These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Planetary Interaction extractor head values
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rasmus Merelli
Empire of the Lobster
#1 - 2013-03-13 22:14:00 UTC
I've been trying to fully understand the math behind extractor control units, but I'm having trouble finding a correlation between the value given for an extractor head unit and the cycle output. I haven't been able to find any posts that go into this level of detail. On the surface, arranging your extractor heads to have the highest numbers would seem to make sense, but that doesn't appear to always be true...

Below is a table (if there's a better way to display, please suggest!) showing head values for extractor heads on two planets. I took five random samplings of placement of one head and then the output per cycle for the first four cycles. The final column is the total output for the four cycles divided by the head value. I did this on two planets for comparison. In general, a larger head value yields a higher output. But this is not always true, and there are quite a few remarkable exceptions to the pattern. The AMT/Head ratio spans from 36 to 58 and does not appear to be correlative to the overall head value (larger head = larger ratio, for example).

Does anyone have any ideas on this or have any resources that would help explain this? I'm trying to optimize my PI arrangements to be as efficient as possible, but I'm finding it difficult to pin down a consistent methodology to get the most out of the extractor heads.

Additionally, is there any understanding of what causes spikes in cycle output over time? In general, each cycle is less than the previous, but there are always spikes where a cycle's output may be 20-50% greater than the previous or next cycle.

Planet______Program_____Head value__Cycle 1_Cycle 2_Cycle 3_Cycle 4_AMT/Head
Faurent I___Base Metals_90.57_______1006____992_____936_____858_____41.86
Faurent I___Base Metals_85.23_______949_____893_____809_____752_____39.92
Faurent I___Base Metals_63.46_______834_____819_____772_____708_____49.36
Faurent I___Base Metals_88.66_______810_____800_____791_____782_____35.90
Faurent I___Base Metals_15.66_______167_____158_____144_____138_____38.76
Faurent II__Base Metals_78.87_______1290____1221____1112____983_____58.39 Attention
Faurent II__Base Metals_72.73_______802_____759_____691_____642_____39.79 Attention
Faurent II__Base Metals_45.96_______524_____495_____450_____404_____40.75
Faurent II__Base Metals_45.85_______519_____490_____445_____404_____40.52
Faurent II__Base Metals_25.55_______247_____235_____228_____225_____36.59
Invictra Atreides
Toward the Terra
#2 - 2013-03-14 05:12:11 UTC
I don't think those spikes have anything to do with extraction mechanics. When you start a program and it tells you it will extract 1.6 mill units total then that amount will be removed from the planet within 1 min and can be sometimes seen on the resource heat map after 30-60 min when the data refreshes. The spikes in a program are probably random to make the whole PI experience a bit more Spicy.

Blog | Tutorials | Youtube "I don’t know everything, I just know what I know."
Rasmus Merelli
Empire of the Lobster
#3 - 2013-03-14 20:26:10 UTC
Invictra Atreides wrote:
I don't think those spikes have anything to do with extraction mechanics. When you start a program and it tells you it will extract 1.6 mill units total then that amount will be removed from the planet within 1 min and can be sometimes seen on the resource heat map after 30-60 min when the data refreshes. The spikes in a program are probably random to make the whole PI experience a bit more Spicy.


I'm not as concerned with the spikes as I am with the relation of the extractor head value to its output. It doesn't seem to follow much of a pattern. I can get the highest output by dragging the extractor head around randomly and watching the total output and finding the highest spot for it. It's counter-intuitive and seemingly random, which is not the status quo for eve; it's driving me to believe there's a factor that I'm missing.
Invictra Atreides
Toward the Terra
#4 - 2013-03-14 21:41:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Invictra Atreides
You're getting paranoid :P

The resources on the planet are randomly placed. You might see a flat large area of White, but in reality it's like a cheese with holes. The thing is that the extractor head has a larger size than the smallest resource point on the planet. A 1h program makes the ECU heads still to big and so the representing number will be an average of the many resource points beneath the ECUs head.

Example of 2 different ECU head placements on a Read colored resource:

area A
7 8 7 9 6 5
8 8 8 6 7 6
8 8 9 6 7 7
7 8 9 9 7 7
5 8 8 8 9 7

area B
7 8 7 9 6 5
8 8 8 6 7 6
8 8 9 6 7 7
7 8 1 1 7 7
5 8 8 8 9 7

So lets assume that the resource heat map averages a field of 32 points to color the surface. Area A and B would then on average be colored in the same color. The ECUs head on the other hand shows a value for the average of 8 points. You move the head around and it is random as you said, you can't predict where the miniature resource holes are. With 5/5 skills you should only see minor changes to the total output while moving a head on the same colored area.


Just asking, but for the example you gave about the head values being not consistent with the output, maybe try to do the math for all the cycles in a program (24h). It should show correct values. A higher value on the head will extract more resources per cycle trough the entire program.

Blog | Tutorials | Youtube "I don’t know everything, I just know what I know."
Rasmus Merelli
Empire of the Lobster
#5 - 2013-03-14 22:33:15 UTC
I am a tad paranoid. :) That explanation satisfies me, mostly. Regarding this, however:

Invictra Atreides wrote:
Just asking, but for the example you gave about the head values being not consistent with the output, maybe try to do the math for all the cycles in a program (24h). It should show correct values. A higher value on the head will extract more resources per cycle trough the entire program.


A higher value on the head does not absolutely result in more units extracted. Here's some data and screenshots from 4 heads from the same extractor in different configurations. I can live with moving the heads around like I'm using a Ouija board, but it sets off my OCD tendencies to have the heads scattered around instead of grouped neatly. Pirate

Config 1, what I would expect to be the "best"
Heads: 107.16, 107.62, 107.36, 106.75 (total 428.89)
Program output: 44,929 units
Screenshot: http://imgur.com/RPMVFlc

Config 2, what I would expect to yield less output
Heads: 103.12, 96.33, 96.45, 102.83 (total 398.73 -- 7% less than config 1)
Program output: 54,166 units (21% more output than config 1)
Screenshot: http://imgur.com/0TPoB0b
Rasmus Merelli
Empire of the Lobster
#6 - 2013-03-14 22:45:43 UTC
I had an idea, and I think I figured it out. by looking at it on a short time frame (screenshots were 3 hour programs), I was able to arrange the heads in such a way that the random "spikes" were happening towards the beginning. When I extended the program to 2 days and rearranged to find the highest output, grouping in the center where you would expect the best results provided the highest total yield by approximately 2% over the previous arrangement.

So longer programs make the spikes statistically less significant and therefore make extractor heads with higher quality numbers correlate very closely with higher output. I am now satisfied since math has won against paranoia!