Forums → Games → Gemcraft CS: Rudimentary 64-Spec

It'd be a much better use of your time to use psorek's script. Exhausting the combinations manually will be disgustingly tedious, even with knowledge of what combination produces the best result (n + n) + n as many times as you can fit in with the number of gems.

Even then, meh. I.e. You have 16 n gems. (n + n) + n + n + n. Shift G, you have that and 5 (n + n) with an n left over. (n + n) + n + (n + n), take the first and eat the 3 other (n + n), combine. Couple fewer button presses than 16 combine, result is way less than 1% less specials.

You can look up combinatorials, exhausting even just the good combinations (as much (n + n) + n as possible) by hand is going to take several lifetimes for this, let alone when you get to 4096 combine

I can't code, have no idea what it even means, don't have python or C++, dunno what the difference is, etc. I do it by experimenting.

It's fun to do so. Just yeah, tedious, but it took me ~3 hours for +2.5% or so, not bad.

I'm going to request again for a more defined presentation for how these work. None of the variables in the formulae are defined and technically the order is not really defined either.

Just like the other guides, the formulae could be (and have been) interpreted in different ways.

Please define your variables and present the exact order of what is done more clearly, thank you.

Erile ... it is generally a simple matter of Order of Operations.
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))

Step 1 : take an Orange, add a second Orange. Then add another Orange, and then another Orange. Then add to that gem the result of an Orange plus an Orange. Then add to that gem the result of an Orange plus a Black. Then add to that gem the result of an Orange plus a Red plus a Black.

Step 2 : Take an Orange, add a Black, and then a second Black. Take a Black, add a second Black, and then a third Black, then add that to the previous gem. Take the result and add the gem from Step 1.

As I said, it is Order of Operations. In this case, it is really just a matter of reading the nested parenthesis.

Erile.

O ALWAYS is "Orange", as in, Orange G1.

B Always is "Black"

R Always is "Red"

G ALWAYS is only in a X-combine formula, not a X-spec formula, and represents ONE(1) duplicate. I've said this on many threads at least 5 times.

Erile ... it is generally a simple matter of Order of Operations.

Erile.
O ALWAYS is "Orange", as in, Orange G1.
B Always is "Black"
R Always is "Red"
G ALWAYS is only in a X-combine formula, not a X-spec formula, and represents ONE(1) duplicate. I've said this on many threads at least 5 times.

Erile, in any writing, the writer always assumes at least a small (or maybe not so small, depending on the work) capacity for thought. When the topic is basically "how to create a gem" it is assumed by the writer that the reader knows, being that it is a Gemcraft topic, that the writer is talking about Gemcraft and not, say, as a jeweler for the Gold and Diamond Source. It is also reasonably assumed that the reader would understand that hey, gems have colors! Thus, the use of the first letter in the gem color's name.

The only confusion that could arise there, for someone who is actively trying to follow the recipes in order to make better gems than they knew how to do themselves beforehand, would be the question of whether "b" means "blue" or "black". There is no gem color other than "orange" for "o" to correspond to, nor is there any other color than "red" for "r" to correspond to.

In the case of upgrade recipes, as opposed to starting gem recipes, the letter "g" is used to represent the starting "gem". It does not matter if the starting gem is a Grade 1 Orange, or a Grade 65 Red-Yellow-Black killing gem. As such, defining it as a specific gem is impossible. It is instead, any gem you wish to upgrade.

And Thunderrider already caught the error regarding Step 5, which was to combine the results of Steps 2 and 4 together. So, no, you can't discard the result from Step 2.

He later mentions what to do with the gem in step 2.

The thing to remember is that he's excited about 0.1% improvement over the previous version of a thing that is really tedious to do.

16 combine is roughly 7% better per upgrade? So at grade 40 it's 196% of u button (twice as good). This (with the largest improvement claim would be 198% of u button). At grade ~110, 761%, this 782%. Grade ~150 2946% and this upgrade 3087%...and I don't think anyone's posted pics of going that high...

That's the friendliest interpretation of the claim in this thread...well slightly higher because it's compared ~64 combine, which isn't as great a leap as it should be for the amount of work involved.

Erile, in any writing, the writer always assumes at least a small (or maybe not so small, depending on the work) capacity for thought. When the topic is basically "how to create a gem" it is assumed by the writer that the reader knows, being that it is a Gemcraft topic, that the writer is talking about Gemcraft and not, say, as a jeweler for the Gold and Diamond Source. It is also reasonably assumed that the reader would understand that hey, gems have colors! Thus, the use of the first letter in the gem color's name.

The only confusion that could arise there, for someone who is actively trying to follow the recipes in order to make better gems than they knew how to do themselves beforehand, would be the question of whether "b" means "blue" or "black". There is no gem color other than "orange" for "o" to correspond to, nor is there any other color than "red" for "r" to correspond to.

