Spectrum wrote:lets all kill beaker!
That's like shooting dead fish in a barrel.
Anyway, I've spent various free time researching how different methods work, and what numbers are correct.
I've come to the following conclusions:
I certainly mis-understood certain aspects of refining. Refining isn't people, it is machines, and while it's capacity is associated with people, it's function is not.
Therefore, refining rate would have to be a constant, which is that of the best efficiency on a 100% metal planet.
This all means that ore can eventually be refined (I did always think it was odd that my understanding didn't allow that).
Which brings me to the final issue: what number to use?
MW3 manual states 40% (0.4*), Spectrum claims 30% was used in CIS MW3.
My finding is that SE was certainly different. To the best of my calculations, SE was coming out at 53-58%. Of course, I know my calculations have a margin of error that forces them to be on the highest possible end of possible values. This is caused by taking values at a static time when there is snowball-like build up to get to those numbers. On the intentional 'low' end I was around 44% which puts an unweighted median at 51, but mathmatically that number would also be just slightly high.
So the deduction I came to was that SE was 50%
This means 50% metal planets is where Services became the better alternative to mining as well, which does in fact match at statement from Pitchonomics:
Pitchonomics wrote:Planets with Metal Ratings of less than 50% require a different style of PM in order for the planet to be successful. I suggest that if you wish to establish low metal planets that you experiment with the PM discussed under Low Metals PM]
I was previously using 40% but will likely be changing to 50% in my next update, but I haven't decided when to apply this just yet.