Below is an article titled Perpetuum Refining Formulas Research that we collected from various sources. All credit goes to its original writer.
Perpetuum Refining Formulas Research by Raptine
I’ve been looking for some time to find a relatively accurate refining formula on the forum but I have not had much luck. The sites and formulas (Naruby and Warux’s ATG) I found do not tally with the actual numbers I see in-game – at least not accurately enough for my tastes! In some instances the difference is quite substantial.
TLDR – lots of maths and assumptions that are probably wrong. The purpose of this post is to get it flamed, corrected or confirmed. Have fun doing either yarr. I have a horrible suspicion I missed something important – T4 flamesuit available cool
DISCLAIMER: I am not a mathematician – jargon might be incorrect.
I am aware that we do not get to see the actual decimal places in both the in-game Factory Material Efficiency (ME) value and the Relation percentage value. I started with the numbers I could obtain from the game over 3 characters – one of which was created with the only purpose to check waste on refining with absolute 0% in both ME and Relations. Characters referred to as Indy, Control and Combat from now on.
All calculations based on obtaining 300 Titanium by refining Titan Ore at a Level 1 refinery (ICS Alpha). The 300 number is arbitrary but large enough to hopefully minimize rounding errors.
Facts (numbers from the game)
(Indy / Control / Combat) = Legend
Factory ME % (ingame) – 89 / 75 / 76
Extension Level – 6 / 0 / 0
Relation % (in-game) – 6 / 0 / 8
Titanium required – 300 units
Titan Ore required – 9000 units
(w/o waste = 30 ore per trit unit)
Current Ore Requirements (in-game) – 10,002 / 12,000 / 11,751 units of Titan Ore
Waste (in-game) – 1,002 / 3,000 / 2,751 units of Titan Ore
Preliminary Calculations
Waste % factor is [(Waste/Ore w/o waste)*100]
I get values of 11.13% / 33.33% / 30.57%. This calculation is borne out with the following formula (expanding to 6 decimal places for accuracy 0.111333 / 0.333333 / 0.30567):-
[Ore w/o waste*(1+decimal of Waste % Factor)] or for the Indy char example 9000*(1+0.111333) = 1,002 units wasted and confirmed in-game.
I also worked out the unshown decimal places in the Factory ME % by [(Ore req. w/o waste*current ore req.)*100]. Results are 89.98% / 75.00% / 76.59%
Assumptions
A. The control char has 33.33% waste which translates to a Level 1 refinery co-efficient (without relations and extensions) of 0.333333 which is significantly different to other numbers where I have seen 0.317 and 0.03 being used. I assume that this co-efficient will remain constant throughout.
B. Following above, the combat char with no extensions records a 76.59% Factory ME which translates to a 1.59% increase in ME with a recorded 8% relations. This might be the root of the formula on the forums where people calculate the relation coefficient decrease in waste as [relation %*0.002].
C. However, I think the relation coefficient decrease in waste should be calculated on the decrease in waste %. So Control char records a 33.33% while combat records a 30.57%. The difference attributed to 8% relation (no extensions on these 2 chars) is 2.76% or expressed in 6 decimal places as a coefficient we get 2.76/8 = 0.00345 which I rounded up to a nice number of 0.0035.
Basically, I think a 10% increase in relations will decrease your Waste % value by an absolute value of 3.5%. (assuming relations are linear).
Extension Level Coefficient (reduction in waste)
The formulas I have seen suggest the following formula [Extension Level*0.03]. However, this was not giving me the right numbers either. Reverse calculating back using Naruby’s formula:-
Waste % factor (in decimal) = [Level 1 Waste coefficient] – ([Extension Level Reduction Coefficient] + [Relation Reduction Coefficient])
For the Indy char whereby I know for fact the Waste % factor (decimal) is 0.111333, we get:-
0.111333 = 0.333333-([Extension Level 6 Reduction Coefficient] + (6*0.0035)]
[Extension Level 6 Reduction Coefficient] = 0.201
Therefore, one Extension level reduces the Waste % Factor by 0.201/6 = 0.0335.
Assuming a certain variance due to the unshown decimal places, other assumptions above and many reverse calculations, I settled on 0.033333 as the one Extension Level coefficient.
The Big Question Mark
A couple of hours and too many assumptions later I came up with this formula which fits the 3 chars I have:-
Waste % factor (in decimal) = 0.333333 – ([Extension Level*0.033333] + [Relation*0.0035])
Leading to:
Actual Titan Ore required to refine x1 unit of titanium = [30*(1+ Waste % Factor in decimal)]
The formula works for me for any other commodity atm. I do need more data from others since 3 chars are hardly a significant statistical sample.
Annoying Relation Decimal Issue
Obviously the numbers above have a slight variance which is due to the unshown decimal places in the relation bonus. Keeping all the assumptions above, I actually worked out the decimal places for my relation bonus which theoretically should be 6.27% for the indy char and 7.91% for the combat char. Interesting to note that if I am anywhere close to being right, the relation bonus is rounded up to 8% in game.
Weird Stuff
For a while, I thought the extension level +3% to ME was compounded over the initial 75% value. I tried it out but the numbers came out all wrong when I took the Level 1 refinery coefficient (control) as 0.333333. In fact the relation bonus was not resulting linear over the 3 chars. Also, the combat char disproved that notion with his 76+% ME without 1 level of extensions. Following that line of thought, 8% relations resulted in +1.59% ME while 6% relations was giving me less than 0.5% increase.
The 0.002 value for the relation bonus was even weirder when I was using Naruby’s formula and comparing to my in game numbers – in some instances the 8% bonus was resulting to be less beneficial than the 6% indy relation bonus. This was using the fixed 0.333333 Level 1 refinery ME coefficient value. When I reversed the situation, I was getting different values for the refinery coefficient. I though this was improbable and hence started on a new track.
Edit: hopefully amended all tritanium references to titanium – thanks Annihilator
Edit2: Amended last sentence in Assumptions section – should refer to a decrease in waste not increase in ME.
Perpetuum Refining Formulas Research Images
We also give random image about Perpetuum Refining Formulas Research hope you like this, we got this
images from arround the web .
image source :
No comments:
Post a Comment