• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

Crafting Recipes - Master List

Enevhar Aldarion

Well-Known Member
Some of the discontinued crafting items were available to win as filler items during the May event, so maybe the code got mixed up and they were all accidentally reactivated for crafting at the same time. If so, they may go away again from crafting after the event ends tomorrow night.
 

MinMax Gamer

Well-Known Member
And no, I didn't miscount SW20% as 15%. I double-checked all of them. Of course, this could be due to randomness (I already didn't get UUU for 2 months once), but is there any chance that probabilities from SW20% had been moved to SW15% (making it high-frequency) ? Especially, does anyone still get SW20% ?
Probably due to randomness. I have seen SW20% literally this morning. This recipe seems to be in the low-frequency pool, so things like that are not entirely unexpected.
 

n00bslayer420

Active Member
I made this chart showing Supplies %/CC ratio:
CCSupplies %%/CC
05 x 1
010 x 1
115 x 115
120 x 120
225 x 112.5
233 x 116.5
450 x 112.5
6100 x 116.67

The best %-to-CC ratio is the 20% Supply Instant. So it's not surprising that they make it very low frequency. I rarely see it, but this chart is made over the last 2-3 months, and I have seen it a few times.
 

PaNonymeB

Well-Known Member
And I finally got one too. (Even though with recent facts it doesn't prove it has not been removed :p) What surprises me a bit more was SW15% rising from "likely low-frequency" to "very likely high-frequency" at the same time. But of course it could just be randomness.
 

SoulsSilhouette

Well-Known Member
I want to see more crafting that needs those infernal rune shardy pieces. I am always unable to collect them in the tourneys because apparently I don't play the game with the alacrity that Inno requires, so I don't move through the tree fast enough. If they don't increase their usage in the MA, they should allow for more storage as they said they would way back when they were introduced as tourney rewards. Now they are even a part of the event builds collection. UGH.
 

n00bslayer420

Active Member
62EED409-BEC7-4492-A602-8ACB36D96ADE.jpeg


Frozen Flame Orange just showed up. This is very bad. If all these old recipes are now part of the pool, then the odds for useful ones are even lower now.

I think it's a glitch, since these 2x2 cultural buildings are still requiring 4 CC, which is before the recipe adjustments last year. Even if they decide to put these back into the rotation, it still doesn't make sense to not adjust their prices to match the existing Lava Codex and Frozen Flame Purple. I just posted about this in the bug report forum. See what they have to say.
 
Last edited:

Enevhar Aldarion

Well-Known Member
So far, they said exactly nothing here:

And had a very insightful response on Beta (/s):

Perhaps you will have better luck. Communication is clearly not a big priority for this game.
That is just because on Beta they have to be more responsive and give answers and fixes. The rest of the game forums around the world are just not treated as being as important. Plus the US forum is still in a state of flux from all the recent changes in moderators and management.
 

samidodamage

Well-Known Member
on Beta they have to be more responsive and give answers and fixes.
I didn't get 'responsive' 'answers' or 'fixes' from that post at all, lol! When I read it, my first thought was 'canned response'.

Plus the US forum is still in a state of flux from all the recent changes in moderators and management
I think we're getting more info than most forums because our mods/CM are newer and not burnt out on us yet, lol!

From what we've been told here about the recent hectic activity regarding whatever it is that's broken, (and me having zero idea about how things actually work in a game company) I don't think I'd go asking anyone about a few extra crafting recipes right now if I worked there, lol! If it was presented to someone, I can see them saying 'yep, crafting recipes can change' and leaving the beta CM to figure out how to present it on the forum so it doesn't sound like players are being blown off.

Here's a copy/paste of Marindor's answer (I don't play beta so can't do an official quote from that forum):

Crafting recipes can and will indeed change from time to time. They are not premanently set in stone, but sometimes a few recipes will be removed and others will be added.
 

MinMax Gamer

Well-Known Member
That is just because on Beta they have to be more responsive and give answers and fixes.
Well, my remark on Beta response was sarcasm, in case it was not clear. While at least they did respond there, so I'll give them that, they gave a non-answer answer. I find that I dislike these even more than no answers. Sort of like when you hear "Your business is very important to us", you just know you won't get anything out of that phone call.
 

