Talk:Recycler - Revision history

Vadcx: reply to Tecanec

2024-10-31T14:09:34Z

reply to Tecanec

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:09, 31 October 2024
Line 14:		Line 14:

	* Now that you mention it, there is an error, but it's not the one you thought you noticed. The problem is that I multiply by 100% when the formula is supposed to give a number of items. The floor is correct, since there can only be an integer number of items. And no, it won't "almost always" result in 1 or less; If a recipe takes 4 or more of the same item, then the result is always 1 or more. The random element also ensures that increments of less than 4 remain meaningful - think of it as a sort of "random rounding". - [[User:Tecanec\|tecanec]] ([[User talk:Tecanec\|talk]]) 13:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)		* Now that you mention it, there is an error, but it's not the one you thought you noticed. The problem is that I multiply by 100% when the formula is supposed to give a number of items. The floor is correct, since there can only be an integer number of items. And no, it won't "almost always" result in 1 or less; If a recipe takes 4 or more of the same item, then the result is always 1 or more. The random element also ensures that increments of less than 4 remain meaningful - think of it as a sort of "random rounding". - [[User:Tecanec\|tecanec]] ([[User talk:Tecanec\|talk]]) 13:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
			** Oh I see it clearly now. I simply hardcoded r = 0.5 as the statistical average :P However that's exactly the formula the game seems to use if the ingredients are cleanly divisible without a remainder.<br>Hm. Maybe in other words the randomization only kicks in if there's a non-zero remainder in <code>(ingredient / 4) = integer + remainder</code>. Implementation note: division by 2, 4, 8... is very cheaply done by a right shift. Similarly it'd be trivial to determine if there's a remainder with AND; and only then invoke the full formula. Neat!

Tecanec: /* Recycler formula */ Reply to Vadcx

2024-10-31T13:59:37Z

Recycler formula: Reply to Vadcx

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:59, 31 October 2024
Line 12:		Line 12:
	btw I can't access the Discord link, I have no idea what server it's leading to.		btw I can't access the Discord link, I have no idea what server it's leading to.
	[[User:Vadcx\|Vadcx]] ([[User talk:Vadcx\|talk]]) 04:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)		[[User:Vadcx\|Vadcx]] ([[User talk:Vadcx\|talk]]) 04:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

			* Now that you mention it, there is an error, but it's not the one you thought you noticed. The problem is that I multiply by 100% when the formula is supposed to give a number of items. The floor is correct, since there can only be an integer number of items. And no, it won't "almost always" result in 1 or less; If a recipe takes 4 or more of the same item, then the result is always 1 or more. The random element also ensures that increments of less than 4 remain meaningful - think of it as a sort of "random rounding". - [[User:Tecanec\|tecanec]] ([[User talk:Tecanec\|talk]]) 13:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Vadcx: Talk: Recycler formula

2024-10-31T04:17:35Z

Talk: Recycler formula

New page

== Recycler formula ==

<code>floor(0.25 * i / o + r) * 100%</code>: [[User:Tecanec]] are you sure the formula is written exactly like that? What's currently inside floor(...) will almost always calculate to <=1.0, and flooring 0.0~0.999 will result in a 0.0. I think the formula should've been <code>floor( (0.25 * i / o + r) * 100% )</code>. This one matches my spreadsheet expectations and you can test it yourself by recycling the nuclear reactor:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Caption text
|-
! Formula unfloored (B) !! input count (C) !! output count(D) !! “random” (E) !! net return (G)
|-
| =0,25 * $C2 / $D2 + $E2 || 5000 || 5000 || 0.5 || =C2-C2*B2
|}
btw I can't access the Discord link, I have no idea what server it's leading to.
[[User:Vadcx|Vadcx]] ([[User talk:Vadcx|talk]]) 04:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)