• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at stararmy@gmail.com or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy

[DR System] Stat Tables

Zack

Inactive Member
There is a lot of text, but there is a point to it. The 'stat tables' can be found here: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=gu ... ats_tables

Problems with the current system:


Weapon Spam

Or, Endlessly adding weapons to make your ship better. This is best illustrated by the Sakura and Plumeria gunships though everyone does it. The Sakura is a clean looking ship, well made, and well balanced in terms of capabilities and usage in game. The Plumeria is essentially the same ship, only it has more guns on it which makes it better because it has the same stats just more guns. Following this logic, as there is no reason to not have more guns and more guns make a ship better because it has more firepower, there is no reason to stop at only a few turrets. Some of the worse ships on the site are entirely covered with weapon turrets!

This is bad because as people look to improve their designs they are stuck with knowing that their ship will do better if they add more weapons. The system we have now rewards this and it leads to designs which start to defy common sense.

Red Paint

Or, Starships that are faster for no reason. The example this time is the Type 30 Space yacht which exceeds the speed standards. So why doesnโ€™t KFY put the Type 30โ€™s engine in the Plumeria? It would make the ship faster and have no downside. Looking at this from a common sense point of view, it doesnโ€™t really make sense to have starships that ever move slower than your fastest engine. This is reflected across everyoneโ€™s starships as they generally all move at the same speed (the top tech top speed bracket).

This is bad because it makes all the ships very much alike. With everything traveling at the same speed there is no reason or real possibility to have fast interceptors, slow battleships, or middle of the road cruisers.

Swiss Army Ship

Or, just adding everything to your ship because there is no reason not to. The C3E has weapons, top teir engines, top teir shields, fighters, a repair bay, mechanical arms, a portable island, all kinds of FTL, Interdiction, a morgue, and so on and so forth. Having a lot of gear isnโ€™t necessarily a bad thing but compare this ship to one like the Eikan. They have similar stats and similar levels of DR that they can put out but the C3E is โ€˜betterโ€™ because while they have the same stats it has way more gear.

This is bad because the C3E is supposed to be a high tech but mostly well rounded ship capable of doing anything while the Eikan is more streamlined for combat. Because there is no reason not to take gear, and the rules promote weapon spam and red paint, gear can be the only reason two ships are different and more importantly people who design โ€˜streamlinedโ€™ ships are penalized unfairly because while this should have a benefit it does not under the current rule system.

Stat Creep

Or, arbitrarily choosing the DR of your weapons so that they are better than the alternatives. Of course this applies to speed ratings and every other โ€˜statโ€™ as well. For whatever reason people set their ship stats as higher than they really should be like Originโ€™s gauss rifle which is in the mecha cannon damage category even though it is a power armor sized rifle. Gradually all weapons are being pushed toward the same DR rating. Starships weapons are gradually migrating upwards towards SDR 4-5, Power armor weapons to ADR 4-5 and personal weapons to PDR 4-5.

This is bad because it reduces the variety in the role-play, making everything less special. No oneโ€™s ships are really fast, no oneโ€™s weapons are really better than any others and vehicles and mecha are all carrying the same strength weapons as people in power armor.

QQ

Or people complaining about having to do math, extra work, or retroactive changes to their submissions to fix things.

This is bad because it is really annoying to hear someone complain about having to add two numbers together or how they canโ€™t be bothered to do intense mathematical operations like subtraction.

Hit Points


Or Structure Points. Ships have a lot of these and people take them to mean a shipโ€™s hit points even when the rules say that a ship can take serious damage when they loose just a few SP.

This is bad because people treat hit points like they are playing DnD, you can take a limitless amount of damage until you run out of HP then you fall over dead. Having a better way to express what a structure point is or should be would reduce the amount of battles where ships are taking damage but arenโ€™t really being hurt.

Solution:
Tie stats into the SP system.

A ship has an amount of SP determined by its size, generally 10, 20, 30 ,40, or 50.

Each SP can be assigned to a system, Engine, Shield, Weapon, CDD, Hyperspace, Crew/Misc.

This assignment is based on a shipโ€™s picture. How much of the ship is devoted to engines equipment? How much to weapons? How much space does the crew take up?

Once youโ€™ve decided how much of your ship is devoted to each component, you can look up on a table what your shipโ€™s stats will be (how many shield points you have, the total amount of DR your weapons can have, ect)

Game mechanics, balancing, physics, and all of that complex stuff can be safely hidden behind the table.

Results:
Weapon Spam

If you add weapons to a ship, you need to add space for them. This means the ship will have more SP and a smaller engine to ship size ratio. This in turn means your ship will go slower because it has more mass to move, it also means that simply adding on more turrets wonโ€™t necessarily make your ship better. Basically players get real physics with all of the math hidden behind a look up table so they donโ€™t actually have to think.

Red Paint

Looking back at the Type 30 and the Sakura; Now under this system the Type 30 is faster because it has more space devoted to engines and no weapons to slow it down. If you want to apply this retroactively it helps give context to why certain ships are they way they are. The battleship is slow because it is cutting down on engines for heavy duty shields and weapons. The interceptor is fast because it trades weapons and shields for powerful engines to catch pirates and smugglers. The Scout is nimble because it has a balanced amount of shields, weapons, and engines with a slight emphasis on the engines. Suddenly the rules now promote nations creating a wide variety of designs and specialized designs are now much better at their intended role than other ships.

Swiss Army Ship


For the same reason as Red Paint, the Swiss Army Ship problem is solved. In this case ships like the more streamlined Eikan would have a stat bonus over ships weighed down by a lot of gear like the C3E. Carriers also make more sense as streamlined fighters designed for combat getting serviced by a large gear oriented ship is something that the rules would favor.

QQ

No math, you can look everything up on the table. No retroactive work, all old ships can stay the way they are and new ships get balanced using the old ships as a basis for their stats.

Hit Points

Ships following the new format would have a SP chart generated showing which systems take up what spaces. Say you get take 5Sp worth of damage you could then look on this chart and see what 5sp worth of damage would do to your ship. It would be an entirely optional system but I know some people would find it cool to be able to track a ship taking damage in this way, or get an idea of what parts of a ship are more likely to be hit.
 
...Uso needs to chime in on this. This is his thing, not mine.

I personally am glad to see the compromise, but I doubt it's really worth even bothering to use in light of just keeping the default values. Yamatai (along with Nepleslia and the NMX) already stands at the top of the heap with 100% of its SP being useable.


Adding numbers to what is already essentially 100% sounds, well, a little silly.
 
The specifics of how the rule works (like the age cap for the age bonus) is less important right now than what the rule promotes, and how the rule would affect people trying to use the system from both an administration and game play perspective. In light of that, my current thoughts are:

So what makes the Plumeria better than other starship submissions?
I understand the whole โ€˜Waaaa, Wesโ€™s ship is better than our shipโ€™ thing and I strongly believe that anyone should be able to have ships that are just as good as his and stay within the rules. However, the Plumeria is pretty much the best starship submission on the site. Just looking at the wiki page you can tell that this ship has a little something extra over all of the other ships. Why?:

* Interior Layout Artwork
* Interior Room Artwork
* Lots of history with the RP
*Well written interiors (solid one paragraphish stuff, not too long, not too short)
* It looks like I could buy this in one of those micromachine 3 packs.
*Lots of wiki links to relevant information.
* Feels lived in/used
* Glowing bits
* Different people have contributed to the design

Iโ€™m sure there are other things too (pictures have proper background colors), but you get the idea. I would rather not introduce a rule that nerfs this Iโ€™d rather try and set up a system that encourages better starship design so future submissions are more: Realisticโ„ข, more accessible, and more useable by players. Iโ€™m really not too upset that it goes above the speed limits for these reasons. But again I really would like to see more starship submissions with the same level of color as the Plumeria and make the playing field level.

How do we get the Plumeria to fit in with the proposed system?

Because this really shouldnโ€™t be a nerf that makes people have to explain why the ships they are designing suddenly get worse. It should be just a slight buff so it can easily slip into the narrative weโ€™re creating.

* Wiki-page attribute bonuses: Probably the most direct option would be to give ships stat bonuses based on their wiki pages. Things like good artwork, good writing, interiors, and that kind of thing could be used as a basis for how well the ship was designed ICly which would translate into the ship being better/faster/more well armed.

* Increase the amount of SDR available per point,
* Increase the FTL speed per point spent,
* Increase Utility per point spent
I based these values on the maximum listed values with the Plumeria exceeds in just about every category. The diminishing return setup also means the Plumeria gets hit really hard for being just that much above the previous maximum. Simply increasing what you get per point spent wouldnโ€™t nerf the Plumeria, but it would make the higher speeds of that craft the new โ€˜normal balanced shipโ€™ value. I donโ€™t really have a problem doing this with the FTL/STL speeds at all. SDR could be increased too, it isnโ€™t a big deal but I really like the amount and strength of weapons I get with the current values on ships I design and I think the DR systems needs a good revision to make weapons more powerful anyways. I think this is the best solution right now as it immediately fixes the problem without having to introduce any additional rules (bonus points can always be added in later).

On a side note: another reason I didnโ€™t include armor is that there is no accounting for armor in the DR rules. The stat tables arenโ€™t meant to change any of the current rules, just add to them.



* Alternitively, develop a โ€˜cheapโ€™ version without the point to point fold drive or weapon pods?

* Make an exception for starship guns with less than SDR 1?: Not my favorite idea, but Iโ€™ll bring it up. We could exempt small weapons from counting towards a shipโ€™s DR cap. Of course weโ€™d need to impose other limits so this isnโ€™t abused and people donโ€™t just make huge arrays of ADR4 guns for starship combat and get them for free. This would certainly help with the Plumberaโ€™s problem and we could then shift the weapon pods (36 x SDR2 for 72SDR!) down to ADR4 to take advantage of it along with the AA guns.

* Designer Based Bonuses?: It is an idea Iโ€™ve been thinking about but didnโ€™t originally implement because bonuses would be hard to balance and at the time I didnโ€™t think it really added anything that people couldnโ€™t do themselves by carefully balancing point spending. On the other hand saying โ€˜everything with Anri kessaku in the designer area gets +10% to utility and everything with Wazu gets +10% to CDD speed ect has its merits. It would reward people who work together to design ships (stacked bonuses) and would reward characters and RP. On the other hand it would make a bit of a mess of the tables with having to figure out new โ€˜top valuesโ€™ and the like. Maybe they should just provide bonus points like +1 to FTL and such instead? A mechanism to approve and safeguard this practice would also need to be put in place because it is ripe for abuse and requires increasing the size of the stat tables to include min/maxed ships with bonuses. Also there would need to be some sort of hugely diminishing returns for trying to stack these bonuses. Even better, this could be folded into an age bonus type system where characters can earn these bonuses for being on the site and doing starship development RP.

* Age Bonus: I really donโ€™t like the proposed rule but I love the spirit of the rule. I donโ€™t want to include it as is because I really want the values on the table to be the โ€˜maxโ€™ values. This lets GMs/faction managers/decision makers to quickly look at the table, see what ships are possible, and then base policy around that. Though it may not be apparent this will help a lot with creating the setting size, DR revisions, and the like. I really do like tieing available points to spend with years on the site though. I could really see using a โ€˜youth penaltyโ€™ in place of the tech levels. It removes the guessing game of what percent should I use and clearly gives the desired effect based on an understandable and easily measured value which is a huge improvement. Iโ€™ll be adding in an Age Bonus type system to replace the Tech Level system soon.

* The โ€˜Hero Shipโ€™ bonus: Maybe every faction gets one โ€˜hero ship classโ€™ with bonus points or plotships get a โ€˜Hero Shipโ€™ bonus or even ships getting a โ€˜player heroโ€™ bonus where they receive increased stats based on the number of player characters, how long they have been their, and their professions (engineers give speed stat bonuses, cooks/repairmen give utility bonuses ect). I do kinda like the idea of tieing ship bonuses to things people can actually do (like RP) but I really donโ€™t like the idea of hero ship stat bonuses. If characters are going to improve a ship I really feel it should be done within the rules and by making tech submissions (fleshed out rooms and systems). Perhaps giving individual players a bonus for civilian/subsystem submissions that they can apply to a single ship once? (And they loose the bonus if the ship gets destroyed of course!)
 
I rarely if ever stick my head into the tech forum, but dear lord is this ever a bad idea. It's rife with opportunity for favoritism and nepotism and people getting something for nothing, which is NOT how the site should work.
 
Because all implemented and to be implemented suggestions are entirely based on numbers and have no room for people to inject their own opinions?

And how under the proposed system you wouldn't be able to get the fastest ship without giving up something else like shields or weapons?

Or are you talking about how implementing rules that reward players for making good starships designs constitutes favoritism?
 
I believe the concern was the case of the designer bonus. Factions that do not make use of author avatar designers are penalized because their designs are not created by people who were Techpriests imported from another RP or members of the Kessaku clan.

