2090 active members
234 are online

Year

19

Day

327

Time

06:38:10

Guest
Year 13 Day 243 9:29
Hello,

I would like to have some help about prospection formule, even if I try to put them I find wrong results

First this :

Time Taken for Prospecting = {[( 24 / (Total Sensors/(120 - NPC))0.1) - LOG(9 - Comp)((Comp + NPC + 1) * Total Sensors)] / LOG10(Speed + 1)} / 1.2

My total sensors = 480
NPC= max (11)
Comp=5
Speed= SX-65 speed (60km/h I suppose)

The result is 6h30 min for time taken to prospect with CO=5, and 7h30 with CO=0
I try before assign my skill point
However even if I try, I can't find this result, I'll appreciate some help please

Second this :

Chance of finding = ( 1 + Total Sensors(Comp Op/30+0.05) ) * Terrain Prob

I try with Comp=5 and Comp=0, my result have 25% difference, or rules say all level give 6% more, so 5*6=30% no?

I'm not very good with formule, all help will appreciate please

Thank you for your help and sorry for time spent

Have fun

Edited By: Barjak Eaque on Year 13 Day 246 2:53
Year 13 Day 246 4:40
For the first equation, I'm getting a time of 6h 38min with CompOps=5 and 7h 49min for CompOps=0.

Where exactly are you trying to find your results?

Also, where does it say that each level gives you 6% for the second formula?

Year 13 Day 246 4:54
Mmm it mean I don't apply the formul exactly, I always find negative result, maybe you can explain me where I made a mistake?

I try with some people ( bad like me) and we found same result

For the second formula, it's here :

http://www.swcombine.com/rules/?Character_Skills in CO skill description

...Increases the probability to find raw material deposits by up to 6% per level...

Year 13 Day 246 5:05
You keep stating that you get different results ... what are those results and where do you get them from?

The formula on the Mining rules page is the one used to determine whether you find something. I don't know who has written the skill description, maybe whoever wrote it can shed some light on that 6% number.

Year 13 Day 246 5:10
Ben Camden

...Increases the probability to find raw material deposits by up to 6% per level...

- Barjak Eaque

Up to 6 % means anywhere between 0% and 6 %. It's likely just an approximation, in order to give a rough description on the skills page - and not have to put all the equations in there?

____________

Senior Governor Ben Camden
Regional Government
Year 13 Day 246 6:05
Mr. Jano :

Our results are bad, negative number from -23800 to -325 something around that :\$

Yes I find the formul in mining rules, I don't see it on other topic, can you tell who wrote the description skill please?

Mr. Camden :

I'm not sure but if I remember, if you check other skill you can see in description that kind of informations, however

Strength increase carry and hp }}> correct

Fighter/Freighter piloting increase speed 5% and 7% }} correct

I think vehicle and capital ship is correct too ( but didn't verify any of those formul since update)

With there information, I find a bit strange they make approximation for CO ( and if I don't mistake the 2nd formula,it's close of 5%, not 6% no?

Sorry for my english

Edited By: Barjak Eaque on Year 13 Day 246 6:06
Year 13 Day 246 6:22
If you get negative numbers, you possibly aren't using the right LOG functions ... if you look at the rules page, the subscript parts are always the LOG's base:

LOG(9 - Comp)((Comp + NPC + 1) * Total Sensors)

This means that for CompOps = 5, your formula would look like this:

LOG4((5 + NPC + 1) * Total Sensors)

for CompOps = 0 like this:

LOG9((NPC + 1) * Total Sensors)

Year 13 Day 246 10:13
Ashura Harma

Thumbs up for Togan !

So, I found 6H36 for Comps Ops 5 and 7H48 for Comps Ops 0, so the rules formula is false, probably there is a round fonction somewhere that was omitted (6H30 and 7H30 are the real times).

As for the skill description, our main problem is that it has been constantly said that each deposit is associated with a certain difficulty to be found, and if we have enough sensors and Comps Ops, the deposit will be found. So it's useless to prospect the same square many times. The skill description is misleading in that way, letting us believe that there is a roll to find the deposit, or that the rules have changed. If the prospection still works the same, we could make a suggestion to change the skill description to something like : "each rank allows you to find more elusive deposit".

____________

"bottom line is we need to see what admin reason is.jenos obviously doesnt just ban for shits n giggles.i am sure he will report to us what the evidence is in this matter."

Diabolus`ut Persolvo
Year 13 Day 246 10:29
That skill description was unchanged. I updated most of the skill descriptions for the skills that we actually changed, but as that one was already implemented with that use, I left it alone, figuring that whoever wrote it originally had the correct information in there as I don't know enough about prospecting times myself.

____________

Year 13 Day 246 11:52
Thank you for all your answersand explanation about formula, I hope the one who wtote it can give us last explanation

Year 13 Day 249 4:13
Jake Peterson

Erm, but does anyone know who wrote it then? If not, it will remain as it is, with or without this discussion. :)

Year 13 Day 249 12:52
I think it's one old or current admin

Maybe Mr. Jano or Syn can know it no?

Edited By: Barjak Eaque on Year 13 Day 249 14:02
Year 13 Day 249 14:41
Jesfa

I suspect Khan.

____________

Year 13 Day 249 23:23
Loftano Drak

Didn't Kyle used to handle the mining side of the coding, I remember how he used to regularly purge bugged deposits. He also may have been the one who explained how prospecting strength stacked each time, making it harder every time you go through again?

Year 13 Day 250 4:05
Jesfa

He may have been, but mining/prospecting was before he coded I thought. I could have sworn Khan handled initial coding of the mining stuff (along with the equations), but I could potentially be wrong. They certainly look like Khan maths though.

____________

Year 13 Day 251 22:21
I sent a DM to Khan, for inform it about our topic, but didn't get any reply