Bio Engineer Archive
Thread: I made a level 76 pet from level 56 DNA
Drab wrote:
yeah i did the same thing back when i first get mutant rancor DNA, mixed it in with bull got, CL76, which really sucks x2, cuz we cant even sample back DNA
I was surprised that I got above any sample. But I was especially surprised to get a CL 20 levels above my lowest sample and still higher than my highest sample. If we can hit higher, can we, by resampling, turn gnort DNA into a mutant rancor equivalent?
NancyJ wrote:
You can sample a cl 5 creature and make it a CL 9 creature very easily
What stats on the level 9 are higher than the level 5? This seems to be important information for finally figuring out how CL is determined.
OKies,
Your thread starter is alittle miss-leading. hehehe
a) The CL is an average of ALL things in the DNA samples.
b) The CL seems to Jump more at the Bottom end ( CL-1 to CL-22ish) and at the Top end (CL-45ish to CL75 )
The more Experiment points you use.
c) to gauge where the "should-be" CL when you make a mob is; 75 + 75 + 56 + 56 + 56 = 318 / 5 = CL 63.6 (round to 64 any fractions Never Round down),and since this is "top" end DNA add 1 to 7 CL's depending on how many Experiment points you use. (fails may Lower or SKY rocket the CL )
75 + 75 + 56 +58 + 60 = 64.8 ( round to 65 ) , 75 + 75 + 75 + 46 + 46 = 63.4 ( round to 64 )
Nikkoli Walksfar
Dapadast wrote:
OKies,
Your thread starter is alittle miss-leading. hehehe
a) The CL is an average of ALL things in the DNA samples.
b) The CL seems to Jump more at the Bottom end ( CL-1 to CL-22ish) and at the Top end (CL-45ish to CL75 )
The more Experiment points you use.
c) to gauge where the "should-be" CL when you make a mob is; 75 + 75 + 56 + 56 + 56 = 318 / 5 = CL 63.6 (round to 64 any fractions Never Round down),and since this is "top" end DNA add 1 to 7 CL's depending on how many Experiment points you use. (fails may Lower or SKY rocket the CL )
75 + 75 + 56 +58 + 60 = 64.8 ( round to 65 ) , 75 + 75 + 75 + 46 + 46 = 63.4 ( round to 64 )
Nikkoli Walksfar
Yes, I admit the subject line is a little misleading. I posted this twice before under mundane subject headings and got no response at all. I thought this at least might generate some reaction--and I did use level 56 DNAin makingthis level 76 pet.
Your formula of mean plus number of successful experimentation events works well for this experiment. The exact details are under the heading "Creature Recipes," last I looked on page 2. But the mean is about 68, with 8 experimentation attempts, yielding 76. The surprise was that I thought we could only make pets up to the level of the DNA we used. When one experiments, each stat seems to have the weighted average as a maximum value--so in theory each stat has as its maximum after experimentation no better than the best sample used. If each stat is limited that way, one would think the CL would also be limited that way. In other words, it would be impossible to hit a CL higher than that of the highest DNA used, because it is impossible to hit a generic DNA better than the best DNA used. The sum of the stats in my experimented template are about 400 less than those of a mutant rancor, with lower resistances. One would expect that to translate to a lower CL. If your formula is correct in all circumstances, it is impossible to end up with a CL that is LOWER than the mean CL of the DNA used, and it is impossible to end up with a pet that is more powerful than the most powerful DNA used. This means that balanced BE pets will always be inferior overall to pets of the same CL in the wild. The difference is that they may have combinations that are not found in the wild. I desperately hope this is wrong (although I feel that I am hoping against hope). If so, perhaps I should pack away my8 Mb of spreadsheets and just let my CH friends go catch something.
It also means that we might be able to achieve, by resampling,a level 70 pet with 300 HAM anddamage of 50-60. That might make an interesting museum piece, anyway.
Thanks for the formula. I'll have to keep watching to see how well it fits. I would love some clue as to how to predict the CL of the final pet, and this is the best one I've seen so far.
grelgen wrote:
pahbi was talking about the numbers on the template, not on the DNA. that seems like something, but you somehow need to figure in the resists and specials for the average, next time i do a run of similar animals, ill check the numbers.
I think NancyJ was refering to Dapadast's post rather than Pahbi's. In a way, this is a bit exciting. Perhaps the disparity between the CL of the samples and the CL of the end product and the fact that the CL outcome seems to be reproducible for a given mix just might give us a little bit of a handle on predicting the CL of the final product. It is too bad we can't hold all variables fixed and change just one. We can change one of five sets by experimentation, but that will only give us a sort of weighted average per slot.
Are there any number crunchers out there who can figure this out as a series of n equations with n unknowns?