Forums → Games → Gemcraft CS: Rudimentary 64-Spec

Updated Version of 64 Spec-

Note! Always combine left to right, in parentheses as well! Parentheses mean combine the gems inside the () then combine them with the one outside.

1. (o+o)+o+o+(o+o)+(o+b)+(o+b+b)
2. 1+((o+o)+o+b+(b+b))
3. (b+o)+(b+b)
4. 3+((b+b)+b+b+b+(b+b))
5. Place G5 Aside.
6. (b+b)+b+b+b+(b+b)+(b+b)+(b+b+b)+(b+b+b+b)
7. 6+(b+o+b)+(b+b+b)
8. (o+o)+o+b+(b+b)
9. 8+(b+b)+b+b+b+b+(b+b)
10. 7+9
11. 5+10. Finis.

----Comparison----

32 spec + 1x U-

Leech: 12.85
Bloodbound: +0.426/hit lvl.

64 spec V. 1-

Leech: 12.70
Bloodbound: +0.432/hit lvl.

64 spec V. 2-

Leech: 12.86
Bloodbound: +0.434/hit lvl.

All with maxed relevant skills.(45+15).

Success!

Stats with 128-C x1 amps!

32 Spec +U

837.32 Leech

64 Spec V1

839.84 Leech

64 Spec V2

841.62 Leech
-----

Every bit helps

To add red change-

1. (o+o)+o+o+(o+o)+(o+b)+(o+b+b)

To...

1. (o+o)+o+o+(o+o)+(o+b)+(o+R+b)

Best possible place for Red.

Stats VS Red-ed-32 spec +U.

32 spec-

8.36 leech
+0.299/hit lvl

64 spec-

8.38 leech.
+0.309/hit lvl.

With Amps-

32 spec-

746.84 Leech.

64 spec-

752.17 Leech.

Best all-round

There is a mistake within lines 6 through 11, giving me a grade 5

6. (b+b)+b+b+b+(b+b)+(b+b)+(b+b+b)+(b+b+b+b) - Grade 3(1)
7. 6+(b+o+b)+(b+b+b) - Grade 3(1)
8. (o+o)+o+b+(b+b) - Grade 3(2)
9. 8+(b+b)+b+b+b+b+(b+b) -Grade 3(2)
10. 7+9 - Grade 3(1) + Grade 3(2) = Grade 4
11. 5+10. Finish. - Grade 5 + Grade 4 = Grade 5

Line 7 should be clarified to:

7. 6+((b+o+b)+(b+b+b))

There was no mistake, just confusion with that line

Huh. Considering that every line has supergemming at the right side, I think it obvious. And I was rushed, might have missed a ().

Qustion: After I create this super Grade 5 (64 gem), or any from this line of experiments, how do I continue ? How do I upgrade it to G6, untill the end of my hexile ? (just started reading these poste within the line of "don't use "U" to upgrade our gem :P)

If you check the guides, there are several gem recipes, and a couple ways of upgrading those gems.

Thunderrider, it appears to me, is trying to come up with an even better starting gem recipe than the ones psorek posted in his end-game guide, or that he developed and didn't really publish too well, such as the one found here : https://gist.github.com/quinor/2a554a9373987174269b

Right now, there are five, I think, different methods for upgrading a gem. From simplest to most complicated (which, generally also means least to most effective and least to most costly) they are the U method, the "weaving" or "spec" method, the 16 gem upgrade, the 64 gem upgrade, and the 1024 gem upgrade. Those three upgrades, by the way, were also found by psorek.

The U method is just that - taking a gem and upgrading it by hitting the letter U. This can be done more mechanically by duplicating the gem and then combining the original with the duplicate.

The "weaving" or "spec" method is primarily meant for emphasizing two colors in a multi-color gem. Since you generally want to emphasize the Black/White, and the Orange/Yellow, in a gem (depending on what the exact gem is) you would first Duplicate the starting gem, then create two more gems, one for each of the two colors you want to improve, at the same Grade as the starting gem. Combine one Single gem with the duplicate of the starting gem, and then combine the other Single gem with the original starting gem. Combine the two resulting gems.

The 16, 64, and 1024 gem upgrade plans were discovered by psorek. He's got both his 16 and 64 gem upgrades in his guide, I believe. He never really made the 1024 gem upgrade well known, because though it is more effective than the other upgrades, it is FAR more costly, and incredibly cumbersome to implement. There are a couple people who attempted to write scripts to do the 1024 gem upgrade, and those take some five minutes, minimum, to run.

The 64 gem upgrade plan is generally regarded as the most cost-effective means of upgrading a gem. You should be (barring the discovery of anything more effective, yet less cumbersome than the 1024 gem plan) using the 64 gem plan for anything you are upgrading, provided you are far enough along to find more than straight up U upgrading useful and not cost-prohibitive.

Sarkassyan, 64 combine results in Grade 6?

And to upgrade use 64 combine.

For amps use 1x Rud. 128 Combine, rest 64 Combine(1x 128c(higher base leech, slower growth per grade) to make amps 1 grade higher).

@thunderrider: I didn't manage to get to a 64 gem. Wrapping my head around he 32 one, and I think that was a grade 5 gem.

@Astroshak: @The "weaving" or "spec" method: That means that if I start with a grade 5 gem, I will get to a grade 7 gem just from 1 wave of combinations ?

Yes. The first gem combines (the Dupe, then combining the two multicolor gems with the single color gems) will take you to Grade +1, and the last one will bring you to Grade +2. If you start with a Grade 5 gem, you will end with Grade 7. If you started with Grade 40, you will end with Grade 42.

That method is better than straight up U upgrading, but the 16 gem combine is significantly better, and the 64 gem combine is even better than that. The "weaving" or "spec" method is really only useful after you've started out but before you can afford to move on to the 16 or 64 gem upgrades.

Version 3 here!

1. (o+o)+o+o+(o+o)+(o+b)+(o+r+b)
2. 1+((o+b+b)+(b+b+b)
3. (b+o)+(b+b)
4. 3+((b+b)+b+b+b+(b+b))
5. Place G5 Aside.
6. (b+b)+b+b+b+(b+b)+(b+b)+(b+b+b)+(b+b+b+b)
7. 6+((b+o+b)+(b+b+b))
8. (o+b+b)+(b+b+b)
9. 8+((b+b)+b+b+b+b+(b+b))
10. 7+9
11. 5+10. Finis.

Notes-

This is approximately 0.05% better at the 90,140(ish) Hit Level! 3707.2 VS 3705.

Also, this is no longer the 16 O, 48 B ratio. It is now 12 O, 52 B ratio!

This is ONLY better with G+1 amps(I used 64 + U, not 128c, so benefit of V3 could be higher. Will test now) and currently, ONLY after 90,000 hits.

Test with 128-c Amps.

Version 2-

3,771.16 Leech

Version 3-

3,774.46 Leech

Ver. 3 is 0.0875% better.

Edit. For the record, 32Spec+U with 90k hits = 3,672.79.

Thunder ? There is something missing up there ... where r u using the gem "2."?

Oh I appear to have forgotten a piece. 2 + 4 = 5. Sorry! 2+4=5 for all 3 ver.

Forgive me for the slip ups guys, manually testing every possible combination of 8-20 gems multiple times to find the best result and adding it to 2-6 more of the same and re-comparing and all takes a lot of time. :P