Exploring profits

Fair enough. Looking at it again, there's probably no need to encourage any style over the other. Still, having a bonus for scanning an entire system would not mean that it's "mandatory" to do so.
The big issue with exploration profits is simply that they appear to be inconsistent. And overall still too low compared to other methods of making credits.
 
To me the main issue is that the quickest ways of ranking are, in order:

- neutron farming (by far the highest )
- jonking, maybe with some very selective scanning
- selective scanning
- complete scanning (by far the lowest)

so it is already encouraging one style over others. IMO the concept of "neutron farming" shouldn't even exist (ie no special value in doing it) and the other three should be more equal than they currently are.
 
I don't - mainly because players will always find ways to grind rank or anything else quicker. Those who grind for rank can find a way to do that, and if someone's exploring because they actually want to explore it's not really an issue in the first place. The only way to prevent this would be to make all objects have the same or similar value, which would become rather boring. Otherwise, you will always have astronomical objects that are worth more than others, and as long as that is the case, some people will farm them. And you know what? That's just fine.

I honestly don't see the problem with neutron farming - if someone wants to do it, let them, doesn't hurt me. Some people just want triple elite, and if that makes them happy, that's fine with me.
 
Last edited:
I went on a month long expedition and earned around 14 million. While that isn't totally horrible, I can make 5 mil in one evening RES grinding, so it's not great either. I guess it's about risk. Lower risk equals lower pay.
 
Again to re-iterate whilst I have an irk with the overall payout of exploration my main gripe is the way that jumping and honking is so so so much more efficient than scanning, even the highest value objects.
 
I think the elephant in the room are the gas giants. They do make a pity-full amount of money given the resource and research side of data they're possibly worth. Sometimes the rocky moons are worth more than the Jovian.

For the rest, I'm not too bothered by the pay-out. It's a low intensity, low effort profession. To explore and to make money takes durability. Slight increase wrt Jovians/ELW/Ammonium would be nice though.
Again to re-iterate whilst I have an irk with the overall payout of exploration my main gripe is the way that jumping and honking is so so so much more efficient than scanning, even the highest value objects.
Agreed. Raising scanning values somewhat and lowering honk values seems sensible if you compare the effort that goes into it.
 
Last edited:
Again to re-iterate whilst I have an irk with the overall payout of exploration my main gripe is the way that jumping and honking is so so so much more efficient than scanning, even the highest value objects.

Yeah, it's really almost not worth it to scan individual planets and moons. The only reason I do it is OCD. More range on the surface scanner would be nice, or if you scan a planet, it just grabs all the moons at the same time. That would be nice.
 
To me the main issue is that the quickest ways of ranking are, in order:

- neutron farming (by far the highest )
- jonking, maybe with some very selective scanning
- selective scanning
- complete scanning (by far the lowest)

so it is already encouraging one style over others. IMO the concept of "neutron farming" shouldn't even exist (ie no special value in doing it) and the other three should be more equal than they currently are.

Exactly this!
 
Good people of the exploration community,

There is nothing wrong with neutron farming.
Get this through your esteemed, forever curious skulls :D

This is not a glitch or unexpected use of game mechanics. If someone wants to farm neutrons, they first have to make a significant effort to just get to them; a journey not much shorter than going for Sag A. Then, they need to spend a lot of time and effort there scanning those neutron stars and black holes for the whole endeavor to make sense, and then make the trip back again. In the end they'll probably do more ly than they would have had they just beelined it to Sag A and back. For some, this will be their first foray into exploration, being naturally more inclined toward more bubble-located activities. Some may even decide they kind of like exploration and decide to try it for "real" next time.

If someone wants to do it just to get rank / credits, who are we to want FD to stop them? Why should we? Any actual explorer can't be afraid to run out of neutron stars, and I'd rather not think of us actual explorers as a snotty bunch who snorts their nose at someone doing exploration differently than we do, and thereby their play style is somehow worth less. I'd also like to think our egos can handle someone else having elite in exploration who doesn't primarily explore. Come on, this community is better than that.

