Conversion Result
Max Research
Disaster - Research item destroyed
5-25% starbase destroyed 0
Disaster - Research item destroyed
1-10% starbase destroyed 400
Disaster – Research item destroyed 1225
Wrong avenue - Half research item mass scrapped 2025
Stalled - 4 items required 2500
Stalled - 3 items required 3025
Stalled - 2 items required 3600
Stalled - 1 items required 4900
No MU's Constructed 5625
10 MU's Constructed 6400
20 MU's Constructed 8100
30 MU's Constructed 10000
40 MU's Constructed 12100
50 MU's Constructed 14400
60 MU's Constructed 16900
70 MU's Constructed 19600
80 MU's Constructed 22500
90 MU's Constructed 25600
100 MU's Constructed 28900
One project was at a -14 - (I know... and I'm not). However, the expected result from this at 28,000 pts was ===> 4,000 stellars.
Looking in the list, doesn't even exist. Is there an updated point listing for research?
Llywelyn
| QUOTE (llywelyn @ Aug 3 2004, 03:28 AM) |
| Was looking at my latest turn report and comparing the Research rules to it. Conversion Result Max Research Disaster - Research item destroyed 5-25% starbase destroyed 0 Disaster - Research item destroyed 1-10% starbase destroyed 400 Disaster – Research item destroyed 1225 Wrong avenue - Half research item mass scrapped 2025 Stalled - 4 items required 2500 Stalled - 3 items required 3025 Stalled - 2 items required 3600 Stalled - 1 items required 4900 <cut the rest> One project was at a -14 - (I know... and I'm not). However, the expected result from this at 28,000 pts was ===> 4,000 stellars. Looking in the list, doesn't even exist. Is there an updated point listing for research? Llywelyn |
As far as I know the results are just the same over the board.. But instead of bringing in those materials you just need to *pay* 4000 stellars instead..
You might get lucky and still get some mass.
But I would suggest researching the underlying tech first.. If you got any mass in the project you can halt the progress of this project by setting the number of complexes to 0. This way you keep the mass you already researched.
And I would suggest starting an new project researching the item you are missing
It is impossible to research an item at -14 because the modifier sets an upper limit to the mass you can achieve. Even with lucky flukes you cannot get a positive mass gain from this research!
| QUOTE (Frabby @ Aug 3 2004, 10:35 AM) |
| It is impossible to research an item at -14 because the modifier sets an upper limit to the mass you can achieve. Even with lucky flukes you cannot get a positive mass gain from this research! |
Thats a new one.. How does it work??
If you got an -3 you only can get 70 mus or so??
If you lack underlying techs and have -14, your only hope to successfully research an item is by getting a +5 bonus for an overall penalty of -9 (for example by combining the benefits of copying, +2, and a +3 scientist). When converting at 28900 points you are guaranteed to gain 10mu of research.
Generally, the average result is three steps above the minimal result. You could therefore be reasonably sure to get 10mu on a -9 project when converting at 19600 already, but there is absolutely no way to get more than 10mu out of a conversion!
| QUOTE (finalstryke @ Aug 3 2004, 09:17 PM) |
| Is +3 the max rating for scientists? |
I believe that in theory you can get scientists with bonuses greater than +3 (up to +5 or so), but they will be _extremely_ rare. Scientists with anything above +1 are very rare anyway (excluding those purchased with BSE conversion points, of course).
Richard
AFT
If you convert at a points total between two rows of the table (i.e. 27,000) I presume that it will convert as if it was the next row down (25,600 (90 mus) in this example). Is that correct?
Is there then any reason to convert at anything other than the values listed in the conversion table? Extrapolating this, is there any point or reason to have more than 289 research complexes (converting at 28900) on any one project? (If the above is true I can't see any)
(Assuming 100% efficiency I suppose)
Dan
The maximum result you can hope for upon conversion is determined by the overall research penalty: It is 100mu - (10*penalty). It cannot be improved beyond 100mu by a positive research bonus though.
