Break Through in Forging (in General)

Armageddon January 28 2008 4:49 PM EST

I used a bit over 100 BA experimenting on a better forging formula for the Mageseeker accuracy.

It used to be 80, 24 (23BA/Cycle)

With scrupulous data keeping with my computer calculator application, I was able to revise a new formula for a more efficient yield.

Now changed to 75, 24 (22BA/Cycle)

Why would you change it to 75min instead of 80min?

Well, after saving the data of four accuracy cycles, I have determined that the 80min and 75min heating resolve with the same Rough Progress Meter yield.

Why would you heat 75min instead of 80min when you get the same yield?

This is the where I have broken through in the forging industry. You save a whole 1BA!!! That will increase your profit by 4.347% on forging the accuracy of a Mageseeker.

Taking donations to finding a more efficient forging formula for any item :D

{cb1}Linguala January 28 2008 5:00 PM EST

75 uses as much ba as 80...

Armageddon January 28 2008 5:04 PM EST

Ahhhh... It comes down to the quenching.
80 takes 7 quenches to become cool.
75 takes 6 quenches to become cool.

yoyo January 28 2008 5:10 PM EST


Jamba in da Juice January 28 2008 5:14 PM EST

now can you test this with every other item in CB? :P

QBOddBird January 28 2008 5:33 PM EST

Congratulations, I am glad to see you've come up with a more efficient cycle!

Find a better one for the BoTH, and I'll donate you 50k ;)

Ulord[NK] January 28 2008 5:35 PM EST

Good digging! The forging formulas must've been around forever. It's good that someone is taking another look. Not that forging is worth doing anymore. I'll donate to your next discovery :).

QBOddBird January 28 2008 5:36 PM EST

Every little discovery makes it that much more worth doing though ;) so this is always welcome!

Colonel Custard January 28 2008 5:42 PM EST

I'll donate 2/3 of NW increase for you to find a more efficient forge cycle on any of my items ;-P.

Seriously, though, I'll donate 50k for any item you figure this out for. 50k isn't much, but since you're a forger, you're increasing the amount of money you make from it anyway, eh?

AdminG Beee January 28 2008 5:49 PM EST

Well, after saving the data of four accuracy cycles,

Sounds like there's a benefit, but I'd be surprised if only 4 cycles proved it conclusively. No?

Armageddon January 28 2008 6:03 PM EST

After posting this thread. I used +200 BA switching from 80-75 to confirm... I just stuck with the 75 since they were giving the same yields. I would have saved an extra 8 BA or so, but I thought I would confirm it.


48xVanished48 January 28 2008 6:08 PM EST

Nice job man! :)

Wasp [C and S Forgery Lmtd.] January 28 2008 6:43 PM EST

I've always been interested in experimenting with the options that nobody uses in the forge. IE Heat for 30 seconds... heat for 10 seconds etc... Jon put them there for a reason. I believe there are better forumlas out there for every item, we just don't know them, or are interested in wasting the BA into finding them.

One day When I am bored enough I'll crack the code and use it to my advantage mwahahaha!!

QBsutekh137 January 28 2008 7:18 PM EST

GB, as long as the cycle produces 2, 1, 5, 2 coefficients, it's "sweet". Mathematically proven.

It always only takes one cycle, as a "bad" cycle follows the worse coefficient structure.

I'm not saying one cycle might not be more productive in terms of NW, but that's just randomness. pulk's legacy makes the "sweet" determination all but too easy. *smile*

QBsutekh137 January 28 2008 7:27 PM EST

Wasp, you can't get any better than 2, 1, 5, 2, so adding a few seconds here and there is only going to add BA. What Arm found was a way to use LESS BA by eliminating a double-quench need. Great work!

Incidentally, all the double-quenchers would be the first thing to try -- to see if you can heat the thing slightly less (but using same number of BA to heat up) and then gain a BA on the backside...

QBRanger January 28 2008 7:58 PM EST

I have not forged one bit, but reading this thread got me thinking:

What is Wasp is correct and the [10 sec] [30 sec] options were meant to be able to find the true sweet spot of the cycle?

Almost everyone with whom I chat says forging compared to fighting is not more profitable. Have people checked those 2 tabs looking for a sweeter spot?

GummyBear January 28 2008 8:17 PM EST

Good job dude :)

QBsutekh137 January 28 2008 8:27 PM EST

If there is a third, even better, sweet spot, then it would go against everything that Jonathan has ever said about forging (I have only heard him talk about two spots that will even avoid the dwarf or blacksnith forcing you to start over) and would go against the law of averages that would state someone would have found something radically more profitable by now (by accident). *smile*

I suppose it is statistically possible, but I doubt it. Nothing above 2, 1, 5, 2 (and convenient how those coefficients add to 10 while the 2, 1, 3, 2 adds only to 7) has ever been found in all of CB1 and CB2 forging.

Xenko January 28 2008 9:38 PM EST

I think I have 2 or 3 formulas that are better than the wiki... I'll go through my data and check.

To start with, for MH accuracy:
Wiki: [95, 27*]
Better: [90, 27*]
Improvement ~4% (NW Gain per BA used)

Xenko January 28 2008 9:42 PM EST

"Sounds like there's a benefit, but I'd be surprised if only 4 cycles proved it conclusively. No?"

It only takes 2 cycles to prove it (in the ideal case). Generally it takes 5 - 10 cycles to get all the required data, although for a few items it has taken me only 2 - 3 cycles.

Xenko January 28 2008 9:53 PM EST

Apparently I only have one other improved formula:

VB Viciousness:
Wiki: [82, 19]
Better: [85, 19]
Improvement ~4% (NW Gain per BA used)

Wizard'sFirstRule January 29 2008 4:54 AM EST

if someone could give me the exact % yield on the old+new formula (several observations each, more the merrier), I would be happy to perform some stats to find if there is evidence against the theory that the formulae do indeed give the same progress on RPM. [if there is, then the formula might not be so good, but if there isn't, then we can accept that the new formula is plausible]. Service free of charge.

Wasp [C and S Forgery Lmtd.] January 29 2008 6:42 AM EST

Sut, I do realise what Arm is saying lol.

I'm saying that there might be even *better* sweet spots that don't follow all the mathematically proven theories of quantum physics. IE Jon plugged in some extra numbers himself... like... if you heat this item 40 seconds more then usual, you'll get the efficiency from the extra ba you used back + an extra efficiency for using the true spot.

Who knows, nobody has actually tried it!?

QBsutekh137 January 29 2008 10:12 AM EST

Wasp, see my response to Ranger.

In over 4 years of forging (maybe more?) no one has ever stumbled across anything sweeter than 2, 1, 5, 2. And Jonathan has never mentioned a third level of "sweetness" (nor has he denied it). But I am hard-pressed to think such a sweetness exists when never in hundreds of million in NW forging has anyone run across a super-sweet set of coefficients that more than pay for extra BA usage.

If you have BA to burn, feel free to prove me wrong. *smile* I'd love to be proven wrong on this front so that forging became a truly viable means of playing the game!
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002KxL">Break Through in Forging</a>