Forum - Space Odyssey MMORPG - a massive free online space game

THes are all of the formulas I know... I came up with all of them except for the powercore formula... Let me know what you think.  The variable weight shield and computer formulas have a margin of error and should be round to the nearest multiple of 33, dance around the area ther formula produces and you'll find it pretty quickly.

-Computers: ((170666x2^ACU-10+8166)-(333.33333333x(Weight-8))1.000003908= Energy       This only works for weight 8 and 10+.  In between is a turbulent confusing area I would have to make a chart for.  So if the weight is greater than or equal to 10 subtract 716 before multiplying by 1.000003908.

-Shields: ((((8533x2^ABS-20)+(7833-(333.333333333x(W-14)1.000003908= Energy      Shields also have a turbulent area between 8 and 14 so if the weight of the shield is equal to 8 use (W-8) in the equation instead of (W-14) and if the weight is greater than or equal to 14 subtract 1189 before multiplying by 1.000003908.

-Armor: (Weightx66.67-1067).99995028= HP   Yay!  The simplest one!

-Power Core: Weightx400-5279= Energy    For everyone who doesn't know it yet

-Sostesteg
   -Synchronized Empire on SO
   -Zum Garon on SO WARS

i have a powercore formula i use and like better.. its a bit diff

Hum, well, it has been generally established that each component that takes energy has an optimal weight when put in superships.

When that is the case, all of the equations typically collapse into simple binomial equations.

I found that all the equations collaspse into really cheap up until a weight of about 40 and up... some even getting down to 1 credit.  But the larger the weight gets the smaller this price well gets until it only has one energy value cheaper than 1000 which isn't nearly as cheap as 1-3 credits.  And yes...  each weight constant has a simpler equation...  You can simply use (8533x2^ABS-20+7833)1.000003908= Energy for shields if the weight is 8 and (170666x2^ACU-10+8166)1.000003908= Energy if that is the case for computers.


For power cores if you know the energy output you want you can use this equation:
(Energy+5279)/400= Weight

hmm i use (space-13) x 400 - 79 = eng

if you use the distributive property on that you get Spacex400-5200-79=Energy.  If you simplify that you end up with Spacex400-5279= Energy which is what I posted :19:

meh i figured it was something close to the same, i just never took the time to look at it

If you use a set weight, then you can always adjust the energy consumption to bring the cost back to a range of 1-3 credits, roughly. Due to the weight-to-energy compensation, there is a set optimal weight for every energy consuming component on a supership.

Alright Chronos to prove my point I've made this table:

Weight     Energy     ACU     Price   Relative Price
40           43687499  +18%   3        18030666
40           10919499  +16%   3        93768
40           167499     +10%   3        78666
26           342833     +11%   1        148124
15           2735833   +14%   1        1135654
12           91499      +9%     3        42694
8             87389499 +19%   3        36052461

As you can see there is no real optimum weight... I chose these wieght and ACU values at complete random.

You err. You forgot to incorporate the effective cost of the energy and weight.

Where does weight come from? The hull. Where does the hull get its weight from? Credits.

Where does energy come from? The powercore. Where does the powercore get its energy from? Weight, which comes from the hull, which gets it from credits.

Every particular production from every component that takes energy has the same optimum point, respectively, at which weight stops being as useful in the component as it is when converted to energy.

Oh... I see what you mean now... I've made another chart...  All of them have +10%

Weight    Power   ACU   Relative  Price
40          167499 +10%    78663
30          170833 .......     78498
20          174166 .......     78168
18          174833 .......     76848
15          175833 .......     78003
12          176833 .......     78003
8            178866 .......     78168

I think this is surprising... there is an optimum price range, it does NOT include 8 as a lot of people thought... It runs from 12 to 16.  In fact a weight of 8 is just as efficient as a weight of 20.   I think we've found the real optimum weight range for computers  0o

What optimum weight you get depends on what formulae you use. I have not played in years, so I would probably not be the best person to ask. If you did find a better optimum weight, that would be interesting.

And I am not saying that your formulae are bad, just that their full form is not always needed.

Ya... well they work... That would be very nice if 12 was the actually the optimum weight.

The main reason to stick with weight 8 is to leave more space for your power core reducing the cost and if you use weight 12 your power core is going to cost more running up the final price of your ship.

no infact...  more power generation on a power core doesn't make it more exspensive.  I've designed a power core that generates 1bil power that cost only 2credits.

hes talking about space, if u use more space for other systems you will have less space for your powercore... thus having less energy

only 1,600 less energy... thats nothing

Yes, the difference between an 8-weight weapon and a 12-weight weapon on a 1.000.000.000 weight supership is minuscule. However, one has to pick some value for the weight, and it might as well be the best one.

The optimum weight is not that hard to find out with absolute certainty.

Increasing the weight of these computers from 8 to 12 takes off 2033 energy needed while decreasing the enrgy the ship is able to produce by 1600 making 433 extra power which is 1 space in correlation  :wow:.  So therefore increasing the weight of a system from 8 to 12 provides more overall space because the system no longer needs as much power.

I am getting tired of this. Here is the answer, for all those that want to know:

One energy costs 2.5 credits on the powercore.
One weight provides 1000 credits on the powercore.

Ergo, one weight provides 1000/2.5 = 400 energy on the power core.

---

One energy provides 3 credits on a weapons system.
Ergo, one weight in the powercore provides 400*3 = 1200 credits on the weapons system.

One weight directly provides 1000 credits on a weapons system.

---

Therefore, energy is obviously more efficient. The question becomes, when does energy become more efficient. This amounts to the question of at what point weight starts providing less than 1200 credits.

Here is a chart of how many credits each unit of weight provides to weapons systems for the first phase of its formula:

2nd = 102.400 credits
3rd = 51.200 credits
4th = 25.600 credits
5th = 12.800 credits
6th = 6.400 credits
7th = 3.200 credits
8th = 1.600 credits
9th = 800 credits
10th = 400 credits
11th = 200 credits
12th = 100 credits
13th = 1.100 credits
14th = 1.000 credits
15th = 1.000 credits
et cetera.

As can obviously be seen from this chart, weight becomes very inefficient after the 8th unit but is the most efficient before that. Therefore, the optimum weight for weapons systems is 8.

---

As for computers, everything is the same, except for the low weight return. Here is a chart for that:

2nd = 128.000
3rd = 64.000
4th = 32.000
5th = 16.000
6th = 8.000
7th = 4.000
8th = 2.000
9th = 3.000
10th = 1.000
11th = 1.000
et cetera.

As is obvious from this chart, direct weight goes below 1.200 credits after the ninth unit. Therefore, nine is the optimum weight for computers.

12 is more efficient than 8, but 9 is the most efficient.

---

Check the numbers, if you wish, but they do not lie.

Ah yes... Chronos is correct... using weight 9 frees up 1.5 space while 12 frees up 1.  Therefore it is more efficient.  Welll thankyou for this arguement; it has made the forum users of this game more efficient when designing computers.