Exploration value formulae

MattG · Jul 14, 2021

Eahlstan said:
There are bodies in the bubble that are reported as

Code:

wasDiscovered: false, wasMapped: true

in the journals.

I did some test a while ago (surely not as intensive as you) and concluded that they don't really fit any calcualtions, but come close to the same as

Code:

wasDiscovered: true, wasMapped: false

.
Of course this was before we knew about that 30% bonus, so I can't say if this is still true, but if you say that bonus doesn't apply it shouldn't have changed.
Sadly I only checked terraformables (force of habit), so the overestimating that occured when I did

Code:

basevalue * firstdiscovery * 3.33333333 * effmapped

might have been caused by a wrongly applied terraformable bonus.
(

Code:

basevalue * firstdiscovery * 3.33333333 * effmapped

overestimated by about 4.6% -

Code:

basevalue * 8.0956 * effmapped

underestimated by about 3.6%)
Did you check those flags?

So from the data I had, we only checked non-TF HMCs to rule out TF messing with figures. I calculated the expected value based on no first discovery and no first mapping, but an efficiently mapped body and was expecting to see a 30% uplift. Actually, the figures were out by a factor of 2.6 - which would be the bonus for first discovery. That sort-of makes sense, if we consider the journals report "wasDiscovered: false, wasMapped: true". I would still have expected to see the 30% uplift in the value - but perhaps whatever rule stops them being tagged also stops the uplift applying.

With that in mind, I think your first calculation was probably the right one - but you're hitting a body that doesn't get full TF bonus. Try it again on a non-TF body, and see how the calculation looks. If you have the TF bodies (type, mass and sale value ideally), I could check if they fall into expected bandings for terraformability.

I will note that our sample survey was small, and we had another that reported something completely different - it looks like it got that additional bonus where you scan something, sell data, then go back and map it, despite player not having scanned body. It was in Trappist-1, and journals were checked to make sure it hadn't been visited before - but perhaps it'd been visited pre-rename, or pre-journals? I'd had enough of thinking about bubble at that point and stopped thinking about it

Eahlstan · Jul 14, 2021

JSON:

{ "timestamp":"2021-06-14T12:53:40Z", "event":"SAAScanComplete", "BodyName":"HIP 35531 1", "SystemAddress":673101784481, "BodyID":7, "ProbesUsed":6, "EfficiencyTarget":7 }
{ "timestamp":"2021-06-14T12:53:41Z", "event":"Scan", "ScanType":"Detailed", "BodyName":"HIP 35531 1", "BodyID":7, "Parents":[ {"Star":0} ], "StarSystem":"HIP 35531", "SystemAddress":673101784481, "DistanceFromArrivalLS":111.543053, "TidalLock":true, "TerraformState":"Terraforming", "PlanetClass":"High metal content body", "Atmosphere":"hot thick carbon dioxide atmosphere", "AtmosphereType":"CarbonDioxide", "AtmosphereComposition":[ { "Name":"CarbonDioxide", "Percent":95.674911 }, { "Name":"Nitrogen", "Percent":3.339146 }, { "Name":"SulphurDioxide", "Percent":0.956749 } ], "Volcanism":"minor silicate vapour geysers volcanism", "MassEM":1.392662, "Radius":6709125.000000, "SurfaceGravity":12.331714, "SurfaceTemperature":823.736633, "SurfacePressure":17186590.000000, "Landable":false, "Composition":{ "Ice":0.000000, "Rock":0.671117, "Metal":0.328883 }, "SemiMajorAxis":33437628746.032715, "Eccentricity":0.000105, "OrbitalInclination":0.010835, "Periapsis":149.213549, "OrbitalPeriod":4870659.589767, "RotationPeriod":5041305.194371, "AxialTilt":0.249579, "WasDiscovered":false, "WasMapped":true }

Sadly due my messi notes this is the only body I'm totally sure of.

