording that overwrite part of the numbers for water worlds.
So someone just ran a pretty large route on my site and came up with this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bSPAYIoOdQTvJh_HbpwkqiLwGFI9mju68U3J2nZtdso/edit#gid=0
Their reddit post is here https://www.reddit.com/r/eliteexplorers/comments/ay5n33/spansh_road_to_riches_values/
Looks like I still have some tweaking to do.
Their reddit post is here https://www.reddit.com/r/eliteexplorers/comments/ay5n33/spansh_road_to_riches_values/
Looks like I still have some tweaking to do.
Where is the souce link to the new chart?...
Last edited:
Hi, all!
That was me. While selling the data, it became obvious that the 'buffed' systems... weren't. Even though I was super close to the bubble, I got first discovery bonus for mapping every one of the 40 bodies that came in overvalued compared to Spansh estimates.
So I guess, half the problem isn't really there. But the undervalued ones .... *shrug*
Your problem is terraformables. See first post (and many many posts buried in this thread!), but terraformability is a scale where you may receive anything from a 0% of the maximum bonus up to 100% of that bonus, and while we have a few clues about the bonus, we simply don't understand (yet) how this bonus is determined. For that reason most tool writers assume maximum with the caveat that it's the maximum and there's a chance you'll get less.
Thanks for the data collection, might well come in useful.
I have a kind request for clarification:
Does this bonus apply only for those bodies also scanned in any way (auto, etc.) or for all system bodies when the main star is first discovered, regardless whether those are discovered?
Regardless. Honk, get bonus. Anything you actually scan, map or ignore after that does not change the bonus.
Thank you most.
It means it cannot be calculated from player journal prior to discovering all system bodies although a minimum bonus can be calculated with
FSSDiscoveryScan.
It means it cannot be calculated from player journal prior to discovering all system bodies although a minimum bonus can be calculated with
FSSDiscoveryScan.
Last edited:
Funny how that chart says TRB are 1.5m while this one says 1.6 https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/531610894644412417/535181697470431238/9SDIpr.png or are the figures rounded up?
There's a bonus to star value if there's more planets in a system?
Last edited:
The 1.6m one is rounded up - the values are based off median masses for the bodies, for TRBs the median value ends up 1557130 (there's a table in first post). Guess it's just too ugly for some people
For primary star, yep. It's actually FDevs very poor attempt to placate the honk-and-jump explorers, but probably not the place to discuss that. First post has some details on calculation.
I used MattG's data for every single bit, except the giant stars (sadly missing). I looked around and they ranged from some fraction of 1 SM to some odd multiple of 1 SM (like 0.2 - 5 or something, with some one-off's of like 26 SM), so I just used 1 SM. CMDR Fru had something similar in his original chart.
Source 1 - MattG's planet values table
Source 2 - MattG's mass analysis table
Awesome, this is almost exactly what I said, thanks for confirmation, CMDR. Also, huge thanks for your work on this. I started following this thread again around page 19 and have enjoyed watching the magic happen. o7
Thanks...
Hello Commander, first of all you have my respect for the huge research work you did on the whole topic.
Next, I'm looking to create a little tool that shows how much your current scan data worths WITHOUT all the other stuff that all these plugins seems to have and that, in some cases, breaks game immersion, at least IMHO.
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?
Assuming 100% is the easy choice, and without any extra data to go on it's probably the best choice. I don't think 50% is a good solution because it feels too low. More often than not, these bodies get the maximum, or very close to it. Some pages back, LP Garnell did some research and made some graphs showing the relationship between mass, atmosphere type and %age of terraforming bonus. If you wanted to be "accurate", you'd need to apply his findings to any estimated value. It's a study I've been meaning to gather more data on for some time with the aim of being able to estimate body values better - but there's an FSS-shaped hole in my motivation currently.
A simpler solution is to just provide the minimum and maximum values in your tool.
I'm going to check out LP Garnell's research you mentioned, thanks.
By the way, when I said "deceptive" in my previous post, it was on purpose: because as others have already pointed out here, but also in lots of other threads, a major problem is the quite big negative difference that comes from these calculations.
Of course we are still talking about (in)accuracy, but positive and negative differences have a big role in explorers decisions.
Consider the following:
- An explorer that wants to buy a new big and expensive ship with his/her data scans, lets suppose he/she needs 50.000.000cr.
- Current data scans have a real value of 48.000.000cr [explorer won't know untill all pages are sold]
- Third party TOOL1 says that all those scans have a value of 40.000.000cr (48M - 40M = 8M Positive difference)
- Third party TOOL2 says that all those scans have a value of 56.000.000cr (48M - 56M = -8M Negative difference)
Looking at the 56M evaluation the explorer says: "Good, lets go back and cash out".
In the first case, when the TOOL1 says: "You reached 50M, Commander.", there will probably be an overhead cause the real value could be 55M for instance, but that just means some more exploring time (but also more money).
In the second case there's a major drawback because when TOOL2 says: "You reached 50M, Commander.", it could not be true and the explorer is already back in populated systems, and reaching the 50M payout goal could take way more grinding time than how much did the overhead scans take in the first case.
The example given above is quite simple, but I think that really underlines the problem.
Maybe 50% in my previous post was too extreme, but it could also be 70% for instance, cause probably being conservative in those estimates is better than being optimistic.
Last edited:
If you're the first to map an already discovered body, can you assume the amount you'll get is the equivalent of:-
[AMOUNT FOR FSS+DSS] - [AMOUNT FOR FSS]
from, eg, this chart: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/531610894644412417/535181697470431238/9SDIpr.png
[AMOUNT FOR FSS+DSS] - [AMOUNT FOR FSS]
from, eg, this chart: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/531610894644412417/535181697470431238/9SDIpr.png
(Pretty sure that image is based off values in first post)
Been a while since I dug into it - but no, I don't believe it's that simple. I think if you're first to map a previously discovered body (that you did not discover, nor have you previously sold data for), and assuming efficiency bonus, you're better off taking FSS value and multiplying by 10.1195
(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.