[Cypress]

Well I've been looking at complicated maths recently and came across GTA V score formula. It's way too complicated.

Take a look at how score is jumping

http://pastebin.com/aYZZ4EKS

People found the formula for level 100 and up so they can calculate it like that

Код:

Reputation points for rank 100 and greater can be calculated with following quadratic polynomial function: f(x)=25x^2 + 23,575x - 1,023,150, where x is given rank.

Here is the link for the orignal thread http://gta.wikia.com/wiki/Rank

I'm trying to find on how to calculate the score from the beginning which means from rank 1 to 99. However it says that this quadratic polynomial function works from 100 and above however when I used it at level 99 it worked aswell.

Also GTA V final rank is 8000 which reaches the limit of 32 bit system 2,147,483,647. So there are in total 2,147,483,647 points for collect in GTA V. Will probably take a couple of years.

I might be wrong about that there is a formula. I used an online program to find the correct formula but failed.
http://www.electrictactics.com/poly/polyin.html

Also when you enter numbers from 100 and above it doesn't give you the same function but it looks a bit correct at the beginning.

Well lets see maybe somebody has a clue about whats going on.

[Dripac]

Don't you have something more useful to do with your life?

[Sh4d0w2]

Sorry but : Math + Me = GTH

[Cypress]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dripac Don't you have something more useful to do with your life?

I consider this useful so therefore nope.

[Mauzen]

There is no formula for <100, at least none that would be more useful than the raw numbers. Differentials are iterating in seemingly random patterns, indicating that any formula wouldnt be continuous, and so uselss.
A 100 degree polynomial that matches all the ranks as local minimums and maximums (theres a term for that, but I cant remember its english translation right now) could give you the needed reputation for a certain rank, but is useless for anything else but that (and pretty hard to handle anyways )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dripac Don't you have something more useful to do with your life?

I once spent weeks for finding a formula for how camera vectors differ from aim vectors at different angles in samp

[KingHual]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mauzen There is no formula for <100, at least none that would be more useful than the raw numbers. Differentials are iterating in seemingly random patterns, indicating that any formula wouldnt be continuous, and so uselss. A 100 degree polynomial that matches all the ranks as local minimums and maximums (theres a term for that, but I cant remember its english translation right now) could give you the needed reputation for a certain rank, but is useless for anything else but that (and pretty hard to handle anyways ) I once spent weeks for finding a formula for how camera vectors differ from aim vectors at different angles in samp

ur such a geek XD

[Cypress]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mauzen There is no formula for <100, at least none that would be more useful than the raw numbers. Differentials are iterating in seemingly random patterns, indicating that any formula wouldnt be continuous, and so uselss. A 100 degree polynomial that matches all the ranks as local minimums and maximums (theres a term for that, but I cant remember its english translation right now) could give you the needed reputation for a certain rank, but is useless for anything else but that (and pretty hard to handle anyways ) I once spent weeks for finding a formula for how camera vectors differ from aim vectors at different angles in samp

Yea I thought so as well but at the same time I also thought, who would of sit there an write sequence of numbers like that, there must be a formula they used, well it might be very complicated.

[Ritzy2K]

............?

[punklord]

Lord Mauzen to the rescue everytime!

[Mauzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypress Yea I thought so as well but at the same time I also thought, who would of sit there an write sequence of numbers like that, there must be a formula they used, well it might be very complicated.

Yep, thats an uncommon way, it would be the easiest (and normal) way to use an quadratic funtion. The numbers obviously are based on one (similar to lolumads result, though an aproximated curve wont ever be 100% exact for the reasons given above), probably even with simple coefficients, but I guess single ranks got slightly adjusted manually for better balancing. This especially makes sense, as the "power" of rank rewards differ a lot, and so some ranks should require more or less time than they normally would. E.g. Rank 4 just unlocks a flashlight, while other ranks unlock a whole arsenal of new weapons.