Ratjoy.com » Forums » EoS General Discussion » A single place for all revealed formulas.
You need to register or login to post a reply.
A single place for all revealed formulas.
|
Tom Denton RJ: kaibutsu Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 24 Karma: 53 Joined: Apr 5, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 12, 2012 Production Time is given by the following. All times are given and calculated in seconds.T0 = Base Time in seconds as listed in the 'Pedia. V = Item's Wholesale value in cents, as listed in the 'Pedia. Q = Size of the production run M = Economy of Scale Multiplier = 0.5 + 0.5 * (1 + Q * V^0.5 / 10000)^-0.25 ) F = Factory Size in m^2 Then: Run Time = 10*T0*Q*M/F (I only bother to post this because of the constant multiple, 10. I'm not sure if this varies across industries... I'm guessing it's the same, since a newly-built factory has size 10, so that the base time gives the amount of time it takes for a new factory to build the given object.) |
|
John Towler RJ: Twilight Sparkle CO: Twilight Sparkle Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 4 Karma: 10 Joined: Apr 3, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 12, 2012 I'm still not convinced that the EoS formula is correct. Even after changing V to being cents (So, and apple with base value of 14 cents would have V = 14, NOT V = .14), the formula just doesn't hold up to empirical data.Apples at 100,000 runs have an actual cost of $9405.48, but that formula would predict $9811.70 (EOS of 70.08% * .14 * 100000). |
|
Wizzard Hicks RJ: Wizzzard Siggy CO: Wizzzard Siggy Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 7 Karma: 66 Joined: Mar 31, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 13, 2012 Your problem is you are using the wrong numbers. V is supposed to be the Wholesale value, which for Apples is 50 cents, so you would use 50. Doing this gives you 9405.481841, which when rounded would be $9405.48. |
|
John Towler RJ: Twilight Sparkle CO: Twilight Sparkle Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 4 Karma: 10 Joined: Apr 3, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 13, 2012 Well that explains that!
|
|
Tom Denton RJ: kaibutsu Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 24 Karma: 53 Joined: Apr 5, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 16, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 16, 2012) (killed old, bad info on influence costs for building.)Ok, in one of the newbie forum posts, Ratan stated that one influence is good for 5 minutes. |
|
Nwabudike Morgan RJ: CEO Nwabudike Morgan CO: CEO Nwabudike Morgan Post Rating: 31 + / - Total Posts: 108 Karma: 344 Joined: Apr 4, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 17, 2012 AdvertisingA store deserves a lot of advertising--more than you'd think. There is a maximum optimal advertising power based on the amount of profit a store makes per tick, disregarding maintenance and salaries. Based on this information, there is an optimal amount of spending on advertising per tick, although any advertising spending below the threshold is worthwhile. For the below discussion, I use the following notation: A - Optimal advertising power C - Advertising cost per tick once optimal advertising power is reached P - Store profit per tick with zero advertising effects, disregarding maintenance and salaries. Here, I present this value in dollars. s - Store size in square meters τ - Time constant for exponential decay; this is fixed at 1000/3 = 1 / 0.003. This is because 0.3% of advertising decays per tick. It is possible to derive both A and C independently of each other, and either one can be easily derived if the other is known. If you wish to derive A first, the process is a little simpler. Mister Death posted this earlier today on this forum. I have modified it a bit to leave the time constant in and to present P in dollars instead of cents. A(P, τ) = (P*τ/4) ^ 4/3 C(A, s, τ) = A/τ - s^2 / 10 The way I derived it earlier today was to get the cost first, then determine the optimal advertising power from that. The math is a little bit more complicated this way, but the results are exactly identical. The other relations are more useful; I just present this formulation as a curiosity. C(P, s, τ) = P/400 * (P*τ/4)^1/3 - s^2/1000 A(C, s, τ) = τ * (s^2/10 + 100*C) |
|
Scott (Admin) RJ: Ratan Joyce CO: Ratan Joyce Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 1175 Karma: 5083 Joined: Jan 13, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 23, 2012 Hurry construction costs:Influence_Cost = CEIL(Seconds_Remaining/300) Cash_Cost = MAX(0, 10000 * Seconds_Remaining * (Company_Level - 5) ) Again the cash costs are in cents. |
|
Reiter Hexenmeister RJ: Ritter Hexenmeister Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 22 Karma: 10 Joined: Mar 26, 2012 |
Posted on May 1, 2012 InfluenceDaily influence gained = 10 * player_fame_level |
|
Andrew Turner RJ: Thomas Lazygun Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 44 Karma: 26 Joined: Apr 9, 2012 |
Posted on May 5, 2012 Cash_Cost = MAX(0, 10000 * Seconds_Remaining * (Company_Level - 5) )So by ordering a company valuation for my second company to complete a quest for company level a day sooner, I ended up costing myself a whole lot of money in construction hurrying. :( |
|
Reiter Hexenmeister RJ: Ritter Hexenmeister Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 22 Karma: 10 Joined: Mar 26, 2012 |
Posted on May 11, 2012 (Last edited on May 11, 2012) Scott can you give us the formula for product mix? I use the quality to set prices via spreadsheet. I try some options but none give me correct answer. When production of 8000 plastic Q7 ends, I have in warehouse 4518 units Q30 the final was Q10.83, when use Qaverage, I expected Q15.30, make more atemps (Q17.7, Q3.02, Q12.77, ...), and none give me the answer, when take only higer quality give me the right answer, but I dont think that been the correct way. Tanks.