The minimum (i.e. guaranteed) result is determined by the amount of research points present on conversion (*not* the number you set for conversion). If this number is greater than certain thresholds then that threshold is the guaranteed minimum. Like the maximum, it is lowered by one step for every -1 to the overall project but it is also improved by one step for every positive bonus point.
Upon conversion, all research points achieved since the last conversion are considered. If the number is greater than a given threshold then this raises the chances to gain a better result. I had a lenghty phone chat with Mica on this subject. He even considered the introduction of 1mu steps for research gain at the time to show people the little differences that exist, but are always rounded up or down to the next 10mu step.
Answering Steve's questions:
| QUOTE |
| If you convert at a points total between two rows of the table (i.e. 27,000) I presume that it will convert as if it was the next row down (25,600 (90 mus) in this example). Is that correct? |
No, the carryover research points will increase your chance to get a result that is nearer to the maximum result. However, see below on why it is usually pointless to convert at more than 19600 points.
| QUOTE |
| Is there then any reason to convert at anything other than the values listed in the conversion table? |
Yes, but it is always a gamble and you will never know just what impact those additional points had. You may have noticed that the expected average result is usually 3 steps above the minimum result, but the acutal results can be quite different. I've seen copying a blueprint with a +1 scientist, i.e. a +3 project, yield 70mu on a conversion at exactly 3600 research points. I have also seen starbases with an efficiency problem convert at, say, 6350 instead of 6400 points and in most if not all cases the result was as could be expected from a conversion at 6400 points. (Forced conversions because the complexes were already planned for other projects the following week.)
| QUOTE |
| Extrapolating this, is there any point or reason to have more than 289 research complexes (converting at 28900) on any one project? (If the above is true I can't see any) |
In fact no, as converting at 28900 points means you are guaranteed to get the maximum possible from a conversion. "Lucky flukes" as mentioned in the rulebook cannot bring research beyond the maximum conversion threshold.
On the other hand, this means you must be pretty desperate to convert at 28900. Usually you get the same result from conversion at 3 steps below, 19600.
Pete
Okay then, we can tell the maximum and minimum. So the result will fall somewhere between the two. Got that.
Now then, these inbetween threshold results...
Are you saying that having say 7000 points converting at 6400 will improve your chances each conversion or only when the carry-over points reach the next threshold?
I would assume the latter, i.e.
you have 70 complexes converting at 6400.
1st conversion = 7000 points, converts as if 6400 (carry 600)
2nd = 7600, converts as 6400 carry 1200
3rd = 8200, converts as if 8100 (carry 100)
4th = 7100, converts as 6400 (carry 700)
etc.
(Which is how I expected it to work)
or would converting at 7000 actually get better results than converting at 6400 *each* conversion?
The actual result of a conversion is determined randomly - in your example above, and assuming a +-0 project, the result could be anywhere between 10 and 100mu of mass researched. The average result (as shown on starbase printout) would be 40mu. This is where excess research points come into play: They are used up in the conversion where they give you a chance to get a yet better result. In this example they could make the difference between 40 and 50mu gained.
At least that is how Mica explained it to me. I must admit that I do not know the underlying maths myself.
| QUOTE (Frabby @ Aug 8 2004, 09:33 AM) |
| I had a lenghty phone chat with Mica on this subject. He even considered the introduction of 1mu steps for research gain at the time to show people the little differences that exist, but are always rounded up or down to the next 10mu step. |
I would favour this - in the long run removing the rounding wouldn't affect the net result but it would move people away from thinking of research in discrete chunks... the BSE-conversion reseacrh has "odd MU's, why not normal research?
besides, the anticipation of having a principle hit 4,999 MU's is kind of piquant, don't you think? I can imagine the screams from the player in question now
Dan
| QUOTE (Frabby @ Aug 8 2004, 04:28 PM) |
| At least that is how Mica explained it to me. I must admit that I do not know the underlying maths myself. |
Well it's good enough for me (for now
Cheers.
(I'd also favour 1 mu steps btw)