MattG · Jul 14, 2021

OK, so we have a mass of 1.392662. We assume (and can see some of) these bonuses: First Discoverer, not first mapped, mapped efficiently. We will also assume no 30% uplift.

With that in mind, the base part of the value is 167825, and terraformable 1750168. Subtract the base from the actual value sold gives 1691468. So we only got 1691468 of the maximum 1750168 - this is ~96.646% of the value, and is the first "step" down.

Another example to help prove this step. Coddiwompler recently sold Dryio Flyuae PN-T D3-297 A 5 for 2606951. This body is also TFHMC, with a mass of 0.9435. In this case, it received all the bonuses - FD, FM, Eff and odyssey 30%. The expected sale value was 2689255 - broken down as 235311 base and 2453944 maximum terraforming. So he only got 2371640 or the maximum 2453944, which is ~96.646%

(The steps are weird, and despite being the same number of steps - the point where they occur differs very slightly for WWs. No, I've still no idea why that's the case).

But anyway - I'm pretty happy that's what's happened with this example, it just didn't quite get maximum terraforming bonus.

Eahlstan · Jul 14, 2021

MattG said:
OK, so we have a mass of 1.392662. We assume (and can see some of) these bonuses: First Discoverer, not first mapped, mapped efficiently. We will also assume no 30% uplift.

With that in mind, the base part of the value is 167825, and terraformable 1750168. Subtract the base from the actual value sold gives 1691468. So we only got 1691468 of the maximum 1750168 - this is ~96.646% of the value, and is the first "step" down.

Another example to help prove this step. Coddiwompler recently sold Dryio Flyuae PN-T D3-297 A 5 for 2606951. This body is also TFHMC, with a mass of 0.9435. In this case, it received all the bonuses - FD, FM, Eff and odyssey 30%. The expected sale value was 2689255 - broken down as 235311 base and 2453944 maximum terraforming. So he only got 2371640 or the maximum 2453944, which is ~96.646%

(The steps are weird, and despite being the same number of steps - the point where they occur differs very slightly for WWs. No, I've still no idea why that's the case).

But anyway - I'm pretty happy that's what's happened with this example, it just didn't quite get maximum terraforming bonus.

So given this, does the first post need an edit to reflect this?

If I get this right those bodies should be

Code:

basevalue * firstdiscovery * 3.3333333333

A well known coder hesitates to alter his code

MattG · Jul 14, 2021

Eahlstan said:
So given this, does the first post need an edit to reflect this?

If I get this right those bodies should be

Code:

basevalue * firstdiscovery * 3.3333333333

A well known coder hesitates to alter his code

I've updated the first post with a note about bubble bodies - but I reiterate that it could definitely use more data

Don't forget the * effmapped in your calc

Eahlstan · Dec 2, 2021

The main star also gets a bonus for honking based of the value of all the other bodies in the system. For planetary bodies, it seems to be (applied per-body):

It's not explicitly stated, but does that mean that primary stars don't get a first discovery bonus?

MattG · Dec 2, 2021

Eahlstan said:
It's not explicitly stated, but does that mean that primary stars don't get a first discovery bonus?

I believe they should get FD bonus (if applicable), and then the honk bonus on top. If I get a chance tomorrow I’ll try and make it clearer in first post.

Eahlstan · Dec 2, 2021

Thank you.

Eahlstan · Jan 1, 2022

So we got an issue on EDDiscovery yesterday.
There's a huge collection of those damned undiscovered but mapped bubble bodies and their systems value.
I'm totally unable to find a reliable way to calculate them. Some act like they are discovered, some act like they aren't discovered and some even seem to be mixed.
Do you mind having a look at it?

WarmedMints · Jan 1, 2022

Eahlstan said:
So we got an issue on EDDiscovery yesterday.
There's a huge collection of those damned undiscovered but mapped bubble bodies and their systems value.
I'm totally unable to find a reliable way to calculate them. Some act like they are discovered, some act like they aren't discovered and some even seem to be mixed.
Do you mind having a look at it?

