Heavensward beta simulator update

Good news! We’ve updated the beta site with new simulator calculations for levels 51 to 60. We are still fine-tuning the results, so you may expect some deviation from in-game results. We’ve tried to err on the conservative side, i.e. results might be 1 or 2 points lower than in-game. However, if you notice a large discrepancy please let us know in the GitHub issue tracker.

Please note that we haven’t verified yet whether sub-level 50 results are still valid. Data to confirm this would be greatly appreciated.

Many people helped us with data and observations. We’d like to thank @rocketmantis, @Diskmaster, @RyouR, @Synlaar, @flan, @SagaZekken, @Buffylvr and @jay3686. We couldn’t have done it without your help!

We still have a few more things we’d like to do for Heavensward:

  • Implement new level 51 to 60 actions,
  • Implement specializations and specialist actions,
  • Figure out ways to make the new actions work in the solver.

Comments on the new layout may also be directed to the GitHub issue tracker.

18 thoughts on “Heavensward beta simulator update”

  1. Hello, and thank you for building and maintaining this site.

    I haven’t used this site too much in the past, so I have a question that may be related to the HW beta or it may be related to the philosophy behind the solver in general. When using the solver it doesn’t seem to attempt to push the HQ% as high as possible? I plugged in the stats for my level 52 weaver (410/376/339), told it I could use any skills, and asked it to solve me a macro for crafting Holy Rainbow Saraouel of Casting.

    It spit something out with a great number of hasty touches, but never attempted to use inner quiet or, following from that, Byregot’s. I was initially thrilled to see a 100% success rate despite this unconventional list of skills used, but then I looked at the detail window and saw an HQ rate of 7%. I don’t consider an NQ a success – is this just a philosophy difference or is the solver malfunctioning?

    1. A philosophical difference. Success refers to the the likelihood of the sequence reaching 100% of the difficulty required without breaking. For instance a synthesis completed with only Basic Synthesis actions and no Steady Hand would have a 90% success rate.

      As for the less than optimal result the solver spat out, I find a better approach is to give it a sequence that you would use (Inner Quiet and all) and then see if the solver can improve on it.

      You may have to resume the solver a few times for it to find a better solution since there is a random element to the algorithm.

      1. I see. You’ll have to pardon me, but I honestly fail to understand the purpose of the solver, then. Anyone can “succeed” at NQing a craft simply by hitting steady hand and basic synth. If you’re at the point where you’re using a solver to optimize things, it’s because you want to do better than just NQ.

        That said, it’s still fun to play with I guess, and I can appreciate the amount of time that went into it. 🙂 If nothing else I can at least use the sequence editor to determine how many steps I need to set aside for CS2s without a “let’s try it and see” step.

        Thanks for taking the time to respond.

        1. While the solver can spit out odd results sometimes, if you keep using it it will eventually spit out some good ones including ones with high HQ chances. By far though I think that you hit on a good point (especially for level 60 crafting as it stands currently to me) in that knowing how many CS2s (and if you should use ing or not) to finish something without testing it first is a huge boon. Especially on an item that may cost close to a hundred thousand to make.

          Even leveling it’s nice because it seems like most synths run at least 30-40k on my server to do, unless you spend time to gather everything yourself. It’s really here that I think that it’s best used though. To be able to get a good sequence/macro to just grind out a lot of synths with a (hopefully) decent HQ chance at the same time.

          1. But it would be nice if the solver made some basic assumptions, such as “if this synth will take more than 10 steps, stick a CZ at the beginning” or “if BB is marked as an available skill, find a way to put it in the rotation with IQ and GS and prioritize a large number of smaller touches instead of a small number of large ones.”

  2. Not sure where to post this but there seems to be an odd bug with BSM. I keep getting results that under estimate the ‘progress’ value. I am sure I got all the stats in right however for example the progress for a 40dur 31progress item (iron ingot) The solver suggested that It will only need one basic synthesis to get the 31 progress however i only get 27.

    The stats I have in are LV: 20 Craft: 101 Con: 115 CP:261

    1. Hi Robert, thanks for the report! If you could provide additional information as described in https://github.com/doxxx/ffxiv-craft-opt-web/wiki/submitting-info, it would be very useful in tracking this problem down. You don’t have to make it look pretty, just give us the numbers. 🙂

      We particularly need information from low-level crafters since most of testers are at or above 50, so your help would be greatly appreciated!