The age bonus is also a poor way of reflecting what should be an entirely IC point that doesn't need hard rules to be enforced. If people want to make arses of themselves trying to show off their latest best design ever, they're free to it. But as Doc knows, this tends to look very bad, and people's opinions of him have suffered as a consequence. I don't think we're lacking in filters keeping out bad submissions, with the tech forum moderators and administration in the way of that.

As much as I like the idea of ships with art receiving bonuses (because I always do hand-drawn art of my ships), its a messy system to begin with, and just isn't worth the effort. It'll cause a lot of arguing and pain, and the effects are minimal. A DOGA render that someone likes shouldn't be the reason that a ship is going to mow everyone down.
 
When I was thinking about 'heroship' bonuses, I was thinking about something a lot more tame, mind you.

On Miharu, my engineering staff - most especially Tom Freeman - has a long history of struggling with the experimental gear on board the ship. The vessel CFS and fold systems have been giving him a whole lot of trouble and he practically half rebuilt them to try and optimize them his way. He might not be one of the famed designers like Yaichiro and Wazu... but his efforts - his tears, sweat and blood - were all there.

My plotship is 4 years old. That's a significant amount of time for a character to be involved with a ship ICly. That's why I was wondering "Even if Miharu is a 30 SP ship, perhaps I should reward my players, whom have involved themselves into keeping the ship together, by showing that their hard work payed certain dividends. For example, perhaps I could apply a +1 SP bonus to the fold drive and a +2 SP bonus to the CFS units." I was going to cap at 3 and consider it a noteworthy increase.

That's what I really was referring to earlier - that lived in quality Uso also seems to like.
 
Interesting. I can't say I know the DR system. I haven't looked into it, but from what I can read in the thread, I can tell that Uso's doing a good job at trying to improve it. So even though I don't know much about the system, I'm gonna comment on it anyways with the use of Player's Right #8! =d

Faction Age Bonus System (FA BS)
I think it's fair that factions get some bonuses due to their advances having been around for longer (provided the whole issue with smaller craft is fixed, the percentile bonus being the most ideal solution). Though I have to agree this should have a 7 point or less point cap.

Designer Bonus
It would be ideal, intriguing and unique... but it would be very complicated. For one, like Exhack mentioned, the factions that don't have a PC engineer would be at a disadvantage (or at least that's what I understood by what he said). This could be compensated by giving NPC engineers random bonus points, but that's not the real problem. The problem is more close to what Fred said about Hero Ships; you would be putting character's skills and applying them into the DR system, in which case it would be unfair if only the engineer skill from characters would apply to the DR system. You'd have to also apply Fighting skills bonuses to Power Armor users, to rocket launcher users and etc, and to repairers and all of that. You'd basically have to apply any skills relative to DR into the system to make it fair, otherwise people might complain about an engineer skill's represented and quantifiable gratification as opposed to all the other skills. So, while I think it would be awesome, I don't think it should be done to prevent further complications.

Hero Ships Bonus
I definitely am against 1 Hero Ship per faction. I think a ship should get bonuses by going through Role Played battles and other kinds of Role Played experiences (drills, maintenance and repairs operations of dire circumstance, etc) that NPC crew and AI should get experience from, which would -then- be reflected in the DR system. Hero ships could be any plotship, and their level of 'heroness' goes up as people Role Play in it. Which I think is a good idea, since it would promote more RPing and friendly competition. The number of battles/drills/events needed to go through to gain those bonuses and just how many numbers would be applied to each one is debatable, but should be calculated carefully before being put in motion.

Less than 1 SDR Weapons
It's a good idea, but like Uso said, it can be exploited unless limits are imposed. What I suggest is allowing a certain number of less than 1 SDR weaponry can equal one point (ex: 8 ADR4 weapons = 1 point, 16 ADR3 weapons = 1 point). That way you would be able to add weaponry on the craft without using points on things that might be sacrificing too much for not nearly enough in return.

Wiki-Content Bonus System (WC BS)
I strongly disagree. Mostly because of what Exhack said but also because of a simple rule: OOC to what pertains to OOC and IC to what pertains to IC. Considering the wiki page is a convention article that explains something from an OOC standpoint, I don't think it should affect the ships IC at all. Much how a sword doesn't need to be 'fancy' or 'cool looking' to be practical, a ship doesn't have to have 'flavor text' or 'flavor images' to be a good ship with legendary crew members. Yes, making an above-par page should be praised and encouraged, and maybe even rewarded, but not ICly.

