RatingBuster

53 - Option to always assume the hardcoded gems

I'm having my comparisons slightly thrown off right now due to an item having either a unique or JC-only gem in it. RB then assumes "standard" gems in the new item I'm looking at, and it comes out as looking worse even though it really isn't.

There's also the issue of prismatic gems not being handled at all.

Hence, I'm thinking

1. Add prismatic gem selection (just like rgb/m)

2. Allow us to "[x] Always assume the above gems". I'm even thinking it should default to ON (and simply be disabled if all gems aren't filled out).

"Ignore gems" is unfortunately not the answer, because that'll always skew the results in favor of nonsocketed items.

User When Change
mikk Sep 13, 2009 at 10:46 UTC Changed status from Waiting to Replied
Whitetooth Aug 31, 2009 at 03:56 UTC Changed status from New to Waiting
mikk Aug 20, 2009 at 13:46 UTC Create

You must login to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register to get one!

  • 5 comments
  • Avatar of mikk mikk Feb 21, 2011 at 18:24 UTC - 0 likes

    Oh wow has it been over a year?

    Okay, for purposes of comparing two pieces of gear accurately, gems present a problem: you may have JC-only gems in your equipped item which make the new piece look worse when it isn't. You may also have gemmed it differently from how you would gem your new piece.

    So, ... yeah, bad option name there. That's maybe what's causing the confusion.

    A better name would be "[x] Pretend that the default gems are also used in equipped item when comparing."

  • Avatar of mikk mikk May 13, 2010 at 00:19 UTC - 0 likes

    My solution makes more sense for comparison purposes to be quite honest...?

  • Avatar of Dealanach Dealanach May 12, 2010 at 00:25 UTC - 0 likes

    The fix I would propose for JC gems is the option to "treat BoP gems as the next-best BoE version" Or failing that "Treat BoP gems as if the socket contained the auto-fill gem for that color socket."

    This would result in treating a socket containing a JC gem as if it were empty, making it much easier to compare the two items without inflating the value of the item with the JC gem.

  • Avatar of mikk mikk Sep 13, 2009 at 10:46 UTC - 0 likes

    I should add that prismatic sockets are now handled by [x] Ignore prismatic gems which defaults to on, so that part of my ticket you can safely ignore.

    (And tlundse created Ticket 61 for it)

    Last edited Sep 13, 2009 by mikk
  • Avatar of Whitetooth Whitetooth Aug 31, 2009 at 03:53 UTC - 0 likes

    Could you provide a few examples as how the RatingBuster should deal with items with different socket numbers and different socket colors?

    About the prismatic gems, the JC gems are no longer prismatic so that leave only +all stat gems.

    I don't quite understand what you mean by "Always assume the above gems"

    Last edited Aug 31, 2009 by Whitetooth
  • 5 comments

Facts

Last updated
Mar 30, 2012
Reported
Aug 20, 2009
Status
Replied - Someone has replied after waiting for more information.
Type
Enhancement - A change which is intended to better the project in some way
Priority
Medium - Normal priority.
Votes
1

Reported by

Possible assignees