[The Goddess Swords Discussion] 19th Jan, 2018: Volume has been fixed; Writing The Goddess

I suppose I should emerge from my post-crunch lair of languor to throw another bone or two this way...

The first stanza has pretty much been figured out by the community.

The second stanza is similar, in the sense that the community has realized how trivial it is to brute-force, even though a hilariously large number of people are mistaken on certain specifics.

The third stanza, which is intentionally difficult, is still eluding most people. There have been some good guesses, and even one or two that would actually work perfectly well, if they hadn't been ignored.

The last line, in particular, has thrown people for a loop for longer than I expected. Mostly due to overthinking "imperfect sum" and being completely lost on "of two". I've given a few hints already on the latter, but I guess another is needed. Try thinking along the lines of "The Rule of Two".
Code warrior
Nope. Tired of "thinking". Hasn't worked before, no reason to think it would work this time.
"
Rhys wrote:
I suppose I should emerge from my post-crunch lair of languor to throw another bone or two this way...

The first stanza has pretty much been figured out by the community.

The second stanza is similar, in the sense that the community has realized how trivial it is to brute-force, even though a hilariously large number of people are mistaken on certain specifics.

The third stanza, which is intentionally difficult, is still eluding most people. There have been some good guesses, and even one or two that would actually work perfectly well, if they hadn't been ignored.

The last line, in particular, has thrown people for a loop for longer than I expected. Mostly due to overthinking "imperfect sum" and being completely lost on "of two". I've given a few hints already on the latter, but I guess another is needed. Try thinking along the lines of "The Rule of Two".


Thank you. This is the kind of hint we really need so we don't end up endlessly reinterpreting things we've got (mostly) right.

The actual solution is definitely going to be one of those: "Whaaaat :-|, are you fucking kidding me! Why didn't I think of that sooner!" *kicks myself in the face over and over* sort of things.
IGN: ShockinglyCute
Last edited by Gelsamel on Mar 7, 2016, 8:48:41 PM
"
Rhys wrote:
The last line, in particular, has thrown people for a loop for longer than I expected. Mostly due to overthinking "imperfect sum" and being completely lost on "of two". I've given a few hints already on the latter, but I guess another is needed. Try thinking along the lines of "The Rule of Two".


Pretty sure this means that both the Goddess Bound and the Goddess Scorned are in the recipe.
Anybody tried it out with those 6S 2-2-2 Linked Sword Combo then?
Just another Forum Signature in a Sea of Signatures.
The only meaning I can get out of 'The Rule of Two' is the Sith Lord Villian+2nd in Command trope common in fantasy.

I've thought about it but I honestly can't see how this is related to the ingredients we have mostly assumed the final stanza is about.

Three to help, each matured, -> Three (Support) Gems, Levelled in some capacity.

All beloved By The third, -> Support Gems that are related to the modifiers Unleashed has (mirroring Scorned recipe)

So what information can the last line tell us? Well assuming we're right we already know they're support gems. We don't know about the exact level/quality requirements. The second line narrows down the type of gems they could be, but we're still not completely sure which gems they might be.

Under these assumptions, you would expect the last line to finalize the details we're unsure of. So the last line could be related to the exact gems needed, or the levels/quality needed.

All impefect sums of two.

"Imperfect sums" seems likely related to quality or level in this particular context... but we've always sort of thought that. Rhys says we're over thinking it but, are we only over thinking it recently? Recently the speculation has gotten a bit crazy but initially it was pretty reserved. In fact my very first thought when I saw this line was that "imperfect" simply meant "don't worry they don't have to be perfect, they don't have to be 20/20 or 21/20 or 20/23".

However Rhys has said that the recipe checks for an 'original' kind of imperfection that has not been checked by recipes before. This rules out level and quality when it comes to the term'imperfect sums'.

Note that the interpretation of that 'original' statement can be slightly ambiguous since you could interpret certain things as being checked before by other recipes. As an example, there is no recipe that checks for corrupted gems in the sense that the recipe says "Is that a corrupted gem? Yes? Cool, recipe works" but there are recipes which will fail to work on corrupted gems, meaning that an existing recipe 'checks' for pure gems which is indirectly a check for corruption. It is unclear whether the latter case would count as 'being checked by an existing recipe' to Rhys. So it is difficult to rule out corruption.

Also, note that Rhys pairs the statements "Imperfect sums" and "Of Two" into separate thoughts to consider. Does this mean it's more productive to read the line as "(All) (Imperfect Sums) (of Two)" rather than "(All (Imperfect (Sums of Two)))"?

I have no idea what 'Rule of Two' could clarify about the requirements. Since it is a reference to the Sith Rule of Two or the idea of the Villain+2nd in Command it seems like it might be able to help with narrowing the gems, rather than dealing with quality/level numbers, I can't see how it related to any existing gems.

Of course, this entire discussion is predicated on the idea that the last stanza refers to support gems (or perhaps just any kind of gem).

If the last Stanza isn't related to gems, then 'Rule of Two' could make a lot more sense in the context of Goddess as a Villain+2nd in command combo. But that sort of messes with the overarching philosophy/structure a lot of us have been approaching the riddle with.
IGN: ShockinglyCute
Well, it seems that what we need to look at is some of the suggestions that immediately fell off the radar. I think I've read every post since this started, and might go back through it, but one immediately comes to mind:

Gems that require two stats. This however doesn't bear any connection to the "Rule of Two" that I can think of.

Also, and I can't figure out how it culminates in to a specific item, I'm still stuck on the idea that the three to help could be the Masters. Here, at least, we're making a connection to the Rule of Two, the master and the apprentice. That may be taking Rhys's hint too literally of course.
Last edited by Shaihalud222 on Mar 7, 2016, 9:37:31 PM
"
Mark_GGG wrote:
I notice you didn't actually deny being Lord Voldemort.

"
Rhys wrote:
Try thinking along the lines of "The Rule of Two".


Charan confirmed as Lord Voldemort AND Emperor Palpatine.
So, he's Lord Emperor Palpemort?

Lord Emperor Voldatine sounds like one of those mixable drinks.



The only way I can see of interpreting "Rule of Two", assuming it is the Star Wars one and not something else we're not instantly thinking of, is that it suggests Bound is the Apprentice, Scorned is the master... and we're upgrading Bound to beat Scorned, rather than upgrading Scorned.

I'm not sure if it helps at all, or even makes sense having Bound > Scorned as well as Bound > Unleashed...

*Shrugs* The last stanza has always given me the most trouble, and being told that... well, it helps knowing we don't have to work the first two to death any more... but, doesn't help me solve the third.
[deleted] - duplicate - probably PEBKAC error on my part.
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
Last edited by DalaiLama on Mar 7, 2016, 10:37:18 PM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info