Finding Rare Materials - A Scientific Approach

[AJW]

After over 2000km of SRV prospecting, I personally believe that it's all just random with regards to node density and type. I've had a planet that was loaded with meteorites, but then I logged off from the SRV on the surface, and then logged back in to the same planet and coordinates only to have outcrops galore and nothing else. The only constant I've consistently witnessed is the 3-2-1 pattern which is fixed for each planet. However, I admit that my hunch could be wrong, and node types and densitys might be influenced by other factors. If they are though then it's only a small influence and not a strong factor.

Was your initial landing point in one of the blue 'points of interest' circles? If so, logging out and back in again may have caused it to shift elsewhere - I think they are created on a per-instance basis.

 

[Ziljan]

I added the age of the star to the Worlds tab, which also has total and % of the various types of materials found. I then summed the % of VR found on each planet and put that in another column and used the 'correlate' function to see if there was a linear correlation between the star age and % of VR found. I noticed there were some odd entries (worlds where only VR had been found, so probably someone got lucky and didn't continue to survey) and I removed those (there were three of them). The resulting correlation was -0.0579 and change, which does slightly favor younger stars giving out a higher % of VR, but is really low and (IMO) not at all conclusive.

I'm not a statistician, so I could be making a mistake. I've left the columns on the World tab in case anyone else wants to take a look.

PS There are relatively few entries in the System tab because each system can have multiple worlds and each world can have multiple surveys and each survey can have multiple log entries.

Thank you Starry! A valiant effort. I should mention that the trend I noticed was the meteorites spawned first or quickly on the younger planets. So those data points with just "early rares" might not be inaccurate. Also, the spawn rate of very rares is so low in general that using it as a statistical metric would be problematic at best. I think a better measure might be the total sum of "rares +very rares" vs "the total mats collected". All while noting the frequency of meteorites. Also, we don't know how long the CMDRs were searching. They could have roamed for 3 hours and waited until they found a meteorite before they mined the first node thus resulting in "paydirt." And metallicity is a metric is correlated to age, it has a high variance, so you need a LARGE sample size to show the trend accurately (assuming there really is one!). The test conditions also should be identical which means:

same time period
similar landing sites
similar star type
similar number and distribution of bodies
etc


Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone else to be meticulous for someone pot brained theory on the internet. And since I am the one hypothesizing that this *might* still be true, it is up to me to offer the proof, or put it to rest.

 

[starry]

Also, the spawn rate of very rares is so low in general that using it as a statistical metric would be problematic at best. I think a better measure might be the total sum of "rares +very rares" vs "the total mats collected".

So, because it was easy I did that and the resulting correlation was -0.153 ish.

 

[Ziljan]

So, because it was easy I did that and the resulting correlation was -0.153 ish.

Well that's promising And that there is any correlation at all present in such a relatively small sample set means that it's worth ongoing investigation. Especially under uncontrolled testing conditions. There are likely several unknown confounding variables and degrees of variances. And with the given info, at best we can measure a material rarity frequency with a potentially varying selection bias depending on the pilot's knowledge and preferences. And that doesn't even begin to take into account all of the other possible confounding variables that I listed in my OP.

I am going to have to carefully design a criteria and methodology to figure out how to isolate the variables and correlations that I want to test. The neutron fields would be a good place to start. As well as the arms vs the the gaps.

 

[starry]

In addition to all the potential problems already listed, this correlation measures the strength of a linear association, which we probably wouldn't have. So, here are the values plotted for a visual comparison.



Edit: I'd say we don't have enough data on old stars to know if the spike for young ones is meaningful.

 

[coca_fr]

Nice guide !

I confirm that coloration spawn more rare materials on planets. I saw that on a video, then i decided to try myself.

On one of the planet with some rare i was interested in didn't get me much rare but a lot of common materials. As soon as i landed on the planet with a darker mark i had like only rare materials over and over again.

I then landed on the next planet because i needed drastically phosphorous for refuel... I couldn't found any beside it's 8% avaibility : only rare materials. Well i was on the darker mark on the surface. So i launched and headed to to a normal white area... and here it is Sulphurous ! The change in spawn was drastic !