Galaxy Legion Forum http://galaxylegion.com/forum/ 

Omniscient http://galaxylegion.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26723 
Page 1 of 2 
Author:  Dr Bill [ Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:42 pm ] 
Post subject:  Omniscient 
What is the minimum scan needed to find 750 planets? 
Author:  ICBLF [ Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:00 pm ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
I don't know if anyone has the exact value, but scanning until the button is grayed out: 10259 scan == 811 planets 
Author:  TimeManipulator [ Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:04 pm ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
ICBLF wrote: I don't know if anyone has the exact value, but scanning until the button is grayed out: 10259 scan == 811 planets Depends if you want to keep wasting 5 Energy when you reach the scan rating of "Very Poor". 
Author:  ICBLF [ Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:11 pm ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
SirKillsALot wrote: Depends if you want to keep wasting 5 Energy when you reach the scan rating of "Very Poor". As a slow ranker, I have lots of cubes and trimatrixes just sitting in cargo. Spending some to maximize my investment in scanners and scan buffs is the opposite of "wasting" in that context. 
Author:  elerian [ Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:26 pm ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
^^yep, that or base dump 
Author:  mysterion [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:55 am ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
I believe it depends on what your lv is and what your scan is if you had 225 scan at rank 10 you could scan quite alot at rank 100 you cant at all 
Author:  Preliator Xzien [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:01 am ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
mysterion wrote: I believe it depends on what your lv is and what your scan is if you had 225 scan at rank 10 you could scan quite alot at rank 100 you cant at all level has nothing to do with it. Scan and the number of planets you have scanned. 
Author:  mysterion [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:10 am ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
Xzien wrote: mysterion wrote: I believe it depends on what your lv is and what your scan is if you had 225 scan at rank 10 you could scan quite alot at rank 100 you cant at all level has nothing to do with it. Scan and the number of planets you have scanned. I said i believe but it greys out eventually the mpore scan the more planets less scan less planets. 
Author:  Preliator Xzien [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:11 am ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
I was correcting you, don't get hostile. 
Author:  mysterion [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:13 am ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
Lol im not wheres a facepalm pic? 
Author:  ODragon [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:33 pm ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
11,476  887 11,647  898 12,346  942 12,466  949 12,587  957 12,588  957 12,708  964 13,160  992 13,191  994 13,433  1,009 14,660  1,084 Sorry, don't have anything lower. 
Author:  mysterion [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:04 pm ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
ODragon wrote: 11,476  887 11,647  898 12,346  942 12,466  949 12,587  957 12,588  957 12,708  964 13,160  992 13,191  994 13,433  1,009 14,660  1,084 Sorry, don't have anything lower. How do you work that out? 
Author:  ODragon [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:16 pm ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
mysterion wrote: ODragon wrote: 11,476  887 11,647  898 12,346  942 12,466  949 12,587  957 12,588  957 12,708  964 13,160  992 13,191  994 13,433  1,009 14,660  1,084 Sorry, don't have anything lower. How do you work that out? I scanned until the button was gray and then I put it in the wiki. 
Author:  ICBLF [ Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:19 pm ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
It looks almost linear with ODragons numbers and my single data point. If that holds, 9500 scan should yield 751 planets (results not guaranteed). 
Author:  KJReed [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:40 am ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
looks like though adding more scan becomes less effective the higher you get. i think its around 9300 though according to binary 
Author:  senatorhung [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:45 am ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
ICBLF wrote: It looks almost linear with ODragons numbers and my single data point. If that holds, 9500 scan should yield 751 planets (results not guaranteed). when i added 0,0 as a datapoint, excel gives me this equation: y=0.0758x where y is the number of planets and x is the scan power if this holds up, the answer to the original question is 9895 scan power. 
Author:  KJReed [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:50 am ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
senatorhung wrote: ICBLF wrote: It looks almost linear with ODragons numbers and my single data point. If that holds, 9500 scan should yield 751 planets (results not guaranteed). when i added 0,0 as a datapoint, excel gives me this equation: y=0.0758x where y is the number of planets and x is the scan power if this holds up, the answer to the original question is 9895 scan power. add all the data points and do a regression. its not linear. 
Author:  Darth Flagitious [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:54 am ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
senatorhung wrote: ICBLF wrote: It looks almost linear with ODragons numbers and my single data point. If that holds, 9500 scan should yield 751 planets (results not guaranteed). when i added 0,0 as a datapoint, excel gives me this equation: y=0.0758x where y is the number of planets and x is the scan power if this holds up, the answer to the original question is 9895 scan power. Try that by using 1,1 because you start off with 1 scan and that finds 1 planet. That's the true Origin. However, I don't think it's a completely linear equation. 0.0758 seems to be a rather odd choice for a linear slope. We need to get some grayout data points between 1 and 11k to get a more accurate relationship. I suggest we make this an Official Figure Out DanMath Project. 
Author:  KJReed [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:03 am ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
Darth Flagitious wrote: senatorhung wrote: ICBLF wrote: It looks almost linear with ODragons numbers and my single data point. If that holds, 9500 scan should yield 751 planets (results not guaranteed). when i added 0,0 as a datapoint, excel gives me this equation: y=0.0758x where y is the number of planets and x is the scan power if this holds up, the answer to the original question is 9895 scan power. Try that by using 1,1 because you start off with 1 scan and that finds 1 planet. That's the true Origin. However, I don't think it's a completely linear equation. 0.0758 seems to be a rather odd choice for a linear slope. We need to get some grayout data points between 1 and 11k to get a more accurate relationship. I suggest we make this an Official Figure Out DanMath Project. doesnt fit quadratic cubic or quartic well. also tried a logarithmic that one seemed the to have the least random of values. more points will help though. 
Author:  senatorhung [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:34 am ] 
Post subject:  Re: Omniscient 
my next scan ran will be 2650.18 scan power, but won't be for a couple more weeks yet 
Page 1 of 2  All times are UTC 
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ 