Originally Posted by Mightybeast
OK I think I have got an idea of how to make gem selection much more user-friendly, and significantly quicker. It will require a few changes. The idea I had was to use forms and make 2 list boxes. The first list box will have you choose the category of gem. For example, you will choose from: STR, AGI, Haste, ArP/hit... etc. Then right next to the first list box will be another list box that will have you choose the exact gem. For example, if you choose STR in the first box, the second box will list: +10 STR, +12 STR, +14 STR, +16 STR, +27 STR. Doing it this will I think will make gem selection much easier. I'll have to restructure the gems in the lookup table. Also, one problem is that there will have to be 2 more columns inserted into the database, and I know that will screw up other data- so a lot of formulas will have to be changed. Landsoul if you're willing to do that I'd be willing to fix the gem sorting, because I don't want to screw around with your forumulas
|
I do like this idea, or something to the general effect. If this were implemented, I would rather a left menu choosing a color (red yellow blue orange purple green, in that order for primary/secondary color, and then descending SEP) and a right menu containing a list that is aggregated from the gems of that color, in descending SEP.
For example:
|
I have a blue socket that I want to socket, and match the color for the socket bonus. In the left menu, I select "Purple". In the right menu, I choose "+8 Str / +12 Stam".
|
Where would the quality (green, perfect, blue, epic) selection go? Off of the gear selection area - too much clutter. Instead, a filter would be added on the perimeter of the chart, and the quality selection would commence. From then on, all gems in the chart itself would only display the quality of gem selected once, instead of having to scroll through many gem qualities and flavors in one big honkin' menu. Honestly, people primarily choose one gem uality and stick with it. All perfects, or all rare, or all epic. Rarely does a person PLAN (which is what utilizing Landsoul's spreadsheet is used for, planning, not primarily for modeling)
If the spreadsheet is deemed to be developed around both planning AND modeling, this solution could be tweaked somewhat to allow different caliber gems , but this could also be solved through the exceptions notation described later in this post...
~~~---~~~---~~~---~~~---
This may or may not be doable, but here's my brainstorming...
A "standard" selection where a gemming could be pre-defined (color matching: all red slots use x, all yellow slots use y, all blue slots use z; color-ignore: +8 Str), and further, a user could choose "match all sockets", "ignore non-DPS socket bonuses", "ignore non-DPS increasing socket bonuses", or "ignore all socket bonuses". The actual gear with the gems shown could of course be modified as is the case now, to account for individual gearing choices, say, near the expertise cap, or to fulfill meta requirements.
An simplified example of a potential implementation (assume relative SEP being 2 Str, 1.6 Crit for all examples - actual SEP would be actively drawn from the current sheet):
A user decides that they want to maximize their DPS absolutely. Their preferences are Red Socket: +8 Str ; Yellow Socket: +4 Str / +4 Crit; Blue Socket: +4 Str / +6 Stam, and their "wild card" (color ignore) is +8Str. They select "Ignore all non-DPS increasing socket bonuses".
Now, on their sheet, an example of how this would work in practice: they are using the [Warharness of Reckless Fury]. The gem system flags 3 sockets as active in this piece - one red, two yellow, with the socket bonus being +4 Str. The first socket is filled with a +8 Str gem, as per the standard gemming reuirement. The second and third gem are presented with a quandary - the standard gem to meet socket color is +4 Str / +4 Crit, however, the +8 Str is determined by the sheet to be better for DPS straight-up, gem vs gem. The opportunity cost for going maximized DPS gem is +4 additional Str from meeting socket bonus requirements. Taking this into account, the comparison is actually +16 Str (wildcard for maximizing DPS) versus +12 Str / +8 Crit (meeting socket bonus). SEP of 32 for option one, SEP of 30.4. According to the option chosen by the user, "ignore all non-DPS increasing socket bonuses", thi piece would be automatically gemmed for 3x +8 Str gems.
|
As another usage example: A different person is using the [Netherforce Chestplate]. This person has made the same gemming preferences as above. Currently the sheet has placed three +4 Str / + 12 gems.
This person needs the blue socket for their meta requirement. There is an option in the furthest-right cell that makes up this socket bonus field that, when activated, locks OUT the automatic gemming system. The user then puts in a +4 Str / +6 Stam in the blue socket, and goes ahead and picks up the socket bonus after doing a uick mathematical judgement in his head
|
Alternatively, the sheet could select the sockets that would make the most use out of the required blue gems, as an option to "enfore meta requirements". Also, the sheet
could be told to ignore CERTAIN sockets as opposed to ignoring ALL of an item's sockets. The pro to be gained by this would be manual control over specific sockets, and then the sheet could optimize the gemming around this. A user could further use a system like the one Mightybeast described in the manual placing of gems. Manually choosing a gem would automatically flag that socket as being a user-set gem, and it would subsequently be ignored by the auto-gemming. Plus, when a new piece of gear is selected, the gems would automatically be optimized, until a user modifies them, including removing gems that no longer have a socket in them.
Selection of having the JC profession bonus should also be available, whereby the strong +27 Str (or whatever) could be regarded as being the top on the list for hypotheically filling blue sockets, and then yellow sockets, and finally red, should 3 blue and yellow sockets ot be available. Blacksmithing should also be an option, which will allow two more sockets, prismatic, which would be assumed as the highest DPS socket available, and a Dragon's Eye should fill all other sockets before touching the prismatic sockets. Or however it would end up working out.
Automatic enchanting could even be implemented at this point, with little further hassle, by simply using the same logic of drawing the SEP values from a table of enchants for each.
After thinking about this some more, a better way to do implement the "gemming preferences" could possibly be an automatic selection of the highest DPS gems, both of the color-matching and the wildcard, which would automatically pull the SEP for each gem from a gem table and use that to fill in the sockets as it goes along. The user could still force certain certain sockets to be "overlooked" with a manual option being set.
This could be a fair amount of work, but it could turn out to be a very sleek system! Choose your gemming preference, select if you're a BS / JC, let it know what qulaity level of gems you want to use, and you're set! Want to change a gem that was put in by the sheet? Choose what color the socket is, and then choose the particular flavor of gem. The sheet will now ignore that socket. Want to wipe the slate clean? A "reset custom gemming flags" button would remove all user-set gems, and allow the sheet to re-optimize, or simply hitting "optimize gems" would re-optimize the gemming AROUND the user-set ones.
Sorry if this seems rambly, but I really think that this idea could have some legs, if it doesn't come off as too daunting. I've attempted to go back and clean up the post as much as my foggy 6AM brain permitted.
02/22/09, 2:49 PM
Similar Threads