Making a New Power Distribution Stat
The change would be too radical. It would basically need the whole system to be re-invented, and as it is, even this small upgrade is being dissected thoroughly by admins. So, while ideal, it will require some couple of more upgrades to get to that.

And that's about it. Hope I helped decide things a bit more around here or brought in some unexpected perspective-changing themes.
 
How about this? It adds enough room that I don't think future ships will be "nerfed" too badly but it adheres to the system pretty closely.

Ship Level, points

1, 12
2, 24
3, 36
4, 48
5, 60
6, 72

We could also make it where the above is for aged factions.

eg

Faction Age 0-2 years, level x 10
Faction Age 3-4 years, level x 11
Faction Age 5+ years, level x 12 (shown in the chart above)
 
My counter-proposal:

Faction Age 0-2 years, level x 5
Faction Age 3-4 years, level x 8
Faction Age 5+ years, level x 10

Which is basically no change from Uso's initial idea, yeah, I know. I just happen to like that balance... and by the way, I find 'faction age' very arbitrary. Some factions aren't going to create backward spacefaring races like how the Lorath were. Other factions are very liable to start as more advanced - not any new faction is going to be technologically backward.

Limits were applied in submissions because they were voluntary... and I really think it should stay that way. In a way, these attempt to limit faction strength by playerbase, and limit faction strength by seniority... those in cold implementation could be going too far.

In any case, I'm not comfortable with 10/11/12 simply because it's too narrow a range anyhow. Not to mention keeping 10 SP as the top standard bring about less changes in our present documentation and it's easier for the mind to cope with.

* * *

"Nerf" is a word which is based upon standards... and the biggest impact the shipbuilding stat tables really have are over how fast our starships can go.

STL speed is where these changes make the most impact, because STL sees the least change, and it's the most important factor (we have) that shows how fast a vessel is in combat.

CDD-style FTL actually doesn't matter all that much within a star system - a speed as 'low' as 5000c is going to get you through 10 AU (the distance between Earth and its Sun) in 1 second. Seeing there have been so far in SARP very few pursuit scenes and pursuits/interceptions are really the only instances in which being faster than the other guy is really important, a reduced value here is going to make a minimal impact.

Fold-style FTL is roughly the same deal. People gloss over travel times anyhow and races against the clock likely go 'at the speed of plot' anyways.

I like how this proposes to be more limiting. In my mind, if this blunts the creation of small vessels being able to pack the weaponry and defenses usually seen on ships bigger than it and boast in addition a speed performance that equals the fastest scoutships - I think something there is very wrong.

So, I'll admit I've grown less sympathetic to Wes' attempt to get more wiggle room as a compromise. Wes obviously thinks this proposal is something good by now - the attempt to increase the number of points an older faction (Yamatai being at the top) would have looks a little cheap even: doesn't Yamatai have enough worlds already to ensure its supremacy? Does it really need to climb over the top limits (i.e.: Plumeria 'classified' speeds) to secure its position as the dominating faction?

As a Yamatai GM, I do not feel the faction needs to have exclusively top numbers in order to be good. I think it's cheap (maybe even borderline insulting to the playerbase). I think we're better than that. This is why I dislike trying to milk advantages like that. I see where Wes is coming from with that... and it is very typically Wes-like of him to do so... which is perhaps why it annoys me like this.

I'm also fond of the idea of give-and-take with starships having a clear consequence - not having something for nothing, having to carefully balance choices. I see it as putting a lot more importance on the chosen roles for starships, with intelligent design specialization shining out of that.

If you need an excuse, then just apply what you said you wanted to apply: warfare has been raging long and top-of-the-line state-of-the-art crafts Yamatai could produce are simply too expensive to keep building (and perhaps even maintain as newer, more rugged ship models or refits are made). All those shipyards, depots and other logistical assets being hit means something anyways.
 
Your suggested system makes new factions too gimpy and restricts ships way too much overall, while my suggestion gives us a few more points and the difference between new and old factions is not so much it'll make new factions suck in comparison.

I intend to approve this submission by Friday. with the x12 modifier standard for all factions (unless we go with the age bonus system I proposed will will make it range from 10 to 12 based on faction age, capped at 5+ years for fairness).

