Architect Archive
Thread: About Crafting Station MSS's (and crafting in general)
Page 1 of 1
Grisbilen
Wed Aug 18, 2004 9:18 pm
#1
Well, as we all know the key to make top of the line Crafting Stations lie in the subcomponents, and during my time as architect i have dedicated myself to make the absolute best there is (Currently at 43.81 on Chimaera excluding temporary tuesday), i have found that the most critical part is the Micro Sensor Suite since it require 33%CD and 66%OQ of both metal and steel.
Now, the CD on steel is afaik capped at 650 meaning that no steel is ever going to have over 650 CD. So a perfect 45.00 rating station is impossible unless the crafting changes from temporary tuesday come back.
Where am i going with all this now you ask?
Well, as it is 33/66 CD/OQ andyou want both as high as possible, but since they never (well..) are the same, what would be best; Steel#1 with 200CD and 1000OQ or Steel#2 with 500CD and 850OQ?
By using the 33/66 standard calculation you will get:
Steel#1 = 200+1000+1000 = 2200
Steel#2 = 500+850+850 = 2200
Looks like it won't matter, right? Wrong
After some research on similar written texts and testing Icame up with two formulas to help crunching those numbers (higher is better):
For Steel: (0.53*CD*%) + (0.27*OQ*%)
For metal(copper): (0.47*CD*%) + (0.24*OQ*%)
(% means how important it is in the schematic, CD would with a MSS be 0.33 and OQ 0.66)
The reasons for these numbers is that you also use gas and ore in the item wich dont have conductivity, so for that stat they(gas,ore) are nullified in the calculation.The same is not true for OQ (as all resources have OQ).
Now, lets testwith our previous steel examples:
Steel#1: (0.53*200*0.33) + (0.27*1000*0.66)= 213
Steel#2: (0.53*500*0.33) + (0.27*850*0.66) =239
Look, Steel#2 isin factbetter suited for our MSS even though it didn't look like it in the first place.
So, in conclusion as I'm sure everyone is pretty confused by now:
When weighing resource statsin a schematic where not all resources have one of the required stats (18 of 37 in our MSS example are missing CD), they have to be taken out of the calculation. In this example, steel is 10 out of 37 resource units, the significance of OQ is 10/37 (0.27), but only the other metal (9 units)have CD, so the significance of CD is 10/19 (0.53)
So, why did I write this?
Well, to have something to do and share some of my research. It is as far asI know accurate, but I am not 100% sure ifI should include the % variable in my calculations.
Why a MSS?
Cause crafting stations have a lot of decimals in the end result. So if you use identical components and only differ the stats on the metal slightly for the MSS, you will see the difference easier.
If you have done similar tests and are of a different oppinion I would love to hear it, a scientific hypothesis is only true until it is proven wrong 
ZenDragonMLS
Wed Aug 18, 2004 10:20 pm
#2
I believe you are spot on. Someone posted this same kind of analysis on the Amazon Basin forums quite awhile ago from a Weaponsmith's perspective.
The summary is that if you have an experimental result that has 2 or more resource attributes in the equation, and you have some resources that do NOT have 1 or more of those attributes, you essentially make the "weight" of the attribute that they do not have higher in its importance. That is, you "distort" the simple equation since you have to look at the impact of each resource as it relates to the whole set of resources *that have that attribute*.
The summary is that if you have an experimental result that has 2 or more resource attributes in the equation, and you have some resources that do NOT have 1 or more of those attributes, you essentially make the "weight" of the attribute that they do not have higher in its importance. That is, you "distort" the simple equation since you have to look at the impact of each resource as it relates to the whole set of resources *that have that attribute*.
Grisbilen
Wed Aug 18, 2004 10:23 pm
#3
ZenDragonMLS wrote:
I believe you are spot on. Someone posted this same kind of analysis on the Amazon Basin forums quite awhile ago from a Weaponsmith's perspective.
The summary is that if you have an experimental result that has 2 or more resource attributes in the equation, and you have some resources that do NOT have 1 or more of those attributes, you essentially make the "weight" of the attribute that they do not have higher in its importance. That is, you "distort" the simple equation since you have to look at the impact of each resource as it relates to the whole set of resources *that have that attribute*.
Amazon Basin, exactly whereI got most of my starting ideas and information from. Thanks for mentioning it, Ijust couldn't remember the name.
Page 1 of 1