The fact that a neutron star or a black hole are worth more than your run of the mill main sequence star makes sense to me. And no, prices should not become equal across the board to prevent people from farming neutrons, because, like I said before a) there's no reason to prevent those who want to grind / farm from doing so, and b) equal prices across the board, being the only real way to stop players from farming a specific object type, would make things a lot less interesting for a lot of players.

You may consider neutron farming boring. You may not consider it real exploration. You may even consider it beneath you. That does not mean it should be removed from the game.

I'm all for boosting detailed scan prices across the board, though - scanning should be more rewarding, credits over time wise, than just honking.
 
Last edited:
We're not saying it's wrong, just (presumably unintentionally) seriously unbalanced. I've done a fair bit myself and found some interesting systems as a result - indeed, I would do it when in the region, regardless of the profits. But you cannot seriously expect anyone to believe that it is a "good thing" that it is 4 times as profitable as other forms of exploring.

Also, no one is saying that everything should be equal. A targeted approach should always be more profitable than a scatter gun approach, that's a given. But there shouldn't be one approach that is so obviously over powered compared to the others.
 
We're not saying it's wrong, just (presumably unintentionally) seriously unbalanced. I've done a fair bit myself and found some interesting systems as a result - indeed, I would do it when in the region, regardless of the profits. But you cannot seriously expect anyone to believe that it is a "good thing" that it is 4 times as profitable as other forms of exploring.

Also, no one is saying that everything should be equal. A targeted approach should always be more profitable than a scatter gun approach, that's a given. But there shouldn't be one approach that is so obviously over powered compared to the others.


Why shouldn't there be? It's only "overpowered", or to be more precise, more powerful, for getting credits and rank - and credits wise, there are still far better ways to do it in the bubble so really, it's mostly about rank with credits being a means to an end (need 160 million to get elite). I don't see a problem here. If neutron stars are worth more than regular ones, and most of them are found in a specific location - the neutron fields - as long as that is the case, some will farm them.

What exactly is the problem here? I'm perfectly aware I could make more in the neutron fields yet I'm currently at the tip of the Scutum-Centaurus arm where spotting neutrons is a bit like spotting Bigfoot. I don't see this as being an issue of balance. And I'm also confused about what you're proposing as a solution to this "problem", which I'm not convinced it is a problem. The only way that I see is to equalize prices, or at least make them more similar to diminish the effect rather than remove it. And that would have worse consequences than not doing it at all.
 
If you look at the exploring CGs, it looks like FD is more interested in revealing new systems than it is in detailed scanning of those systems.
I'm all for boosting detailed scan prices across the board, though - scanning should be more rewarding, credits over time wise, than just honking.
Wait .... that was the topic right?

I was all agreeing and stuff, now I'm not so sure anymore.
 
Last edited:
Maybe this: instead of scaling by module size scale it by cost. Make the advanced scanners cost in the order of 200k/1mil/10mil/50mil credits?

The update to those scanners has to be done very carefull tho. If you use your ADS and - in the middle of a deep space exploration - that's replaced possibly by it's buy value and you lose the ads because actually it doesn't exist anymore after the update, you would be pretty bummed. Sitting 30kly away from everything with no scanner is a game breaker for an explorer.

Yeah, it's really almost not worth it to scan individual planets and moons. The only reason I do it is OCD. More range on the surface scanner would be nice, or if you scan a planet, it just grabs all the moons at the same time. That would be nice.

What i'd really like to see is a broadband scanner that has a fov of maybe 25° or 30° and will scan every object within range inside its fov. I mean come on, its 3302. We have quantum processors and are probably able to process signals and incoming radiation of all sorts from multiple astronomical objects parallelized in one go.
Also i'd like to see some multiplier to an astronomical object's base value, all based on how rare that is. i cant see why a herbig or wolf rayet star should be less valuable than an A or B when it's a lot (like really really a whole lot) rarer than those A or B.
 
But there shouldn't be one approach that is so obviously over powered compared to the others.

Why shouldn't there be?

That's an interesting question, and I say that because previously I saw no problem with neutron farming being the defacto exploration rank activity. I haven't any interest in doing it, but I haven't any interest in rank or in gaining credits in general.

