Robo Smelter Layout!

[naosnule]

The probability of getting 2 bars is factored into the 1.6 average; just as the 1.53.
In 100 smelts; I would AVERAGE 160 bars; you would average 153 bars.
Just as 10 smelts; I would average 16; you would average 15.3 (rounded to either 15-16) however in smaller scale its hard to see the difference. (10 smelts you lose 1 bar, but save 10 lime, enough to do another smelt and make up that bar.)

I honestly don't see how you got 96 and 92 bars; maybe laying out your calculations would make more sense.
Quarrying for 100 lime for 4 bars doesnt seems all that worth it (cause its wrong) but 100 lime for 7 bars....ya kinda worth it.

15-10 would get 12 more bars than you in 100 smelts at the expense of 200 lime.

The only flaw I've got to point out is the fact that everyone seems to be valuing charcoal at 0s. Charcoal takes effort and time as well, albeit less than lime does.

Yup and so does chipping ore even if you are using stamp mills.

[Sparkky]

You're not crazy about the 16:9 ratio idea. Look at the chart I threw together.



Looking at this chart you can see the difference from the optimal smelt it you have an 8.8% less chance of getting 1+ iron bars, and a 13.1% change less of getting 2+.
Even 20:5 is still just 12.7% loss from optimal. But as you can see it starts to increase.

If you look at the Delta Percent (or the change in the percent compared to the previous) you can see that it really starts to get expensive when you try to really skimp on the Lime

For those visual people, I create the following graph of that change so you can visualize it easier.


The yellow dot is your "preferred optimal point." As you can see at that point it is still decreasing in efficiency rather slowly. From the looks of it, and the math you could even move to 20 Iron if you really wanted to without reaching the "huge drop point." But it become pretty obvious once you go past 21% things start to go down fast, although it seems like the change of getting 3+ starts to actually bottom out when you get to the extreme numbers, although it is already so low at that point its probably not feasibly going to happen.

BIG NOTE: this chart isn't terribly useful if you were trying to mathematically optimize, but more just as an aid to help people who are a little lost in this conversation.

[sabinati]

bunch of nerds in this thread

[Dancer]

its good that people are actually discussing it rather than there be 1 universal input. I've been doing 13:12 this whole time, but i did consider less lime early on since its quite far.

I will convert to this less lime strategy but first I need to make way more coal camps because using less lime here is essentially using more coal per iron bar, correct? and ive gotten lazy with my coal clamps.

[MagicManICT]

I will convert to this less lime strategy but first I need to make way more coal camps because using less lime here is essentially using more coal per iron bar, correct? and ive gotten lazy with my coal clamps.

That would be correct, though I'd have to sit down for an afternoon (or two) to figure it up. My maths are rusted and busted. It all comes down to how much access you have to coal and lime, and right now, lime is almost limitless if you're in the right spot. Coal, on the other hand, is limited by the size of your forest and space you have to build clamps.

[Sevenless]

I will convert to this less lime strategy but first I need to make way more coal camps because using less lime here is essentially using more coal per iron bar, correct? and ive gotten lazy with my coal clamps.

That would be correct, though I'd have to sit down for an afternoon (or two) to figure it up. My maths are rusted and busted. It all comes down to how much access you have to coal and lime, and right now, lime is almost limitless if you're in the right spot. Coal, on the other hand, is limited by the size of your forest and space you have to build clamps.

Coal right now seems "cheap" because of easy access to wood piles and the like. But I have a feeling that in the long run it will be at least as hard as lime to get. And when you have to chop+extract as well as build and light the coal pile, it's already close time wise.

[sabinati]

I will convert to this less lime strategy but first I need to make way more coal camps because using less lime here is essentially using more coal per iron bar, correct? and ive gotten lazy with my coal clamps.

That would be correct, though I'd have to sit down for an afternoon (or two) to figure it up. My maths are rusted and busted. It all comes down to how much access you have to coal and lime, and right now, lime is almost limitless if you're in the right spot. Coal, on the other hand, is limited by the size of your forest and space you have to build clamps.

Coal right now seems "cheap" because of easy access to wood piles and the like. But I have a feeling that in the long run it will be at least as hard as lime to get. And when you have to chop+extract as well as build and light the coal pile, it's already close time wise.

Just because we don't have treeplanting now doesn't mean we won't sometime in the near future...

[Droj]

BIG NOTE: this chart isn't terribly useful if you were trying to mathematically optimize, but more just as an aid to help people who are a little lost in this conversation.

If they weren't they sure are now.

[Sparkky]

well I tried to help I would have thought seeing the line bend down at a faster rate might help them understand the increase in the rate of change

[Sevenless]

Just because we don't have treeplanting now doesn't mean we won't sometime in the near future...

True, but player planted trees are still going to take more labour than collecting wood from woodpiles.