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

have a good design that cost around 2mill? :-\
thnx. ;D
_regards_
zephyrblade

yes

I have several designs as well, but that doesn't mean you're going to get you're hand on them.  ;D

You wouldnt even want mine as you would have to design way over hundred different systems.

Yeah lol FTP I've seen your ships... impressive, yet insanely complex... lol

try one of ars's 140 someodd for one catergory alone.

Yeah... can't forget ars' crazy ships either.  ;D

nope, those things take forever to design now. once long ago you could make them rapidly with the back button, but alas, that is no more.

yes, a true pain, whichever way you look at it.  glad I designed it already.

I had to design my ships without using the back button think its has 160 systems in total, heel that took me long :'(

ars's uses just about that many too. And I had to design it without the back button too once, cause he had two of them, and I only had one. Boy, what fun THAT was.

Yea, well I can't understand what's so good about making a ship with hundreds off items. ??? As far as I can see, there is no gain in doing that. A ship doesn't get any better when you do that. It's only more work making such a ship. Maybe my mathematics aren't correct, but I think making a design like that is stupid. It's just a thought off mine, no need to feel offended.  ;)

actually, a ship with a lot of systems can get the same stats as a ship with one or two systems per design type, but cost less. You'll have to ask ars for the specifics there, but it is true. That's how you can get a 50% abs and have like, half the cost, multiple systems. It works, trust me.

With computer and shield, I agree. But there is no use in putting more then 10 off each on a ship. I figured out the formula on how multiple items add up to a total and as far as my calculations go, there is no gain in making more than 5 computers or shields per ship. I've worked several weeks on finding the optimum for each specific amount off absorb, designing and redesigning and more redesigning.
For example: if I want a total off 50% absorb on a ship then I need to do this to get the lowest cost:
combine 1 shield 30% abs, 2 shields 28% abs and 1 shield 20% abs.
And trust me, this is the optimum for this. No need to put togheter 50 or more shields.

For weapons, defence or armor I haven't found any such optimum besides 1 single such system.

You might be right, but I don't see it. Besides, I'm not gonna do that because i'm way to lazy  ::) and I only use my own designs. One day I might be in the mood to try it. ;)

Ask ars, he can explain it better then I can.

Oh well after all, I got very curious and did some testing myself and yes you are right. The cost is lower. Thanks for the tip. You just gave me a new way off improving my ships.  ;D

Anytime. Sir Emi said the same thing then ars did his mathmatical thing and Sir Emi is like, "wow, looks like I'm wrong." No clue why it is. Now to delete those posts so others can't improve it ;)

rotfl  ;D

you misplaced your letters, lol. Oh well, we know what you mean.

Further investigations show my previous statement is wrong.  :-[
Further calculations show the cost off 1 single weapon system is lower then multiple systems. Same goes for specials and armour.
I could try to proove this but it would be way too much mathematics I think, only making you more boored.
So I'm gonna stick to my designs with only a single weapon, defence and armour system.

K, thx, corected my mistake ;)

I don't think you are right ronald, maybe after or before a certain point yea, but around 130 of them it is cheaper, I know that for sure.

I've done my mathematics up to 1000 weapon systems per ship (no need to really design it, I know the cost exactly without really making the design, I use formulas to predict the cost off a certain system exactly) and I assure you it is wrong what you and ars are saying.

Maybe it is something else then, but I know that making multiple designs gets you more of something or makes the cost less for something then making one big one. Maybe you get more attack or accuracy.

Depends, there are a lot of variables in this problem, if you have a lot of systems lets say 10 of 100 weight and 100 energy, it would be cheaper to make one whith the same cumulated weight, energy and bonuses, but if you have 100 such systems you would get cheaper by geting lots of small ones, exception are the shield because of the formula used to make the total abs of the shield ;)

So, that means we are both right, it just depends on how you are making the ship stats?

Yes exactly ;)
If you make multiple ships you can get higher bonuses at the same price but if you make 10 or 15 it maight cost you more then a single design ;)

Depends on what kind of designs you use and how many of them you plan to use ;)

I see. That makes sense, lol.

That is whi the first time he tried Ronald said you are right and the second time said that you are wrong ;)

Ok I shall try to convince you by giving an example, if you see something is not right tell me then:
Weapon 1 :
12.600.000 attack and 40% ACC
1 weight and 42.076.513 energy
cost: 1 credit

Weapon 2:
1.260.000.000 attack  and 40% ACC
1 weight and 4.200.076.513 energy
cost: 1 credit

100 weapon 1 is same as 1 weapon 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
=>
100 Weapon 1:
1.260.000.000 attack  and 40% ACC
100 weight and 4.207.651.300 energy
cost: 1 credit
powercore for these 100 weapon 1
4.207.651.300 energy and 10.519.141 weight
cost: 450 credits

Total weight off 100 weapon 1 and powercore is: 10.519.241 weight
=> ship hull: 10.519.241 space = 1.735.674.765 credits

Total cost ship= 1.735.674.765 + 1 + 450 credits = 1.735.675.216 credits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 weapon 2:
1.260.000.000 attack  and 40% ACC
1 weight and 4.200.076.513 energy
cost: 1 credit

powercore for this weapon 2:
4.200.076.513 energy and 10.500.204 weight
cost=483 credits

Total weight off weapon 2 and powercore is: 10.500.205 weight
=> ship hull: 10.500.205 space = 1.732.533.825 credits

Total cost ship= 1.732.533.825 + 1 + 483 credits = 1.732.534.309 credits
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So conclusion:
multi weapon costs:1.735.675.216 credits
single weapon costs:1.732.534.309 credits

So multi weapon costs 3.140.907 more than single weapon.

I hope I didn't make any mistakes.  ;)

Like BOS said, it depends on how many, what the stats are.

All I can say to that is, "mathematics don't lie".

Yes they do, you calculated the weapons to rigid ;) try making them of 1000 credits, you will see my point exactly, and as i said, one very big is more efective then a lot of big ones, but at the small ones that rule dosn't aply ;)

All I can say is you did it for one type of ships and actual math does lie, you may not have all the parts to the equation, and what if you were off somewhere by 1 number? that changes the whole equation. And mathmaticans have actually found that a couple equations were wrong, so what if your equation is wrong?

Agree ;D

Arrgh..tis why Im a pirate...***takes asprin***

LOOOOOOOOOOOL  ;D

lol, mrtimbr. This is why I suck at amth, but I know I'm at least half right.

Well, let me see,

as for bos, I can give you the same thing for a weapon costing 10000 times less then the ones I use in my example. I calculated it and it gave me the same results. I'm not that stupid.  >:( Reason why it is the same for smaller systems too, it's a linear formula. (for those who know a bit off mathematics)

As for Luffy, math doesn't lie. In all ship designs I ever made I've used my formulas and not once I found a mistake. The formulas I use are correct, I've tested them over a thousand times.  >:(
When I design a ship, I allways make it with my formulas first and that way I calculate the cost off my design. When I know what it will cost then I start designing it in the game and guess what, the design allways has the cost I predicted with my formulas. That is the way it is.
And another thing is, just to be sure, I designed the weapon 1 and 2 and the 2 powercores and the 2 ship hulls I use in the example and I found the numbers I stated are correct.
If you don't believe me, design them yourself and you'll see.

Ronald, I trust ars more then you, and if ars tells me it does something different then buying just 1 big one, then i believe him. I said I thought he said it was cheaper, but he might have said it gives more attack, or accuracy. This was in the beginning of the round, two rounds ago. i don't remember exactly. Ask ars, he'll tell you everything. All I know is, I am half right that it does something different, no one would design that many if it didn't.

you are both right.  and ronald, the reason is, it looks like you are comparing each to same exact stats, but what I use is this (and I will put actual thing in case it is a bug, because then it won't matter if I DO show it or not)

weight: 1
cost: 1
energy: 174
Attack: 17123 
ACU: 1%

now, when you multiply this by 100 (as in 100 exactly the same weapon systems of this kind) the total comes out to:

weight: 100
cost: 100
energy: 17400
attack: 1712300
ACU: 1%

now, you try designing 1 single system with anything like this, it comes out to 1mil+ for total cost.  the only thing however, is that the ACU% has to be so low, that it almost completely makes the ship worthless as a real ship, but because of creating such a high attack value (almost 2 mil) you can easily create a ship costing 40k, that gives a power of 20k, or something like that.  almost the exact opposite of tinyman, actually.  you have tinyman over here that is extremely low power to stats, then you have this which is extremely high power to actual stats.  lol.

See, I knew I was right somewhere along the line.

Ah, but by measuring or calculating something, your interaction with it changes the outcome, so math dosent lie but by the inherent laws of nature will never be 100% correct.  So it appears to lie.  I think...

no your not...

