Re: Proficiency learning optimizer
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:56 am
Nice, working better now. Can you add checkbox to multiply proficiencies by 100? That way it would be a bit easier to setup for raising proficiency levels.
Yes wrote:Yeah, thanks. "AppData\Roaming\SalemOptimizer\SalemOptimizer.exe_Url_blabla\1.5.1.0\user.config" needs to be copied from previous versions to the new one.
EnderWiggin wrote:Nice, working better now. Can you add checkbox to multiply proficiencies by 100? That way it would be a bit easier to setup for raising proficiency levels.
Sipo wrote:Any way to copy to clipboard? Anyway to double click and open a window with the inspirationals to study?
It's not good at high levels without those features.
Gernot wrote:This is not true in this case. For this to be a Knapsack problem, the amount of inspiration you are willing to spend would have to be limited.
loftar wrote:Gernot wrote:This is not true in this case. For this to be a Knapsack problem, the amount of inspiration you are willing to spend would have to be limited.
That's not really the reason it's not a knapsack problem, though; it's just that the bound is the proficiency levels you want to reach rather than the inspiration to spend. The spent inspiration is, rather, the value you want to optimize.
If anything, the reason it's not is rather because the order of items matters, which is not the case in the standard knapsack problem.
loftar wrote:If anything, the reason it's not is rather because the order of items matters, which is not the case in the standard knapsack problem.
Sipo wrote:I find it necessary for those who are trying to master skills or get the Lucky skill. People need over 500 or 800 proficiencies at some point. In my case i can just use this program for perennial philosophy. So please add this feature.
Kandarim wrote:But the order of the items does not matter anymore in the current system ;) Their cost just increases super-linearly with their amount.
JohnCarver wrote:I took a knapsack of your heapdump.
JohnCarver wrote:loftar wrote:If anything, the reason it's not is rather because the order of items matters, which is not the case in the standard knapsack problem.
I took a heapdump in your knapsack.