Your question made me think about it in a different way and come to a different conclusion. Although I'm still not convinced anything has to change about neutron farming or exploration payouts, I do think a change in the way payouts work would be beneficial to the game in general. If it were up to me (full disclosure: pretty sure that would be a disaster):


  • The average value of surface scans would be higher than they are now, with the DSS bonus also being higher.
  • Ping value would be unchanged, or maybe slightly lower.
  • The market value for specific body types would fluctuate based on the quantities being handed in. SO: as a specific body type has a larger showing in surface scans (percentage-wise) its value goes down.

Under a system like that, neutron stars surface scans could become less valuable over time (while other body types become more valuable), but ONLY if the assumption is true that farming the neutron fields has lead to a disproportionately large number of neutron star surface scans being handed in.

The value in a system like this probably would not make neutron star farming obsolete, but it would devalue it a little bit while raising the value a bit of whatever it is that most people don't scan (asteroid fields?). It would also mean that Guy Who Doesn't Care About Exploring But Wants Triple Elite wouldn't necessarily be funneled into the most grindy, mind numbing application of exploration there is. Instead, when he comes here and asks for the fastest way to get to Elite. Well, maybe. Maybe the numbers would still push him to NS farming, and if that's his thing and it works, this system would at least tell us that this is not the main thing every explorer is doing (because if it was then it would pay out garbage).
 
Okay, so I did some research and ran some calculations.
Here are the tl;dr conclusions:
- Scan values for planets would have to be multiplied by six to equal profits from neutron star farming.
- Exploration would still yield considerably less credits per hour than combat or trading, even then.

So I'd say that neutron stars are fine as they are, but the values of planets would need a large buff - if we want all methods of exploration to be somewhat equal in terms of profit per time.
Since the analysis is a wall of text, I'll just put it in a spoiler tag.

Let's go with a 45000 Cr average for neutron stars, and 70000 Cr for Earth-like worlds. (Taken from http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Explorer) This is without a first discovery bonus, of course.

For neutron field farming, let's go with an explorer having to travel 15000 ly to a neutron field, finding no first discoveries there (a rather pessimistic assumption) and once they're there, scanning eight neutron stars per ten systems visited. (One less for refueling from a scoopable star every ten jumps, and one less to account for any other travels they might have to do.) Also, let's go with two other pessimistic assumptions: that they never once get a first discovery bonus (unlikely) and that none of the NS systems they visit contain anything but the star. Which is of course extremely unlikely - this is just for simplicity's sake.
This also assumes that they find no ELW-s around any of the neutron stars, which is also highly unlikely.

For ELW hunting, let's go with an explorer finding one undiscovered ELW per 200 systems if they are randomly travelling (a bit optimistic assumption), then finding one every 100 systems when they are doing a targeted search. (The best examples I've seen are around 1 ELW every 75 systems.) Also, for simplicity's sake, let's say that an explorer has to travel 2500 ly to get to an area where all the ELW-s are undiscovered, so they get the first discovery bonus for all of them.

Let's go with an explorer having a 35 ly jump range, and being capable of making one jump per minute while travelling. While honking and jumping, they'd average 5000 Cr per system. (That would mean systems would have ten bodies on average.)

So, how do the numbers measure up then?

First part: there and back again
A1: the explorer needs to do 429 jumps to get to the neutron field. This will take them a bit over 7 hours, and they'll find two Earth-likes on the way, likely undiscovered. That means 2,355,000 Cr for the way there, and since it'll be a return trip, it's 14.5 hours and 4,710,000 Cr. That means they make ~325,000 Cr per hour in this part.

B1: the explorer needs to do 72 jumps to get to the "ELW field". This will take them 1.2 hours, and they're unlikely to find an Earth-like along the way. The honk-and-jumping nets them 360,000 Cr. Assuming an exact same trip back again, it's 2.4 hours and 720,000 Cr for the return trip. That means they make 300,000 Cr per hour in this part - roughly the same amount they'd make if they went for the neutron fields instead, but with a lot less time investment.