      2. Class BSM
        Level 20
        Craftsmanship 112
        Control 119
        Recipe Iron Ingot (BSM)
        Recipe Level 16
        Action Basic Synthesis
        Notes In the case i posed above no issues however if the INGENUITY is removed it still shows as a success even though it’s would be 30/31

        The table wasn’t able to copy over

        1. Sorry Robert, I’m not able to follow what you’re saying. Could you perhaps post a YouTube video demonstrating the problem? If you do, please make sure that you show your character window so that we can see your stats.

          1. Sorry my fault. I’m bad at explaining things. I guess the best way to put it is that the solver is over estimating. If you look at my post above with ALC the basic Synthesis in the solver yields a result of 34 however the value should have been 33.

            I’ll try to get a video to you! Sorry again with the confusing posts.

          3. Ok, I finally got it. 🙂

            I can’t always guarantee that the values the optimizer provides will be exact, but I will try and see if I can get the lower levels to underestimate instead of overestimate the progress.

          4. Nice! Sorry about being a pain I can only imagine how hard it is to program something like this.

      3. Class ALC

        Level 20

        Craftsmanship 116

        Control 121

        Recipe Jellyfish Humours

        Recipe Level 19

        Action Basic Synthesis

        Notes Basic Synthesis over estimating 34 rather than 33

        Probabilistic Result
        ====================
        # Action DUR CP EQUA EPRG WAC
        0 40 245 0.0 0.0 0
        1 Inner Quiet 40 227 0.0 0.0 0
        2 Steady Hand 40 205 0.0 0.0 0
        3 Steady Hand 40 183 0.0 0.0 0
        4 Standard Touch 30 151 108.0 0.0 0
        5 Ingenuity 30 127 108.0 0.0 0
        6 Standard Touch 20 95 228.0 0.0 0
        7 Standard Touch 10 63 360.0 0.0 0
        8 Basic Synthesis 0 63 360.0 34.0 0
        Progress Check: true, Durability Check: true, CP Check: true, Tricks Check: true, Reliability Check: true, Cross Class Skills: 1, Wasted Actions: 0

        Monte Carlo Result
        ==================
        DUR CP QUA PRG HQ%
        ## Expected Value: 0 63 356.7 34.0 8.0
        ## Min Value: 0 63 268.0 34.0 8.0

        ## Success Rate: 100.0 %

    2. Thanks, it looks like you edited in the information we need while I was typing. 🙂

    3. Hi Robert, I took a look at your issue, but when I plug your stats into the solver I get 28 progress, not 31.

      This is not ideal, obviously, since the correct value is 27, but I am unable to reproduce your number.

      1. That’s really odd. This is what i’m getting

        Seed: 1438730360572, Use Conditions: true

        Probabilistic Result
        ====================
        # Action DUR CP EQUA EPRG WAC
        0 40 246 0.0 0.0 0
        1 Inner Quiet 40 228 0.0 0.0 0
        2 Steady Hand 40 206 0.0 0.0 0
        3 Standard Touch 30 174 106.0 0.0 0
        4 Standard Touch 20 142 225.0 0.0 0
        5 Steady Hand 20 120 225.0 0.0 0
        6 Standard Touch 10 88 355.0 0.0 0
        7 Steady Hand 10 66 355.0 0.0 0
        8 Ingenuity 10 42 355.0 0.0 0
        9 Steady Hand 10 20 355.0 0.0 0
        10 Inner Quiet 10 2 355.0 0.0 0
        11 Basic Synthesis 0 2 355.0 34.0 0
        Progress Check: true, Durability Check: true, CP Check: true, Tricks Check: true, Reliability Check: true, Cross Class Skills: 0, Wasted Actions: 0

        Monte Carlo Result
        ==================
        DUR CP QUA PRG HQ%
        ## Expected Value: 0 2 352.5 34.0 11.0
        ## Min Value: 0 2 260.0 34.0 8.0

        ## Success Rate: 100.0 %

Comments are closed.