|
|
Scott (Admin) RJ: Ratan Joyce CO: Ratan Joyce Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 1175 Karma: 5083 Joined: Jan 13, 2012 |
Posted on May 11, 2012 (Last edited on May 11, 2012) That's strange, I'd expect Q15.30 as well.There must've been a bug where the Q7 wasn't used in the calculations, leading to the 10.83 result. UPDATE: Fixed, and I've raised the plastic quality to 30. |
|
Reiter Hexenmeister RJ: Ritter Hexenmeister Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 22 Karma: 10 Joined: Mar 26, 2012 |
Posted on May 11, 2012 Ok, I wait for corrections. TanksEDIT: I try with plastic one time more, and seems to give correct answer. Again tanks. |
|
Fish Bike RJ: FishBike CO: FishBike Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 22 Karma: 51 Joined: Mar 29, 2012 |
Posted on May 18, 2012 Does anybody know what the store sales formula is now that the new store mechanics are in place? I've been trying to figure it out by reading through various threads and I'm lost.
|
|
Nwabudike Morgan RJ: CEO Nwabudike Morgan CO: CEO Nwabudike Morgan Post Rating: 5 + / - Total Posts: 108 Karma: 344 Joined: Apr 4, 2012 |
Posted on May 19, 2012 Most of the information in page 5 of this thread still applies, but the demand calculation is out of date, and there is a store slot efficiency modifier. All of the available selling power of a store is split among the items that are selling in the store, but 5% of the overall selling power is lost per empty shelf.So: 8 items - 100% efficiency => 100% individual sales rate 7 items - 95% efficiency => ~108% individual sales rate 6 items - 90% efficiency => 120% individual sales rate 5 items - 85% efficiency => 136% individual sales rate 4 items - 80% efficiency => 160% individual sales rate 3 items - 75% efficiency => 200% individual sales rate 2 items - 70% efficiency => 280% individual sales rate 1 item - 65% efficiency => 520% individual sales rate |
|
Scott (Admin) RJ: Ratan Joyce CO: Ratan Joyce Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 1175 Karma: 5083 Joined: Jan 13, 2012 |
Posted on Jun 6, 2012 This change happened a few weeks ago near the end of May.From: $demand_eq = (3/(1 + 2*$demand_met))^2 To: $demand_eq = (5/(1 + 10*$demand_met))^2 Effects before: demand_met = 0 -> 900% sales demand_met = 25% -> 400% sales demand_met = 50% -> 225% sales demand_met = 75% -> 144% sales demand_met = 100% -> 100% sales Effects after: demand_met = 0 -> 2500% sales demand_met = 25% -> 204% sales demand_met = 50% -> 69% sales demand_met = 75% -> 35% sales demand_met = 100% -> 21% sales So with a demand_met = 0, you're getting about 2500% sales instead of previous 900% sales. With a demand_met = 0.4, you're getting 100% sales The actual demand function is a bit more whimsical and not fit for publishing, but keep in mind demand is determined not only from total building size, but also from average price and quality of previously sold products. Thus when sales price fall below a certain point, customers will demand to buy more goods even if they don't need them. |
You need to register or login to post a reply.