Second part: farming NS-es / hunting ELW-s
A2: once they're there, the explorer finds 80 NS-es per 100 systems visited, netting them 3,600,000 Cr. The other twenty systems would net 5000 Cr each, so the total per 100 systems: 3,700,000 Cr. Let's go with a pessimistic assumption of the explorer spending three minutes in each system, as they still check the system map and pick the next destination from the galaxy map: that means they'll need five hours. Which means they'll make 740,000 Cr per hour in this part.

B2: for simplicity's sake, let's say that an explorer spends three minutes in each system while looking for ELW-s as well. (This includes looking at the galaxy map and flying to the one ELW they'll discover.) In this case, as they'll find one ELW per 100 systems, they'd get 105,000 Cr for the Earth-like and 495,000 Cr for the other systems. That means they make 600,000 Cr per five hours, so it's an astonishing 120,000 Cr per hour.
But hey, let's be a bit optimistic and assume that for every ELW, an explore would also find four WWTC-s that are worth the same amount. In effect, this could mean they'd find five Earth-likes per 100 systems. In that case, the total would be 1,000,000 Cr, bringing it up to 200,000 Cr per hour.


Total time and credits:
Let's assume that both explorers spend twenty hours with their searches.
For the NS farming, that'll mean 14.5 hours of travelling, netting them 4,710,000 Cr, then 5.5 hours in the field, netting them 4,070,000 Cr. The total is 8,780,000 Cr. On average, this would be 439,000 Cr per hour.
For the ELW hunting, that'll mean 2.4 hours of travelling and 17.6 hours of searching. If we go with the more optimistic rate of 200,000 Cr per hour on the latter part, the total profits for the twenty hours would be 4,240,000 Cr. On average, this would be 212,000 Cr per hour. Which is less than what they'd earn if they just honked and jumped the whole time.


So, what would be needed to bring ELW hunting up to NS farming? Again going with the optimistic assumption that they'd find effectively five ELW-s worth of scans for 100 systems, the increase in ELW value would also compensate the NS farmers a bit while they are travelling. So, let's just compare the second parts first. For an ELW hunter to make 3,700,000 Cr per five hours, instead of the base 70,000 Cr price, Earth-likes would have to be worth 430,000 Cr. (Without the FD bonus.) That's a 6.14x multiplier. Since that included four terraforming candidate water worlds, they'd have to be multiplied the same too.
And this is assuming that no Earth-likes will be found while farming neutron stars. I haven't farmed neutron stars, so I have no idea how many you'd need to visit on average to find one ELW.


Finally, as I already mentioned in the tl;dr summary, even in this dreamlike scenario, exploration would still yield considerably less credits per hour than almost every other activity in the game. If you want to see something funny, try calculating how much the multiplier would have to be to match long-distance ("Robigo") smuggling runs.
Of course, said runs involve much more risk, and the profits from them are far higher than anything else in the game anyway. For the record, I'm in no way saying that exploration should match that.

If you've actually read this wall of text, thanks for taking the time to do so!

It is entirely possible that some of my assumptions and calculations are wrong, but if anyone does point such errors out, I'd like to ask them to re-calculate the final multiplier then. I'm curious about how it would be then.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so I did some research and ran some calculations.
So I'd say that neutron stars are fine as they are, but the values of planets would need a large buff - if we want all methods of exploration to be equal.

I certainly don't. Everything being of (roughly) equal value sounds incredibly monotonous to me. And no, I don't explore for the money, but feeling like everything is of the same value would be immersion breaking and lame, reducing different object types to different visuals only. No thanks.
 
I certainly don't. Everything being of (roughly) equal value sounds incredibly monotonous to me. And no, I don't explore for the money, but feeling like everything is of the same value would be immersion breaking and lame, reducing different object types to different visuals only. No thanks.
I didn't say that. I think you misunderstood what I meant with that one line, so I've corrected my earlier post. Do you think then that neutron farming should be far superior in terms of profits per time to all other methods of exploration?
 
Last edited:
Do you think then that neutron farming should be far superior in terms of profits per time to all other methods of exploration?

Yes, I do. I honestly don't see a problem with it; those who don't like exploring but have an ocd need to get triple elite can do it via this method. Explorers themselves can use it to boost their profits when passing through the area. There's no real problem here.

What exploration needs is additional content, things for explorers to do, not endless fiddling with various sliders.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom