Eternium
Eternium

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jewelry Crafting Guide discussions

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Rivx View Post

    If you want a 301 ring, then you will need at least one true 90. One way to find it would be to check the fusing result - only a true 90 will yield a 119 rare. Even 90+89+89 will give 119 if that 90 is true, so you can use any two 89's to use for checking.
    Just realised that this is what I should be doing, since all I want are those max 90s. No point in sorting those that are lower.

    Now, to recraft all the 89s that I sold...

    For reference, two 89 and one 90 that get you 119 means that the 90 is proper. If you have 3 90s that give you 119, you'll need to sort them to figure out which is the proper 90 - which is what I've been doing, still haven't seen a 119 fuse though.

    Edit:
    Got too caught up in the whole, what's best stuff for the guide. Might put this in there somewhere as well...
    Eternium Files - links and details (Updated: 10 Aug 2018)

    Eternium Guides:

    Comment


    • So, we all are slowly seeing the wisdom of another decimal point?
      Last edited by Coda; 03-02-2018, 03:20 PM.
      VUFO ZEBE ZAQI 1381 -|- Gethi, mage, & Kisheli, XP mage

      Comment


      • Not me. I'm still plenty happy with close to prefect for far less effort.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Rivx View Post

          If you want a 301 ring, then you will need at least one true 90. One way to find it would be to check the fusing result - only a true 90 will yield a 119 rare. Even 90+89+89 will give 119 if that 90 is true, so you can use any two 89's to use for checking.
          I used 3 x 90s and fusion always showed 118. Switched around my 90s.. still 118. Why would that be?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Coda View Post
            So, we all are slowing seeing the wisdom of another decimal point?
            No point, haha - unless they're all shown, there's always going to be some manual comparison needed to figure out if it's exact or not, so simply adding one more significant value doesn't solve the issue.

            Currently "90" can be anything from 89.5 to 90; adding one, you get "90.0" can be anything from 89.95 to 90.0 - yes, smaller range, but still unsure as to the exact value.

            The other thing to consider is that we currently don't know the full extent of the internal value range, yes, it appears to be 144 to 180, but we have no idea how many additional decimal are involved in the random generation, we're currently guessing at 2, but it could be more - pretty much only affect your chance of getting things, but still...
            Eternium Files - links and details (Updated: 10 Aug 2018)

            Eternium Guides:

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rytrik View Post

              I used 3 x 90s and fusion always showed 118. Switched around my 90s.. still 118. Why would that be?
              Ordering of the pieces doesn't matter: the MAX() function returns the maximum anyway, doesn't matter which of the 3 it is.

              You're getting 118 because none of the "90s" are the real "90"...
              Eternium Files - links and details (Updated: 10 Aug 2018)

              Eternium Guides:

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Nhat View Post

                Ordering of the pieces doesn't matter: the MAX() function returns the maximum anyway, doesn't matter which of the 3 it is.

                You're getting 118 because none of the "90s" are the real "90"...
                I should have clarified what I meant by switching around. I have about 15 of 90 rings of a certain type in my stash and switching them in and out to see if I could get me that 119. Nada. Only by adding a rough Stone could I get 119 in the fusion process

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Rytrik View Post

                  I should have clarified what I meant by switching around. I have about 15 of 90 rings of a certain type in my stash and switching them in and out to see if I could get me that 119. Nada. Only by adding a rough Stone could I get 119 in the fusion process
                  k, although same answer apply - none of your 90s are the real 90.

                  Hence my revised filtering process, only care about getting perfect:
                  1. Keep 2x 89s for each attribute
                  2. Craft until I get a "90"
                  3. Check fuser if I can get 119 for it (no gemstones)
                  4. If not, sell it and go back to step 2.
                  5. if I do, put it in the stash and go back to step 2.
                  6. Keep going until I have enough to make the legendary - although I'm still working out what combination I want...
                  Eternium Files - links and details (Updated: 10 Aug 2018)

                  Eternium Guides:

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Nhat View Post

                    k, although same answer apply - none of your 90s are the real 90.

                    Hence my revised filtering process, only care about getting perfect:
                    1. Keep 2x 89s for each attribute
                    2. Craft until I get a "90"
                    3. Check fuser if I can get 119 for it (no gemstones)
                    4. If not, sell it and go back to step 2.
                    5. if I do, put it in the stash and go back to step 2.
                    6. Keep going until I have enough to make the legendary - although I'm still working out what combination I want...
                    How much of a difference will that one point make in the overall Fusion process?

                    because going through all that effort needs to be incredibly worthwhile. And so far poking my eyes out seems like a much more fun endeavor

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Rytrik View Post

                      How much of a difference will that one point make in the overall Fusion process?
                      It'll make "one point" difference - comparison in the "Perfect" Legendary part of the Guide.