Do you account for the main star bonus? That can throw it out a lot since with the right system, you can be paid a few hundred thousand for them rather than the usual calculation of 1,200 or something.

What I did as a quick workaround for the bubble bodies was make it as already discovered if it has already been mapped. I still haven't worked out a reliable way of calculating the bonus for main star bonus though.

Eahlstan · Jan 1, 2022

Thanks for your input, but sadly that's not the problem.
You see, if I handle those undiscovered but mapped bodies like they are undiscovered (base * firstdiscovered * mapped) about half of the systems get overestimated by millions of credits, while the other half is only about 5% (some more, some less) off.
If I treat those bodies like they they are discovered (base * mapped) about half of the systems gets underestimated by millions of credits while the the other half is only about 5% (some more, some less) off.
And a few systems are off no matter what I do, just like they are a mix of "it's discovered without a tag" and "it's undiscovered therefore it has no tag".

Maybe I'm just missing something obvious.

MattG · Jan 1, 2022

I hate the bubble.

Last I looked at this, in Ody those bodies (where wasDiscovered = false but wasMapped = true) were getting FD bonus but not the Ody bonus. In HZN, I think they would get no FD bonus and obviously no Ody bonus.

However, take a look at this (just the first post) and then just decide that if FDev can't even be consistent, then why bother trying to work it out properly?

(I guess you could open a ticket - but I'm more than done with the pointlessness of the Issue Tracker. Also, I hate the bubble anyway - did I mention that? Stupid bubble).

Eahlstan · Jan 1, 2022

MattG said:
However, take a look at this (just the first post) and then just decide that if FDev can't even be consistent, then why bother trying to work it out properly?

Because it itches my brain

MattG said:
(I guess you could open a ticket - but I'm more than done with the pointlessness of the Issue Tracker. Also, I hate the bubble anyway - did I mention that? Stupid bubble).

Yeah, the Issue Tracker is a pita -.-

All in all I just wanted to be sure I'm not missing anything obvious, thanks for your reply. I'll just take the formula that fits the most systems and call it

Code:

EstimatedValueStupidBubbleBody

WarmedMints · Jan 2, 2022

It is the terraformable bonus which is the difference there, is it not? Makes sense as to why I've gone through so much of my own data trying to work out you don't always get the full bonus or at least that is what I've noticed while testing.

MattG · Jan 2, 2022

WarmedMints said:
It is the terraformable bonus which is the difference there, is it not? Makes sense as to why I've gone through so much of my own data trying to work out you don't always get the full bonus or at least that is what I've noticed while testing.

Definitely has an effect but I don't think it would cause inacccuracies to the extent seen - the majority of HMCs get ~96-100% of the bonus and a good portion of the WWs too (though they're definitely more erratic).

But check the post I linked - that is evidence of bubble systems being offered vastly different values for the same data being sold at the same station.

Eahlstan · Jan 2, 2022

WarmedMints said:
It is the terraformable bonus which is the difference there, is it not? Makes sense as to why I've gone through so much of my own data trying to work out you don't always get the full bonus or at least that is what I've noticed while testing.

If you want to try it...
There are two small systems:

EDSM - Elite Dangerous Star Map

The Galactic Positioning System of Elite: Dangerous at your service.

www.edsm.net

EDSM - Elite Dangerous Star Map

The Galactic Positioning System of Elite: Dangerous at your service.

www.edsm.net

All bodies in those systems have been efficiently mapped before they were sold.

semley · Jan 27, 2022

Hi. I was hoping to do some calculations reusing the research done here, but from the first page, surely these numbers cant be right?

if(isMapped)
        {
            if(isFirstDiscoverer && isFirstMapped)
            {
                mappingMultiplier = 3.699622554;
            }
            else if(isFirstMapped)
            {
                mappingMultiplier = 8.0956;
            }
            else
            {
                mappingMultiplier = 3.3333333333;
            }
        }

This has the mapping bonus higher if you're not the first discoverer than if you are?

