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 | Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:46:22 | Changed status from Waiting to Replied |
| Whitetooth | Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:56:40 | Changed status from New to Waiting |
| mikk | Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:46:06 | Create |
- 2 comments
- 2 comments
Facts
- Last updated on
- 13 Sep 2009
- Reported on
- 20 Aug 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.
Reported by
Possible assignees
-
- Manager
- Author
Votes (Total: +3, Average: +3.0)
-
Votes +3
- #2
mikk Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:46:20I 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)
- #1
Whitetooth Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:53:54Could 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"