Quote Originally Posted by X~Calibur View Post
Tautology. A good process is one that is by definition efficient. This thread cogently argues for the most efficient use of gems.

Your so-called "process" doesn't differ significantly from the process argued in this thread. If anything, it is likely to be slightly less efficient since the "auto-upgrader" uses 4 gems all the time. Yes, you can set it to use flawless after a certain point, but it will always use 4 gems nonetheless. Coincidently, most of the time, using 4 gems is the most efficient way to do things, except at levels 1-3 where using 1 D results in lower gem usage. This is of course why Dave keeps noting that the usage total that you report is in the ballpark of what his model predicts.
Actually, the process I posted is far different. I am saying to upgrade ALL gear at the same and in small increments and to only do so if all your gear is level 10. Among other things that made my process far different. You should re-read my post. And I am in no way putting mathmatical formulas into my findings because I base all my stuff on real world experience from the game.

Quote Originally Posted by DarkhoundDave View Post
not really, i am actually giving a process japanpimp. I am showing the best way to use the gems you would get from looting. gems cost the same no matter what there is no discount on gems so i don't know where you are getting that from. the phrase cost efficient does not imply that you are getting your materials for less, it is using the materials you have in the most productive way.
No Dave, you are not giving an upgrade process. You are giving "a mathematical analysis on the cheapest way to upgrade star levels."
You did alot of work and I was impressed by your effort. But it simply cannot be done. This is impossible because the way you are calculating in the fail rate is wrong. It is much more dynamic than that. You guys are trying to apply a mathmatical formula to chance. It's like trying to develop a formula that will tell you the number of attempts it will take you to roll a 6 with dice and then rely on that formula.

I am simply coming in here and saying, "Hey, I have been rolling dice for a while and I have found that if you hold the dice like this, and roll them so they travel between 30-40 centemiters then your chances of rolling a 6 are very high."

My process is not a mathmatical formula. It is a process of "holding the dice a certain way and rolling them with a certain amount of force." Not a process of, "Roll the dice 6 times and your chances of rolling a 6 are 1 in 6." Sure, the math works. But that formula cannot and should not be used because we cannot make a formula for chance. On paper it looks great. But in the real world, you may fail 30 times in a row before you roll a 6.