Forums → Games → Gemcraft CS: graphics needed

Cronos, just so you know, your diagram for the 16 gem combine is incorrect. Following your method, using 16 G1 mana gems, I get 13.48 mana/hit.

Change it so that the top line is 7 = 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1.
The second line then becomes 9 = 2 + 7.
The third line then becomes 11 = 2 + 9.

That change results in a gem with 13.53 mana/hit, and the difference only grows from there.

Duplicating each one 16 times and repeating the recipe on the new gems, the diagrammed method gets a gem that steals 98.85 mana/hit, but changing it to what I suggest brings that to 102.94.

32-specc KILL

16-combine MANA and KILL

16-combine AMPS (orange & yellow)

Hm, Astro, I'll have to see with psorek. I thought it was right like this. There are two versions, for AMPS 7, for Mana / KILL I thought it was 6 in this line.
Thanks for the hint, though.

I will check - it's correct for 90% I guess. The difference is from "1" in bloodbound as blood multiplier is 1+something. Later something is about 100, but at the beginning it's 0.3 so "1" changes alot.

16-combine MANA KILL

Hm, I took everything from pastebin, don't know if all is up to date there.
It would be good if someone else had a closer look at the four on this page. Quite possible there are mistakes, after a while you get a little blind with those schemes

@cronos51: Excelent work, but I decided to use only 16-combine for amplifiers as the difference is tiny, less than 5% for g78. Can you get 16-combine for amplifiers and just name it 16-combine without further specification?

No problem. Are you ok with the host or want the pics somewhere else?

next edition of 16-combine

@cronos51: Host is OK, I download them and push on my dropbox for now

If you want some "fun", I'll have 64-combine method for you as additional material for true gemcraft addicts. Link here, but totally no obligation.

Stuff like that is pure fun to me, so I gave it a shot. I was trying to find the patterns/gems that exist more than once and make sense for simplifying at the same time. Unverified .... regard it as a draft...

One thing: it's like 16-combine, so g^b (+1, 2, ...) notation is more appropriate
Very nice draft though.

Hm, true. Somehow I might have thought nobody would ever do that more than once - at the beginning. xD Do you now what would be the result if one started with 64-combine and after continued with 16-combine? Marginal?
I could do a second version with changed silhouettes and adapted notation, of course.
Not even crazy-me would use it, I guess. Nobody probably would, if not for just building a script that does the combining-horror...