General

Starforce Enhancement

Here's a spreadsheet: [url=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vVsFMwrjpypXuO9RqHvmWQLXHjdOOe7JxHOXj_3I3oY/edit?usp=sharing]google sheets[/url]

I made this spreadsheet (someone else made a simulator, but I can't find it, and calculation produces better averages), and found out some "fun" facts about star force.
1. 5 star tyrant is actually more expensive than 15 star CRA
2. 6 star Nova is only slightly cheaper than 15 star CRA
3. at 200m:1k NX:mesos, Nexon would have trouble buying enough NX to 11 star tyrant gear.
4. at that same ratio, there isn't enough money in the world to 12 star tyrant (nvm the mesos).
5. 13+ stars on tyrant is as stupid to try for as it looks. </3
6. 15 star tyrant requires more mesos than there are particles in the (known) universe. o.o

edit: this doesn't account for the little game, because I have no idea what that actually does. That probably accounts for discrepancies. If someone can find fault with the actual math, please let me know.

edit2: I rebuilt the math in my sheet; now the cost to get the next star is:

the expected number of tries to succeed * (the cost of attempting + the drop chance * the cost of getting from current - 1 to here + the boom chance * the total cost to here)

which is, I believe, correct.
The corrected formula produces MUCH lower numbers, so many of my "fun facts" are fiction, though 5 is completely correct, as we all knew. Here's the updated number of mesos to 15 star tyrant, not including new pieces to replace old: 25,617,913,857,047,700, which is definitely more than anyone has, but is not more than have existed (?).

edit3: I gave up on actually working out the formulas involved, so I just ran a simulator and posted that data instead. Enjoy.

January 29, 2015

21 Comments • Newest first

loxiona

You shouldn't be averaging, the distribution of the cost is not anywhere near normal, so the 'average cost' doesn't really tell you anything. You need to use the median cost.

Reply January 30, 2015

littlegeek

I decided to simulate it a few (hundred) times to get a general idea of the numbers involved. I added the data from that to the bottom of the spreadsheet, and posted the source code in a different sheet (click the tab at the bottom if you speak Java). The numbers seem a lot closer to what people actually claim happens, though the data for 14 stars to 15 is a bit weird because it kept running into a time cutoff; my program did not sim more than 100,000,000 tries to gain a star. I feel like this is reasonable, given that that would take YEARS if you could do it continuously, as well as an absurd number of mesos.

Reply January 30, 2015

warrior4fame

From a programming perspective, couldn't you do the following? :

Set up the loop to do the following:
number of fail = 0
success = 0
for or while or w/e to start the simulator as many times as w/e condition is needed
function to check value of number_of_fail, call it check_value
the simulator function, call it simulate_enchant
the function that checks if its a fail or pass then adds 1 or 0 to number_of_fails, count_result

the functions should be something like
def check_value :
if number_of_fail == 2
return success += 1
else: return success = 0

def simulate_enchant:
if success == 0
the lines of code for simulating the enchant process
else: return w/e way youre using to keep track of number of stars for a given equip

and include number_of_fail = 0 whenever you pass enchant in the if and else parts of this function

def count_result:
if pass
return number_of_fail = 0
else
return number_of_fail += 1

Not an expert of programming but it should be roughly outlined like this I would think
also, not sure how transferable the if and else conditions are to an excel based formula but the idea should be the same

Reply January 29, 2015

David0696

If I knew coding, I would just make a simulator and run it thousands of times.
I am not sure how to work with the feature where if you fail two times in a row, you are guaranteed a success, if you were to do the math for it. Of course if you were coding, you would just make it a rule.