Accordingly this thread will be returned to the NTSE.
 
It sounds like your mind was already made up even before I took the time to write that long post. Fine - that wasn't unexpected.

Still, 10/11/12 is a very trivial difference. I'd re-propose 8/10/12 instead.
 
I'm down with 8/10/12. We'll go with that.

That sound okay to everyone else? Uso?
 
8 means you have to tighten your belt, but you're hardly so disadvantaged that you look limited by comparison, or don't stand a chance in direct confrontation against something that's superior to you.

10 is likely, if you want to go with that per-year progression, going to be the average value most decently established factions is going to be for a long time, considering SARP's present age.

12 sounds like something which would have been richly deserved by now-staple factions of the setting.

That's how I thought of it anyways. For example, the Lorath are now probably in the 10-sweetspot, meaning that Tomoe's consideration to have his race mostly on par technologically with the rest of SARP's longstanding races true.
 
I liked FABS ( It had a great acronym too!) and I'm starting to like 8/10/12 a little bit.

I still want to adjust the tables upward to make the Sakura stats baseline and I'll make another post when that is complete and FABS has been added.

Also, the reason I didn't put this in NTSE is because it was just something I was thinking about that had not reached a point where it was in a final approval state.
 
Try not to make any drastic or major changes at this point, Uso, because all of Fred and I's arguing has been based on what you already had and we don't want to go through it again.

I think this is pretty much ready for approval once you edit in the 8/10/12 FABS.
 
-Added .7 to all STL values
-Shifted all CDD values 10 and below down 1 and added a new 10 value.
-Added .5 to all point to point FTL values
-Doubled DR avalible for weapons
-Swapped out Tech Level for FABS.


This should make everyone happy. The 'balanced' starship where an equal amount of points goes into everything ends up being generally just as good in terms of stats as the Sakura. Newer factions get less points to use so they have to do more tweaking to get what they want while the older guys get more points to spend so they end up getting to choose what they want to specialize in rather than what they want to leave out.

Of course the tables can always be reverted if people don't like the new values.
 
My feedback:

~ I personally dislike seeing the upper range for Sublight engines go clear beyond 1/3 of the speed of light. Firstly, I enjoyed thinking of 1/4 has being the cruising speed of most fast vessels, with 1/3 being the fastest they could go. Secondly, we have delay-to-impact weapons such as projectiles and missiles to keep in mind - especially seeing how those are usually not as fast or precise as laser-like weapons and yet should ideally retain some level of viability.

~ CDD speeds can hardly be considered 'nerfed' following these guidelines. Actually, there's the possibility of being even faster now. Though, what happened to the slower small vessels? Under these figures, it feels like you've no choice between being fast and really fast.

~ I'm not fond of how fold got faster than 1 ly/m. Again, what happened to the slower small vessels? Also, check your numbers: when they should hit 1 ly/m, it's actually written 0.1 ly/m.

~ I really hate (not dislike; hate) how allowable DR values have been doubled. I was fine with how it was before and the extra points Wes got in with the 12 SP figure already allowed some comfortable wiggle room for me. But this? This is waaay too much. I'd really would like this returned to the previous value - this is a case of 'less is more'.

Most of the points above are preferences. I can live with them being as they are, even if I like them less and frankly think we could've gone without all of those (the 12 SP thing already had fixed that for Wes as far as I'm concerned). But the SDR thing I really want corrected if nothing else. That change is... well... monstrously wrong to me.
 
STL: Please revert to the earlier values.

CDD: Looks fine

Fold: Can you make a chart where the top speed is 1 LY/min?

SDR:

I suggest this:
Code:
Points, SDR

0	0
1	4
2	10
3	16
4	22
5	28
6	34
7	40
8	46
9	52
10	58
11	64
12	70
13	76
14	82
15	88
16	94
17	100
18	106
19	112
20	118
21	124
22	130
23	136
24	142
25	148
26	154
27	160
28	166
29	172
30	178
31	184
32	190
33	196
34	202
35	208
36	214
37	220
38	226
39	232
40	238
41	244
42	250
43	256
44	262
45	268
46	274
47	280
48	286
49	292
50	298
51	304
52	310
53	316
54	322
55	328
56	334
57	340
58	346
59	352
60	358

The formula is (A+B)*2

A = Point spent
B = An odd number (1,3,5,7... starting with 1 for 1 point spent)
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn moreโ€ฆ