Ok I've tried to make such one system:
so you're ship would cost about 26005 credits  (includes hull, powercore and the 100 weapon systems)
I made a ship with same total attack costing 92765 credits (also includes the same).
So I must admit, you are right. I'm sorry.  :-[
This doesn't mean my formulas I use are wrong, I just only didn't test them for such low amounts off acc.

conclusion:
For very small systems your trick works and for bigger systems it doesn't work.

I don't really understand what you are saying. But if I'm right on what I think you are trying to point out then I must say you are wrong (in this case). This game is nothing more than a computer system using exact numbers and formulas. So it is perfectly possible to find those formulas while in nature it won't be that easy.
In nature you will never get the real result because the measuring instruments you use are limited because the accuracy off the measurement (statistics can help to find an average which can make you're measurements more accurate). For example measuring the length off a line will never be exact because it depends on how accurate you're measuring instrument is. Sometimes it is also the case that when different people do the same measurement with the same measuring instrument, each and everyone off them will get a different result.
In this game there are no such accuracy problems because all numbers you see here are exact.

No, he's saying that th laws of nature will cloud math and make it APPEAR to be wrong when it isn't. Because there are so many variables in the equation that we were trying to figure out, most of the time, you were right, but there was a small area where we were right, which makes your math APPEAR to lie. In truth, it wasn't lying, you just had the wrong numbers for that part of the equation. The equation was right, just not the numbers that were input.

thanks for clearing that out, I must have misunderstood.  ::)

I myself always use alot of weapons at 11% and 14% still Ars all the way :)

I wont post exact stats here if ronald realy needs to have them PM me.

I have a ship with 147 weapon systems on it:
For 455 Weight and 192073 Energy it gives me: 2.802.024 attack with and 11% acc (yes 11% not 1)

And in 1 weapon:

     System Name           Weight         Energy Req   
 Custom Weapon 156      455              192073   
 Attack: 2802024             ACU: 11%   


This system will cost you 26.730.521 credits to put on a ship.

If you want I can raise acu a bit more and still having it cheaper then 1 weapon.

147 Weapons with stats: 2.695.104 and 14% acu cost: 515 Weight and 215613 energy

One weapon:
   System Name           Weight    Energy Req   
 Custom Weapon 156     515         215613   
 Attack: 2695104       ACU: 14%


This system will cost you 25.575.701 credits to put on a ship.

Ok FTP, so you think it also works for higher percentage.

one single system would look like this:
System Name           Weight         Energy Req   
 Custom Weapon 156      1             9318179   
 Attack: 2802024             ACU: 11%   

That will give a total cost for this system (powercore and ship hull included) off 3.845.988 credits. With some extra adjustments I think I can make cost even less, but I'm too lazy to do that right now. Further adjustments would be: adding some extra acc up to maybe 40% and meanwhile lowering the amount off attack so that the total attack, acc included, would still be the same. Then it would cost even less than 3845988.

FTP, he already said he relaized he was wrong in that case, but he is also right with the big systems.

You talked about 1% powerships so i thoughed my beatiful weapons are not powership weapons  :-[

yes, but he said he knew that it worked with the percentages. Almost everyone knows that.

the point of my mighty (ok, it's actually weak, give me a break, it's a specialty ship  :P ) powership is in that fact that it generates SO MUCH power.  if I were to actually raise that ACC, it would either mean: more energy or space (which means more credits down the line in powercore or hull) or lower attack, or higher cost.  but if I lower attack, I will actually lower how much power it generates.  also, I have found a way to increase the ACC by a lot, but after experimenting a little, found it just did not hold up to par.  so basically, ronald you are right when you want high ACC.  we are right when you want absolute max attack regardless of ACC.  now, what was my point I was trying to make again?  oh well.  lol

There was no point at all, I think.  ;D
It was just me not believing making hundreds off systems on one ship would be any good.  ::)
So you've convinced me, it is possible. Thanks Ars and luffy. ;)

No problem, tat's what this forum is for.....i think. Can't see any other reason other then yelling back and forth at each other about who is right until someone proves we both are, lol. Jk.

hmmm........ strange this doesn't seem to be the thread i started. ???

Ok just to clarify my earlier post about math 'lying':
Up until the advent of quantum mechanics, everyone thought that the precision of any measurement was limited only by the accuracy of the instruments the experimenter used. Heisenberg showed that no matter how accurate the instruments used, quantum mechanics limits the precision when two properties are measured at the same time.
Hope that clears it up for all of you.  lol

Uh.....no, you lost me there. I'll just go with, math can appear to lie when things are too complicated and have lots of variables.

