devtrackers.gg
If you modify the contracts with currency, does their layout get shortened?
No, but all Contracts have been updated (my previous post was incorrect).
If you modify the contracts with currency, does their layout get shortened?
No, but all Contracts have been updated (my previous post was incorrect).
Oh so the previous contracts were not affected. That actually explains a lot
Sorry for the confusion. Only Blueprints are legacy. Contracts were all updated.
So, me saving up blueprints actually gimped myself because there's no way to distinguish an old from the new ones?
:)
For Blueprints, you can look at them in the Planning or Revealing screens and see the layout in advance.
Read moreThis is partially incorrect and I’d like further clarification.
I had a full quad tab of contracts from before the patch, after the patch I begun spamming them and have done approx 120 since the patch, my friend was doing this too and we were both commenting how it was nice to see our old contracts retroactively affected by the changes.
I ran 304 heists for EGG over the two days before the patch so it’s still fresh in my memory how long they were and how often I couldn’t see the entire minimap from the starting location but now I can.
This all said, I had a handful of the contracts done since the contract generate longer layouts and I assumed this was a bug because it seemed to be the exception not the rule.
I’ve been XP farming them and I mostly fish for good layouts, this basically means a run that is relatively short from start to finish with more side rooms and spawn points, so when I’ve gotten the old long layout I finish it ASAP rather than ...
The overall length and number of rooms and job encounters scales with monster level, but is also somewhat random. So it might depend on what level your Contracts are.
EDIT: Only Blueprints were rendered legacy. Contracts have been retroactively updated. Sorry for the confusion.
Interesting, and thanks for the response.
Does this apply to rogue-needed doors too? Because in multiple heists yesterday (all 'legacy') I got a door in 3 consecutive rooms twice out of like 20 contracts, and some other back to backs. Between the length and the doors it felt like no changes made it in in this regard.
Glad to see hope on the horizon though for future runs.
Yes, it applies to the number and type of rooms generated, and the number and types of any encounter doors on the way in and out.
EDIT: Only Blueprints are legacy. Contracts were retroactively updated. Sorry for the confusion.
A layout of this length is no longer possible to generate as of patch 3.12.3, even for high-level Heists. However, legacy Contract Blueprint items created before the patch were unaffected (we didn't want to reroll everyone's items), so I assume this was one of those.
That said, this is certainly approaching the upper bound of what was previously possible. Something of an outlier.
You probably ran the Grand Heist on a character who had not unlocked the Trinket slot.
Clicking the box literally doesn't do anything other than set a flag. That's it. The box isn't even clickable if you've already clicked it and unlocked the slot. And nothing has changed with this since league start.
No. What would It That Fled do in the same spot, whether it is part of the Syndicate or not. Why would we let a member of the Syndicate stay in a secret thief's guild. Why would It That Fled be willing to work with me while also in the process of being used by me as a particularly red pinata.
You know. Those things.
Betrayal NPCs only appear in the Rogue Harbour if they are not currently part of the Immortal Syndicate (i.e. not on your Betrayal board).
This only happens in Repository. The title should be don't do repository grand heists.
Yes, there is an issue with Repository specifically, where it will sometimes (but not always) generate an Engineering Vault door in the final room, which cannot be opened. We will fix this soon, but it can't be hotfixed unfortunately.
Read moreThanks for the response. So in short,
SocketGroupperforms matches per each linked-socket-group (at least 1 group needs to satisfy) andSocketsperforms one match against item total sockets and total color counts. This is really good news, because I thought of many possible implementations of representing item sockets and eventually went with an array of link-groups, which now turned out to very closely related to howSocketGroupworks.Let me preface by saying I feel like the
<and>operators are generally not super useful or intuitive for socket matching, but I implemented them anyway for consistency...IMO this condition itself is really complex and rarely used but anything more intuitive would surely require much more complex implementation.
Are the sockes/links conditions on https://www.pathofexile.com/trade workin...
Are the sockets/links conditions on https://www.pathofexile.com/trade working the same way?
Not sure, they use a separate implementation. But it looks the same as >= (or maybe just ==).
Is the Stackable Currency for non-stackable things intended?
Yes, for legacy reasons we cannot change sealed prophecies or imprinted Beasts to be Currency as opposed to Stackable Currency. I don't think we even have any items that are Currency. Stackable Currency is the default setting for new currency, in case we want to make it stack. But we can't easil...
Read moreHello again, during implementing own filter simulator/debugger I once more reviewed this thread and performed some experiments. Some results were different than I expected.
My goal is to understand exactly how the
SocketsandSocketGroupconditions work.
First, I tested all the examples here and whether their wording is correct. Everything is fine here, but I post for clarity:
SocketGroup 5GGG- an item with exactly 5 linked sockets AND at least 3x G linked within such groupSocketGroup = 5GGG- an item with exactly 5 linked sockets AND at least 3x G linked within such groupSocketGroup == 5GGG- an item with exactly 5 linked sockets AND exactly 3x G linked within such groupSocketGroup >= 5GGG- an item with at least 5 linked sockets AND at least 3x G linked within such groupSockets 5GGG- an item with exact...
Hiyo,
Let me preface by saying I feel like the < and > operators are generally not super useful or intuitive for socket matching, but I implemented them anyway for consistency...
So, first of all, SocketGroup only matches against linked socket groups; Sockets matches all sockets on the item regardless of links.
If you use SocketGroup < 4RG to filter an item with B-B-B-B R G the it will match if any of the three "linked socket groups" match. In this case, all three groups match the rule because they all lack either a red socket, a green socket, or both. To clarify:
B-B-B-B is a 4 link, but it has less than 1 Red socket (and less than 1 green socket) so it matches.
R matches because it is less than a 4 link, and also has less than 1 green socket, so it matches.
G matches because it is less than a...
I enjoyed listening to this a lot, thanks!
BTW Fusings not breaking 6-links was added in version 1.0.0. (October 2013) along with a similar mechanic for Jewellers.
Can you get me a /bug report if you encounter this?
Curious if this applies to currently opened portals?
It does
How will portal access work? Will this option apply to currently opened portals or needs instance refresh like other hideout options? Is there UI icon to show if a hideout you visited used this option? Hope it is not abused by rota/challenge scammers.
Like if I was selling a hideout I could offer portal access to the person in the trade rather than just the person trusting you'll let them get access?
It is a single checkbox next to the other hideout options that affects all portals, old or new. If you lock the portals, then leave the hideout, they remain locked.
Like the other hideout options (ie who can visit), you do not need create a new instance. All hideout options take effect immediately.
You cannot create exceptions to the portal lock. However, hideout portals already cannot be used by people who are not in your party, so you can simply kick people from your party if you don't want them to use your portals.
Unique maps losing their Awakening Objective completion is unintended and will be fixed before 3.11.0.
FYI you don't need to use a legacy Vaal Temple to re-complete everything; any legacy T16 will do.
P.S. using the Map Stash to migrate your old maps to the current generation of maps means (by definition) they are no longer legacy maps and therefore will not complete your Atlas.
Read moreThanks.
While I have your attention any chance you could answer this question about cluster jewels? I sent the following message to several devs and never got any reply (not really surprised at that either, it's rather technical and I figure probably only 1-2 people at the office know).
Hi, been trying to figure out what determines the order that notables appear on large clusters with 3 notables and 2 jewel sockets, specifically trying to find out which notable gets placed in the furthest spot (the one between the 2 jewel sockets).
Based on testing, I have so far determined that it is:
...
Not alphabetical
Not prefix/suffix related
Not related to the internal mod ID #
Not related to the cluster weighting value
Not random (multiple jewels with exact same notables have exact same layout)
Not related to the order they appear on the item itself
It's arbitrary but deterministic. No simple way to know just by looking, sorry.
GGG still hasn't implemented as "HasInfluence None" command
Good idea. I'll make it happen.
Thanks for your awesome filter btw!
This is not intended and will be fixed.
They're ignoring this... In the other thread /u/RhysGGG said "It's not been changed. It's 10%" and blew off the hundreds of people saying the same as you (and me).
Seems like they're not looking into it.
That was not my intention. I just meant we didn't intentionally change anything. We are looking into it.