                      Yeah, insignificant, but it's there, and I want it
                      Eternium Files - links and details (Updated: 10 Aug 2018)

                      Eternium Guides:

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Nhat View Post

                        It'll make "one point" difference - comparison in the "Perfect" Legendary part of the Guide.

                        Yeah, insignificant, but it's there, and I want it
                        Yeah it's insignificant enough for me to not count this vital at all. There are a great many things in life that I would rather do besides try to get that perfect legendary. So this is just one of those things that I will put in my "give up'' list :-) I will be certainly satisfied with an imperfect legendary if it means doing other far more interesting things in life LOL

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Rytrik View Post

                          Yeah it's insignificant enough for me to not count this vital at all. There are a great many things in life that I would rather do besides try to get that perfect legendary. So this is just one of those things that I will put in my "give up'' list :-) I will be certainly satisfied with an imperfect legendary if it means doing other far more interesting things in life LOL
                          haha, yeah, I'm in no rush to get them either, playing less than 30 minutes a day lately, while on the train - the completionist part of me doesn't allow for the "give up" list, but it's in the "very long eventually" list.
                          Eternium Files - links and details (Updated: 10 Aug 2018)

                          Eternium Guides:

                          Comment


                          • Nhat the purpose of the extra digit is NOT to identify truly perfect pieces. It is to assist us during crafting and sorting of the near perfect uncommons. It confuses me that this has been misunderstood.

                            Recent example: I had several 89's. With a lot of trial and error I found no combinations that yielded 118. Waste of time. Then I crafted another 89. Then with more trial and error, I did get a set of 3 that yielded 118. With the extra digit the process would be trivial and much faster.

                            Switching topics, here are my thoughts on trying to craft and find a truly perfect uncommon:
                            • The game randomly generates the internal value.
                            • We can assume with confidence it is a decimal not an integer.
                            • I don't know other programming-languages but I do know a little bit about Visual Basic. It has several numerical variable types. Such as INTEGER, LONG, SINGLE, DOUBLE. In my mind we are dealing with a number that is probably comparable to SINGLE. No need to use up extra memory with it being 'double'.
                            • Even being comparable to 'single' that would mean it has the capability to store a LOT of decimal places.
                            • Unless the code is written to round off the number of decimal places in some way, they will be there. Not one or two, but perhaps 10 or more. Even after a number is rounded, the extra zero digits are still there if I understand data storage correctly.
                            • Why would they round off the number? That's just extra code that isn't needed unless it served a purpose
                            • If this is at all close to correct then the probability of a randomly-generated internal 180.000000000 is essentially zero.
                            • It is perhaps designed this way completely on purpose so that the only source of a perfect 180, is the game 'reward' of a truly perfect piece.
                            Nhat you being a software engineer, I'm sure you will immediately point out all the ways above that I'm wrong and I hope you do that so I can learn.

                            But it does not change the original point of my other post requesting the extra digit to be displayed. A hopefully easy change in code. Adding it to the display we can see, is for crafting, and sorting, and identifying more specifically, which pieces to use.
                            VUFO ZEBE ZAQI 1381 -|- Gethi, mage, & Kisheli, XP mage

                            Comment


                            • The below are purely my own view and speculations on the matter, no offence is intended, and my apologies upfront if any us perceived/felt.



                              Originally posted by Coda View Post
                              Nhat the purpose of the extra digit is NOT to identify truly perfect pieces. It is to assist us during crafting and sorting of the near perfect uncommons. It confuses me that this has been misunderstood.

                              Recent example: I had several 89's. With a lot of trial and error I found no combinations that yielded 118. Waste of time. Then I crafted another 89. Then with more trial and error, I did get a set of 3 that yielded 118. With the extra digit the process would be trivial and much faster.
                              Sorry, didn't mean to keep pushing the "how to find max" stuff, it's just what I'm doing. Also, it's not so much as a misunderstanding, it's more of a potential usefulness, or lack thereof - although it might only apply to me, due to my approach and goal for the whole Jewelry thing.


                              To be honest, I personally find the "suffle things until I get 118" approach extremely taxing, both in deciding which piece to sell and the whole "suffling" process. Which is why I don't do it, if I want 118, I'll just work out the 3 minimum for it and only keep those, in this case, it's the displayed "90" - so I don't even bother keeping any 89 at all.

                              Yes, the extra digit would give you a better range to keep, maybe 89.3 (on mobile right now, so can't check). But I still wouldn't be using the "suffle" method for crafting, too tiring, I'll just sell anything under 89.4 - since a "89.3" might actually be a 89.25, which won't give me 118 (again, values are made up to illustrate the example)

                              As mentioned, this add one significant value for you to sort with, but you'll still need to sort those 89.3s - so, ultimately, it's just "passing on" the issue. Yes, others might not care about sorting those, but the same apply for the 89s - some want to sort, some don't care.


                              With respect to the whole random generation, I personally haven't dealt with any complex examples, the "simple" ones I've done are along the lines of:
                              1. Determine the lower limit, in this case 144.
                              2. Determine the upper limit, 180
                              3. How "many" in betweeen, 3600 (based on current assumption of 2 decimals - haven't figured out a way to either proof/disproof this yet...)
                              4. Generate a random number X - this is commonly between 0 and 2^32 (integer value)
                              5. Final value is: 144 + (X % 3600 / 100) - modulus operator, return the remainder after the division
                              We've partially proven the 144 - 180 range via the impact of the FLOOR(MAX()). I did some very quick test with shifting the range and got different result. But that's only if the equation is correct - I still have some doubt, haven't had much luck reproducing the "reverted fix" from the 50 something beta.


                              We know that the real value is kept, and the rounding is only applied when displaying the values. Otherwise, the whole "equip and swap" sort method wouldn't work - since they'll all be the same.


                              Assuming a typical programming language output code, and based on that note Adrian posted in the XP thread, I think we can assume that it apply to the game, adding the extra value for display should be fairly simple.

                              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printf_format_string

                              For the "no decimal" attributes, change "%.0f" to "%.1f"; and for the single decimal ones, change "%.1f" to "%.2f"

                              Again, these are probably somewhere in the "common" section of the game - at least that's where I would put them - so changing them will change how the attributed on other items are displayed as well.

                              As noted, this is purely my speculation, please don't use it as "evidence" that the devs should do it right now because it's a "quick" change. As posted elsewhere, "mid-task switching" is a major source of headache and stress for me as a software engineer.


                              Hope that clarified a few things and was useful in some way.
                              Eternium Files - links and details (Updated: 10 Aug 2018)

                              Eternium Guides:

                              Comment


                              • Nhat Back to the nits of crafting and fusing, here's something I just realized today. There is an optimum way to socket and fuse the 2/1 mixed piece in the 5/4 leg. I'll elaborate in steps:
                                • This applies to putting 2 stats which use gemstones into the 2/1 Rare piece which then goes into your 5/4 Epic.
                                • We're not going to use gemstones for either of these 2 Secondary "S5/S4" stats in the final Epic-->Legendary fusion step.
                                  {Either of the 2 Primary "P9" stats get those matching gemstones.}
                                • We're going to socket only the S5 stat, with all 3 gemstones, in the Rare-->Epic step. If you do move them around, this does not affect the optimum, although it does shift "points" between the S5 vs. S4.
                                • So, for clarity, in fusing the two Secondary stats:
                                  • the first Rare, is a "1-stat, the 1st stat" and is made like always: 3 Uncommons + 3 matching Gemstones
                                  • the second Rare, is a "1-stat, the 2nd stat" and is also made like always: 3 Uncommons + 3 matching Gemstones
                                  • the third Rare, it's the "2-stat, 2/1 mixed" piece... this is the one we will test different ways to socket it - - there is an optimum way
                                • Use 89.51 as the value for all the Uncommon pieces. It's as if we used 100% "display-90s" but got unlucky on all of them.
                                • Use "exactly" 50.00 as the gemstone value. Just stating this for complete clarity.
                                • The sum of these 2 'secondary' stats at the end -- we want this to be the highest possible -- and that's the optimum.

                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                the S2→S5 stat the S1→S4 stat
                                # Stones Result Display # Stones Result Display Sum
                                3 223.49 223 0 187.22 187 410.71
                                2 222.94 223 1 188.27 188 411.21
                                1 221.90 222 2 188.81 189 410.71
                                0 221.35 221 3 189.36 189 410.71

                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                The optimum is easy to remember because you simply socket each Uncommon with it's matching gemstone.

                                I haven't gone back to the guide today, to scan it for whether this point is made anywhere. It's "new news" to me.
                                Last edited by Coda; 03-02-2018, 07:12 PM.
                                VUFO ZEBE ZAQI 1381 -|- Gethi, mage, & Kisheli, XP mage

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X