And Thunderrider already caught the error regarding Step 5, which was to combine the results of Steps 2 and 4 together. So, no, you can't discard the result from Step 2.

Dear Erile!

I was reading your posts with growing uneasiness until I discovered that you must, in fact, be a troll!

Many experienced players have gone out of their way to help you understand some of the advanced gemcraft tactics. You are the only person that can't bring those precious pieces of advice to work. Although I can onIy speculate about it, i very much doubt, that your "speed"-issues with traps are real. You post no videos to show what exactly happens.

Those instructions you are reffering to are for advanced players, who - like Astroshak pointed out - already bring some understanding to the table. But you seem to have none. If you can't read the combining and upgrading schemes, those things are probably way over your head.

So, i'm gonna have to apologize beforehand for what I'm going to say, because I have always encouraged others to join the gemcraft family, but...

... would you PLEASE just stop playing gc and leave our forums alone. You don't seem to get any fun out of it and are annoying countless interested players.

Sincerely,
8thSeaOfRhye

Many experienced players have gone out of their way to help you understand some of the advanced gemcraft tactics. You are the only person that can't bring those precious pieces of advice to work.

That's funny. I understand the tactics fine and get them to work just fine.

I asked for improvements to guides in places where they are not clear and have caused confusion for other players. I never said I don't understand. I asked for improvements where I saw room for them, and where I saw many other players also asking those questions.

Perhaps you should read the posts instead of making assumptions and attacking people based on those assumptions.

Although I can onIy speculate about it, i very much doubt, that your "speed"-issues with traps are real. You post no videos to show what exactly happens.

Yes, challenging my honesty instead of actually reading what I posted is the hallmark of a polite forum user. So is pulling in an accusation from another thread.

Its too bad for your "speculation" [accusation], that I wasn't the one who pointed out that I had a problem with traps. That was an experienced player on these forums and until they pointed it out I had no idea I was experiencing something different.

Erile, instead of just messing around, write a guide, do it better. You can't^w don't want to? Ok - but *please* shut off!

Seriously?

-I posted one, very simple to do, polite remark.

-I got attacked and responded to rudely and aggressively for that remark.

-I defended myself against the trolling in order to bring the thread back to constructive comments.

Thank you very much for sticking up for trolling instead of good information.

Thank you very much for accusing me of "messing around". I guess hundreds of images, videos, and months of collected data posted in guides doesn't count because it doesn't fit what you think?

Thank you very much for treating me like snot. Its so nice to see that the GC:CS community on ArmorGames is dominated by trolls and people who defend them instead of actually trying to have a polite, nice discussion.

This behavior officially makes me sick, and I'm ashamed that you are defending it Bilbo. I thought you were better than that. I am giving up on this, but only because I can see this community is full of close-minded rude individuals that aren't actually interested in improvement or discussion.

Erile, your commentary about the red gem, when without a pouch, was not trolling. Your experiences there differed from everyone else's for some reason.

Your commentary here, and in the rudimentary 128 spec thread, amounted to two things : Thunderrider needs to fix his errors (mainly better nesting parenthesis), and "waaaaah! people aren't explaining this stuff good enough!"

Attempting to play the part of an individual who lacks the basic knowledge of someone who has played the game and wanting better explanations to redress that lack is what is generating this response. As I said - and you quoted - a certain amount of knowledge is assumed to be possessed by the reader whenever anyone writes something for others. If you are not comfortable with the level of assumed knowledge by guide writers here, then follow Bilbo's advice and write your own Gemcraft Chasing Shadows Guide for Dummies.

Until then, just enjoy the game. If someone has a question, then that someone can ask - stop pretending to be someone you are not. If YOU have a question and want an answer, then ask. If you feel that someone else may have a question and seek to ask on their behalf, then let that person frame and pose the question himself, so you and others can answer. Don't assume ignorance and stupidity on the part of others.

Erile, I did not read everything you wrote in the past, but in the last days, everytime I saw your name as last post and I clicked it, I read something that disturbed you so much, that you could not resist to moan about it. And I feel very unconfortable with that. If Thunder writes something down with some errors, he often fixes it, but maybe he is already on "the next run"...
I don't want to be rude, if Isound rude, please excuse, it might be due to the lack of language - but the main point is: It is not helpful or motivating only teling "that's wrong", "that's not clear". I guess there are no more than ten or twenty people going as deep in GC that they get to the point reading in these "voodoo-combine-threads". And when someone asks "what shall I do with line 7" he gets help.
So I think it is ok, when people ask about specific problems, but I feel bad when someone says "that is bad stuff, do it better"...
OK. And now let us all calm down, lean back, freeze a couple of monster, combine some gems and show the forgotten who is the master!