ok, as far as im concerned, i feel like CCP didnt gave us all the tool to analyse the exo-planet transit in those graph.
Basically, they teach us to look for:
1- noticeble pitch / dip in the luminosity graph
2- "V" or "U" shaped dip
3- recognisable pitch / dip pattern
4- same pithc deep and width
5- do not get confuse between a real "dip" and the natural cycle of the graph
But, look at this picture... how can we evaluate this optic signature as being a "planatary transit" according to the above mentionned rule?
We are missing some tools to detect those kind of transit.
My feeling is that those transits only apprear in those "already" analysed graphs that are used to establish your % of accuracy. They serve as barometer.
Now if you noticed, every few new analysis, after completing your task, your %accuracy will either goes up (succes) or down (failure). This metirc should prevent you from doing poor analysis and claim your reward freely. The rewards you claim (exp + ISK) are based on your % accuracy level.
In between those % accuracy varication you recieved after analysis, you have to analyse few additionnals samples that wont change your % accuracy regardless of it being a succes or a failure. Those analysis are the true one they want the community consensus about and were prolly not already analysed by the scientists.
Now, in the reference graphs (the one that influence your %accuracy according to failure or succes), i feel like there is some transit that are evaluated with some advanced methods like avarage reduction in the signal over a short period of time (floating averange) or something like that. Unfortunatly, the tutorial enforced by CCP doesnt give us the tools and knowledge to identify those transits.
Rework your tutorial CCP or get rid of those samples.
This text will be hidden