# Simple Combo/Permute calculation

• B
• DaveC426913
In summary, the conversation discusses a Steam game called Shapez where the goal is to produce and deliver shapes to a hub using conveyor belts. The game involves using four primary shape resources (square, disc, star, and windmill) in various colors and up to four layers. The number of possible symmetrical products is 112, while the number of asymmetrical products is much larger. The conversation also delves into the complexities of rotational symmetry and layer dependencies when trying to determine the total number of possible configurations in the game.
I think I'd be satisfied with just knowing the possible symmetrical shapes, which I think is simply
(4x8)+(4x8)2+(4x8)3+(4x8)4, as you eluded to way back at the start.

erobz
DaveC426913 said:
And I just realized that vastly complicates the calculations of the total permutations. Not I'm no longer sure that there are simply static rules, so much as there are procedures (algorithms).
We are operating under the assumption that you can in theory get to every configuration, we aren't talking about the likelihood of reaching a particular configuration.

erobz said:
We are operating under the assumption that you can in theory get to every configuration, we aren't talking about the likelihood of reaching a particular configuration.
We don't even know what "every" configuration is. That trick, where a layer 2 shape is melted into layer 1, throws the combinations count into chaos because it means the "rules" for validity are ambiguous.

eg.: how many combinations are added if you melt a layer 4 all the way down to level 1? What about melting a level 4 down to level 3 and a level 2 down to level 1? The possibilities are virtually limitless.

Regardless of how it might be done or even if it can be done, simply counting them becomes an intractable problem.

DaveC426913 said:
We don't even know what "every" configuration is. That trick, where a layer 2 shape is melted into layer 1, throws the combinations count into chaos because it means the "rules" for validity are ambiguous.

eg.: how many combinations are added if you melt a layer 4 all the way down to level 1? What about melting a level 4 down to level 3 and a level 2 down to level 1? The possibilities are virtually limitless.

Counting "every" configuration suddenly becomes an intractable problem.
Well, if some higher level converts like that, the new configuration was already counted. Probably safe to say what @pbuk computed ##2.0 \times 10^{24}~\rm{shapes} ## is an upper bound and leave it at that.

DaveC426913
I feel like I've led you guys on a wild goose chase, only to find we're back where we started.

DaveC426913 said:
I feel like I've led you guys on a wild goose chase, only to find we're back where we started.

Yes, ultimately the answer to the question: Would it be tactically useful to create factories that produce each type of major shape in anticipation of future levels needing them? is: probably not.

DaveC426913 said:
Yes, ultimately the answer to the question: Would it be tactically useful to create factories that produce each type of major shape in anticipation of future levels needing them? is: probably not.
I didn't even realize there was a point to this beyond trying to figure out how may shapes there are!

DaveC426913 said:
We don't even know what "every" configuration is. That trick, where a layer 2 shape is melted into layer 1, throws the combinations count into chaos because it means the "rules" for validity are ambiguous.

eg.: how many combinations are added if you melt a layer 4 all the way down to level 1? What about melting a level 4 down to level 3 and a level 2 down to level 1? The possibilities are virtually limitless.

Regardless of how it might be done or even if it can be done, simply counting them becomes an intractable problem.
I don't know what you mean by "melting down". There is no trick, now I've played the game the rules are simple: every layer must have at least one quadrant occupied.

That's it.

I think you are missing the simple trick that enables you to make the "hanging" quadrant in the 'logo' shape: it is made in two halves.

There is an open access wiki on Fandom, I haven't looked at it much (it spoils the fun) but it's easy enough to figure out the game mechanics if you have played things like SpaceChem, Factorio etc.

pbuk said:
I don't know what you mean by "melting down". There is no trick, now I've played the game the rules are simple: every layer must have at least one quadrant occupied.

That's it.

To make this shape:

I assume you concur with this:
When layer 2 is stacked on top of layer 1, they "melt" together to become one layer. But, importantly, the blue square will not shrink. i.e. you cannot build the requested shape this way.

There is a trick to it, but it requires multiple steps. I wouldn't call it "simple" if I had to discover it on my own. To you, being more experienced with similar games, I guess it is not new.

Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
I assume you concur with this:
View attachment 326413

Yes of course, but plus equals .

You can easily make the first shape by cutting a in half.

DaveC426913 said:
To you, being more experienced with similar games, I guess it is not new.
Perhaps, although I find that this type of game exercises the same parts of my brain as I use when writing code - particularly in a low level languge with RISC machine code at the far end of that spectrum! For a game with a more explicit link to coding, try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIS-100.

• Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
2K
• Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
67
Views
10K
Replies
6
Views
2K
• Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
15
Views
3K
• Other Physics Topics
Replies
48
Views
8K
• MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
5
Views
2K
• MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
5
Views
3K
• MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
20
Views
4K