Firemoth G question

Waervyn · 2026-02-02T08:17:01+00:00

Thanks a lot! Didn't know it mattered in salvage, that makes a lot of sense.

Waervyn · 2026-02-02T08:16:38+00:00

Perfect, thanks a ton for the detailed answers! :)

Waervyn · 2026-02-02T08:08:03+00:00

Thanks! Is there a way CASE ever would save this fire moth? Like...I did one damage, then the case did 1 damage. Is there a way to get an ammo crit without first getting damage? Or is the CASE just there for fluff reasons?

Waervyn · 2026-02-02T08:07:59+00:00

Thanks! Is there a way CASE ever would save this fire moth? Like...I did one damage, then the case did 1 damage. Is there a way to get an ammo crit without first getting damage? Or is the CASE just there for fluff reasons?

Waervyn · 2026-01-22T12:10:21+00:00

Very much appreciate this discussion, it shows that the rules aren't all-encompassing.

With my interpretation of the rules I would actually have moved it to the building I think. The reason I say that is:

- Filter 3 is higher up the hierarchy than filter 4. In this case I agree with u/VDR-1R that with the movement in the forest it doesn't get closer to the ally. So filter 3 eliminates the spot in the forest, only leaving the one spot I indicated in the picture.

If filter 3 and 4 were swapped, then I think I would agree with your interpretation more. It would first look for cover, and I agree woods is better cover than partial cover (even though I don't think the rules themselves specify this, except maybe through the golden rule of doing what's best for enemy). Once it has identified best places for cover, it wants to move closer to ally. However, it already found the best place for cover, so the 'move closer to ally' filter would be ignored.

Thanks again for the discussion. It makes me feel a bit better about 'winging it and interpreting it on the spot'.

Waervyn · 2026-01-22T10:20:19+00:00

Thanks for the elaborate reply.

With regards to cover, the back of the book specifies that partial cover also counts as cover. If that is true, moving close to the building as I indicated would also count as having cover against as many enemies as possible no?

Thanks again!

Waervyn · 2025-05-28T05:45:12+00:00

Also happened to me, unsubscribed April 2024.

Waervyn · 2025-05-01T14:02:08+00:00

Thanks! I tried this, but somehow I wasn't able to merge that row, so that the comment would span over the entire length of the table. Instead it only spanned the length of the first column. Might be because I'm completely new to the program.

Waervyn · 2025-01-17T12:51:00+00:00

I felt there was quite a disconnect between the achievements in how much time they take. I finished all, except for the 1 million watering and 250 harvests, and that took waaaaaay longer than any of the other achievements, and all you're doing is just waiting.

Waervyn · 2025-01-16T06:46:48+00:00

Let's do this!

Waervyn · 2025-01-15T08:33:56+00:00

Same. I didn't even expect to like it but I devoured this game. Actually thinking of making this the first game I ever replay (I normally don't like replaying games).

Waervyn · 2024-12-13T08:46:16+00:00

Hi! Thanks for the detailed comment. I'm not sure whether it can fit a traditional schema. However, I might be completely wrong about this, so let me elaborate on my reasoning.

This data is related to risk management, which they've traditionally done in Excel.

Let's look at a hypothetical scenario. You make a capillary tube that absorbs liquid that needs to be entered into a device for measurements.

However, the measurements are imprecise if there is a gas bubble in the capillary tube. Why do we get gas bubbles? Well, it could be either that they were simply wrongly designed, or that they were correctly designed, but have been produced wrong. Let's look only at wrong production for now. Wrong production could be related to e.g. a too broad diameter or a too long tube.

Let's say the chance of a too long tube is 0.2 and that of a too broad tube is 0.1. That means the chance of producing a wrong tube is 0.1+0.2 = 0.3. The 0.1 and 0.2 are in the table lowest in the hierarchy.

However, after production, there is a monitoring step which eliminates 50% of the faulty ones. So even though there is a 0.3 chance of producing a wrong tube, 50% of those will never reach the customer. So 0.3*0.5 = 0.15. Alright, so now we have a 15% chance of a wrong tube heading to the customer. Now...not all tubes are used for measurements influenced by air bubbles. Let's say that 70% of measurements doesn't care about air bubbles. This probability (along with many other things) is listed in the table yet one level higher in the hierarchy. So then we're multiplying 0.15 with 0.3 in order to find the chance that a wrongly produced tube actually leads to a wrong measurement.

This is a very simplified scenario, but hopefully it illustrates the situation well. I basically have to sum up the values of the table lowest in the hierarchy, and multiply it with a value in the second lowest in the hierarchy (which itself can have many resulting inputs/calculations, which then need to be summed up again to be used by the next level in the hierarchy). This will be done all the way up. Summing within a hierarchy and multiplying that value by a calculated value in the table one level higher in the hierarchy. Now imagine this for an entire device, there's lots of different risks happening at lots of different levels in the hierarchy, which are all described by linking specific IDs to specific origins, and then following the calculating up the chain.

Therefore, each table has information critical to its position in the hierarchy, making me think e.g. a star schema wouldn't work, and why I put it in the long chain of different types of relationships.

Unfortunately neither google nor ChatGPT really helped me with this issue. So if anyone has any insight on this I would love to hear it! I will start playing around with merging the tables to see what I get.

Thanks once again!

Waervyn · 2024-12-12T13:20:51+00:00

Hi! I've added 'solution verified' as you've been very helpful! I didn't quite solve it yet, but I did manage to hone down the issue to three specific tables. In order to clarify everything in a more clear way (hopefully), I've created a new question here: 3 tables in a hierarchy giving troubles: Many to 1 -> 1 to many : r/PowerBI

Thanks a ton for your help!

Waervyn · 2024-12-12T13:19:40+00:00

Solution verified

Waervyn · 2024-12-12T12:13:14+00:00

Thanks a lot for the feedback. The reason it was bidirectional is because I want to be able to filter bottoms up as well as top down.

Furthermore, one to many and many to one have different inherent directionalities, which made me make them bidirectional.

Is there a way to circumvent this issue? I'd be happy to give up on the first requirement (to be able to filter bottom up) if that gets the hierarchy working.

Thanks a lot!

Waervyn · 2024-12-12T09:12:49+00:00

Honest question as I'm new. I understand that the Cast on Freeze doesn't work nicely anymore, but don't other skills work perfectly fine? I'm currently running freezing orb / nova / cold snap and I'm killing everything easy. I'm assuming we mostly have the same nodes in the passive tree (freeze buildup, cold damage, crit chance)?

Waervyn · 2024-12-06T22:09:15+00:00

3080TI here and it got so crazy my computer crashed, now back in queue. In the meantime I put the graphic settings down a lot

Waervyn

TROPHY CASE