Ah how is this possible, we are discussing quantum mechanics and measurement accurracies on a game forum. Shame on you mrtimbre.  ;D
Just kidding.  ;)
I don't know nothing about quantum mechanics so I guess I can better shut up about it.   :-[

All I know is that it proves time travel IS plausable. i know only the science part of it though, none of the mathimatical stuff that goes with it, lol.

zephyrblade: it's not what you posted about any more because we discussed it for the first two pages, then you never posted again til now, so we started to get off topic.

Luffy: Time travel is an impossibility.  The laws of physics prove that going backwards in time in not feasible, because time is a unchanging variable.

Well, how do you explain time be affected by gravity? Such as it supposedly being slowed the closer you get to a "black hole". If it can be slowed or sped up, then it is techinically possible to go backwards... just not in the sense most thing. You could go near.. say a year passes for you, and 10 years pass outside. You come out, and you have in a sense gone back 9 years in time.. although you can never get back to the 9 years past it, until those 9 years have passed..

In that scenario you will have gone forward in time. But other than that what you said is very true. The only problem is having the ability to
get back out.

its kind of a paradox.. you have, to the people on earth been gone 10 years. but to you 1. so from someone elses point of view, you have gone back in time. but to you, you have gone forward 10 years...

But still, putting Einstein's theories aside, time travel is an impossibility.

Time travel is possible, because we have no d**n clue how the universe works. We can't properly explain black holes, and numerous other things. Now, the way science fiction depicts time travel is impossible, but time travel itself is possible, as you would only need to create an influx at a single point in time which wuold cause what is known as an improbability jump, which would put you somewhere else in time, and possibly space at random (of course, it may turn you into a duck, but eh.). If that could be properly harnessed, you could travel in time. This cannot be disproven, therefor it is true (theories can only be disproven, not proven. Basic science 9th grade. So until we have evidence that says otherwise, I'm right.)

this kinda remains me of this episode of nova i watched on pbs, theres this scientist who one night to decide he wants lobster for dinner right, ok so since hes gonna have lobster he decides to get all dressed up for it open a bottle of wine in preperation, then he opens his door and waits for his lobster to come to him, now wat this proves just becouse the lobster never came to him doesnt mean there is life out side our own small world here. why this came to me dont ask its just funny ahahah but true

The lobster got warped to an alternate deminsion where it had to use Kung Foo and Tai Chi to save a race of humanitarian vegitbles called mice! Lol, jk.

Well yeh Luffy, but the energy you'd need to generate the magnetic field to create an influx in time and space would be so massive we'll never be able to do it any time soon.  Maybe in a million years, if human civilization is still around, we'll do it.  But until then... all we have are theories.

If you could even tap the smallest solar flares off the sun... that could power it.. so imagine tapping a nova star.. :D

Well yes, but as I said, it's an impossibility right now.

Now where in my posts did i say we could do it now? I merely said it was possible. Lol, why are we arguing quantum physics?

you do know of course that going back in time, at least in the traditional sense, is next to, if not, impossible.  just think of it, how are you going to back in time only by changing what time you are in?  in reality, would that not involve actually making everything else around you in all directions for an infinite length away to go back in time, while you stay the same?

actually, if any time travel where possible, I like to think of how they though of time travel being possible in stargate.  for those who don't rememeber/ don't know, how they would do it in starget is you would have a device that would make a "bubble" around a certain area of space, and as everything else outside of this bubble would continue on as normal, everything inside could be sped up, slowed down, or made to repeat itself over and over again.  but actually going back in time was impossible.

Question

have a good design that cost around 2mill? :-\
thnx. ;D
_regards_
zephyrblade

Conclusion
you do know of course that going back in time, at least in the traditional sense, is next to, if not, impossible.  just think of it, how are you going to back in time only by changing what time you are in?  in reality, would that not involve actually making everything else around you in all directions for an infinite length away to go back in time, while you stay the same?

actually, if any time travel where possible, I like to think of how they though of time travel being possible in stargate.  for those who don't rememeber/ don't know, how they would do it in starget is you would have a device that would make a "bubble" around a certain area of space, and as everything else outside of this bubble would continue on as normal, everything inside could be sped up, slowed down, or made to repeat itself over and over again.  but actually going back in time was impossible.

i think its time to close the thread ...