PaNonymeB

Well-Known Member
Updated data :
  • Coin rain % : 100 ×51, 50 ×38, 33 ×33, 25 ×45
  • Supply Windfall % : 100 ×43, 50 ×43, 33 ×51, 25 ×51, 20 ×14, 15 ×40, 10 ×14, 5 ×15
  • Portal Profit % : 20 ×12, 15 ×22, 10 ×21, 5 ×18
  • Ancient Knowledge : 20 ×14, 15 ×17, 10 ×20, 7 ×24, 5 ×53, 3 ×51
  • Ancient Knowledge costing Runeshards : 3 ×41, 10 ×12, 15 ×19
  • Knowledge Points : 15 ×18, 10 ×20, 6 ×17, 3 ×35, 1 ×49
  • Runeshards : 3 ×23, 2 ×25, 1 ×12
  • Relics : marble ×38, steel ×38, planks ×41, crystal ×36, scrolls ×36, silk ×31, elixir ×46, dust ×44, gems ×52
  • Spells : PoP ×40, EE ×50, MM ×48, IM ×50
  • Pet food costing relics : elixir ×46, dust ×33, gems ×42, spell fragments ×20
  • Royal Restorations : 10 ×37, 20 ×16, 30 ×16, 30(costing spell fragments) ×15
  • Time boosts : 10m ×44, 15m ×40, 30m ×24, 45m ×14, 1h ×12, 2h ×18, 5h ×17, 8h ×17, 14h ×11, 20h ×12
  • Culture/population buildings : rainbow flower cage ×12, lava codex ×43, unicorns : rainbow ×12, silver ×52, crystal ×48
  • Military buildings : ELR ×20, MMM ×17, UUU ×13
  • Traveling Merchants : I ×20, II ×15, III ×14
  • Other buildings : festival merchant ×8, mana sawmill ×14, orc nest ×17, orc strategist ×18, vallorian valor ×14
  • Special recipes (evolving buildings, chess set, artifacts) : 157
  • Total : 2439 (average for non-special recipes : 28.5)
 

CrazyWizard

Well-Known Member
Ha, and what do you know? We have just crossed about 3200 datapoints combined, and this looks exactly as I thought ;)

Posted more details on the latest status here: https://minmaxgame.com/crafting-recipes-probabilities-analysis/
I wonder if there is even one, because last phoenix event they added twice the same recipe to inprove the chances to get those base plates.
This week was for me a fluke in recipes as well, today I got my 7th 20h booster in less than a week.

If there would be a probability it should be based on "rarity" (those funky blue/yellow/purple borders")
And even if that would be the case I would still be amazed, because if there is a system in place, then why did they even need to add twice the same recipe to the table to improve the odds? they could just as easily gave it a "different rarity" and change the odds for each rarity.
That would have been a lot cleaner and avoided the need for another script to avoid the same recipe to be aviable at the same time. (the double baseplace firefeniks issue the fixed on beta before it came to live)

It just doesn't make much sense.
 

MinMax Gamer

Well-Known Member
If there would be a probability it should be based on "rarity" (those funky blue/yellow/purple borders")
It's not, we already looked at that, there is no directional correlation between observation frequency and rarity. As an example, 100% coin rain has a rarity of 5 (highest), yet it is one of the most common recipes. It's current probability is at 1.87%, with less than 0.1% chance of it actually being less than 1.38%.

On the other hand, 1 broken shard recipe has a rarity of 1 (most common), yet it is one of the rarest. It's current probability is at 0.64%, with less than 0.1% chance of it actually being above 1.08%. As you can see, it is extremely unlikely that this recipe of rarity 1 has higher chance on occurring than the one with rarity 5. It is even easier to come up with an example where the roles are reversed.

And even if that would be the case I would still be amazed, because if there is a system in place, then why did they even need to add twice the same recipe to the table to improve the odds? they could just as easily gave it a "different rarity" and change the odds for each rarity.
That would have been a lot cleaner and avoided the need for another script to avoid the same recipe to be aviable at the same time. (the double baseplace firefeniks issue the fixed on beta before it came to live)
This is actually easy to explain from implementation perspective. With probabilities, you can't just adjust one of them arbitrarily (as they all need to add up to 1). So it is actually much easier to come up with a pooled system, where you simply specify that recipes in pool 1 are, say, 2.5 time more frequent than recipes in pool 2, and all recipes within the same pool have the same probabilities. Then management of such setup is very simple - you just add/remove recipes as needed into the pools, and actual probabilities are automatically adjusted. So if they have something like that, it is indeed much easier just to add another duplicate recipe to the pool to increase its probability. Otherwise, you'd need to make yet another pool (or several), establish relationships between them etc. That's just more work.
 
Last edited: