Install Steam
sign in
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Bahasa Melayu (Malay) BETA
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem









If you take Pattern #251 for Karambit and compare all four patterns, they’ll be identical one‑to‑one in texture, with no dark lines or spots on the blade, except for the color. The same applies to Butterfly Knife #602: just check these four patterns on the server - they’ll look identical.
A pattern can’t be simply sorted by color like other Doppler skins. A program simply can’t select patterns with the highest amount of emerald color, because you need to account for dark lines and spots that might not be very noticeable in‑game but are clearly visible in the template. For a program, all screenshots or pattern templates are added by a human - which doesn’t rule out the possibility of errors. Given all the subtleties and lighting conditions, how should this be done so that the program can accurately evaluate a pattern?
First, your guide suffers from the Doppler Matrix Fallacy. You claim that Gamma Emeralds share the exact same pattern layout as standard Chroma Dopplers like Sapphire, Ruby, and Black Pearl. This is mechanically false. You are conflating the aq_doppler paint kit family with the aq_gamma_doppler matrix, which utilize entirely different texture templates, UV coordinate scales, and RGB masking tables.
Your manual array compilation is riddled with basic validation errors. Seed #113 is duplicated back-to-back in the Rank III string. Worse, Seed #599 suffers from cross-tier leakage, being cataloged in both Rank II and Rank III simultaneously. Finally, you feature a showcase image for pattern #207, yet seed #207 is completely omitted from your Rank III text array string.
Here’s another fact: rare patterns for Emerald, Sapphire, Ruby, and Black Pearl must be filled with a single, uniform color structure.
It’s been well known, long before my guides existed, that Pattern #602 is the Top 1 for Butterfly Knife. Pattern #602 is clean in the template and filled with a uniform color. Based solely on this logic, you cannot argue that another pattern evaluation system is better.
I’m confident you won’t be able to name a single pattern that’s better than those in this guide - so you might as well delete this comment. Once again, I’d just be wasting my time on messages like this.
You’re saying the guide’s information is incorrect, yet you haven’t backed this up with a single fact. Provide at least one example - name a pattern that’s not in the guide but, in your opinion, is better.
The patterns in the guide look consistently good under various lighting conditions. Under specific lighting, you can see all the finer details: the pattern’s fill density, dark lines, dark spots, or dull/faded areas. Of course, under very bright lighting, almost any pattern will look good.
The guide is as accurate as possible - and it’s not based solely on my opinion. Many experienced collectors would agree with my assessment, as the rare patterns in the tier list were highly valued long before this guide existed. I’m always open to adding or adjusting a pattern if it’s objectively better.
What about other lists? They’ve simply copied my one‑year‑old guide. The tier list for the Karambit (Emerald, Sapphire and Ruby) includes incorrect patterns with dark lines and spots. In the original version of the guide, the patterns weren’t entirely accurate because the patterns I used to create the tier list had only been checked in the template. Pattern #874 was mistakenly placed in Tier 3 - I’ve since corrected this error.