EDIT: Ah never mind, I see theres a second multiplication if you're first discoverer later down

MattG · Sep 21, 2022

Is anyone with access to Horizons 4.0 able to verify if the 30% Odyssey bonus to mapping applies to payouts in HZN 4.0 ?

robbyp · Sep 22, 2022

At the moment edd is using the odyssey flag from Loadgame to help select.

This will be false in horizons 4.0.

I'd like to know this too as we will be making mistakes if horizons 4.0 matches odyssey

WarmedMints · Sep 29, 2022

I have an alt which doesn't have Odyssey. I'll see what the payouts are.

I did notice though that if you load in 4.0, the fileheader event states odyssey as true while the loadgame event has horizons as true and odyssey false.

EDIT:
Ok, I mapped an ELW and WW.

Odyssey logs

{ "timestamp":"2022-09-29T01:36:36Z", "event":"Scan", "ScanType":"Detailed", "BodyName":"HIP 108915 1", "BodyID":1, "Parents":[ {"Star":0} ], "StarSystem":"HIP 108915", "SystemAddress":358797382386, "DistanceFromArrivalLS":343.987274, "TidalLock":true, "TerraformState":"", "PlanetClass":"Earthlike body", "Atmosphere":"", "AtmosphereType":"EarthLike", "AtmosphereComposition":[ { "Name":"Nitrogen", "Percent":70.952934 }, { "Name":"Oxygen", "Percent":28.885538 }, { "Name":"Water", "Percent":0.132780 } ], "Volcanism":"", "MassEM":0.290950, "Radius":4174032.250000, "SurfaceGravity":6.656037, "SurfaceTemperature":309.284058, "SurfacePressure":55882.550781, "Landable":false, "Composition":{ "Ice":0.000000, "Rock":0.673109, "Metal":0.326891 }, "SemiMajorAxis":103120970726.013184, "Eccentricity":0.000070, "OrbitalInclination":-0.003248, "Periapsis":175.692416, "OrbitalPeriod":19094032.049179, "AscendingNode":-91.047955, "MeanAnomaly":122.082005, "RotationPeriod":19094202.577217, "AxialTilt":-0.016630, "WasDiscovered":true, "WasMapped":true }

{ "timestamp":"2022-09-29T01:39:18Z", "event":"Scan", "ScanType":"Detailed", "BodyName":"HIP 108915 2", "BodyID":2, "Parents":[ {"Star":0} ], "StarSystem":"HIP 108915", "SystemAddress":358797382386, "DistanceFromArrivalLS":435.529715, "TidalLock":false, "TerraformState":"Terraformable", "PlanetClass":"Water world", "Atmosphere":"thin carbon dioxide atmosphere", "AtmosphereType":"CarbonDioxide", "AtmosphereComposition":[ { "Name":"CarbonDioxide", "Percent":77.707726 }, { "Name":"Oxygen", "Percent":21.515190 }, { "Name":"SulphurDioxide", "Percent":0.777077 } ], "Volcanism":"", "MassEM":0.171226, "Radius":3534224.000000, "SurfaceGravity":5.463741, "SurfaceTemperature":263.488037, "SurfacePressure":1268.826050, "Landable":false, "Composition":{ "Ice":0.000000, "Rock":0.673109, "Metal":0.326891 }, "SemiMajorAxis":130500531196.594238, "Eccentricity":0.000526, "OrbitalInclination":0.002994, "Periapsis":150.170796, "OrbitalPeriod":27182883.620262, "AscendingNode":-89.872357, "MeanAnomaly":188.017582, "RotationPeriod":70481.616777, "AxialTilt":0.135042, "WasDiscovered":true, "WasMapped":false }

Value in game:

Value my app calculated using the formula

The sale prices in 4.0 appear to receive the Odyssey 30%

Interesting that two commanders were both paid the same. I sold both at the same dock just in case.