Oh no :(

From the codes people submitted previously we always saw R = L+0 or L+1 or L+2

If yours is not a typo then 32-84-35 means yours is the first where R = L+3
If this can apply to all code ranges it might make way too many possible combinations to think about cracking manually.

I'll keep an eye on this as we get more codes submitted.

We don't know for sure exactly how they're generated so possibly this only happens when L is big enough.

So far 8 of 12 codes submitted had a Left number lower than 30, and only 1 of 12 has had the Right greater than Left+2.

We can see how it trends as more people provide their codes.

I got:

32 - 83 - 34

didnt find this one on the list

Hello, yep it's there.

It fits between 32-79-34 and 32-86-34 which is on the 4th last row

The table shows the first and last combination in each group, but you need to try all the middle numbers in between also.

Interestingly, the last 3 codes people have submitted are:

32 - 82 - 34
32 - 84 - 35

32 - 83 - 34

I can't yet tell if this is coincidence or if something determines it...

oh damn! didnt know that was how it worked, i just tried the ones that are written, not the ones in between

Today I got the code 28 - 74 - 31 so indeed the right number can be L+3.

This will add 147 extra combinations to the mix, bringing the total to 567 - an increase of exactly 35%

I was able to cycle through all the current 420 combos in about 15 minutes at a quick pace, so I estimate 21 minutes to go through 567 if you go non-stop.

That's not too bad I guess. It will still be possible to crack the code manually but for some players this might become less of a recreational activity.

I will edit the main post later with the updated table.

35 - 92 - 38

Thank you. Your code follows the same trend for middle and right numbers but the left number is higher than my table again.

I was recently shown a code that started with 63 so I assume it's possible the left number can be anything now. I will edit my original post.

It wouldn't be feasible to generate a table with so many extra possibilities. 

Still, the existing table might be worth it for some people to try if their target is too strong for them or if they don't want to spend energy on possibly having to make multiple attacks.

The lower values appear to be more common at this point based on the known codes everyone has submitted so far, but there's not enough data yet to be sure.

Cracked with 

32-83-35. Took a lot of trying but it did get there

spits out the numbers 11 - 28 - 12

I tried this guide (ended up going through the combos twice through, to account for human error as I cannot pay attention, thanks for that continuous personal roast of me, DUKE'S SAFE) and sadly cannot recommend, as my safe numbers turned out to be 55 14 60. The first and last number almost follow the formula but adds an extra number, which expands the combination possibilities out a whole lot more.

I appreciate the write up and research that went into this guide nevertheless... it's interesting that there even does seem to be a pattern with the numbers since I would have assumed each number had its own individual RNG otherwise.

Thanks for this!

I updated the original post previously when someone sent me a code that started with 63.

Unfortunately it seems the code can probably start with any number, but so far 85% (17/20) of the codes submitted to date are in the table.

So it may still be useful to go through the table if the target is too hard to defeat or you don't want to waste energy attacking.

Interestingly, you and the other player who submitted the codes with huge numbers are the oldest by far - both over 6000 days. It's unlikely age factors into it but you just never know. I'm still trying to figure out more about this, so as we get more codes we can make more inferences.

Here is the list of all the codes I have so far, if anyone is interested:
(The blue user ID is me. Yellow are starting numbers too big for the table. Red are numbers that break the established rules of the table.)

- When the left number gets too big, the right number is seen to be further away than L+3. Generally the smaller the left number, the smaller the gap between it and the right number.

- When the left and right numbers are too big I guess the middle digit loops around or something and becomes small again.

I’ve had this mission once before this but unfortunately don’t remember that code. Although now that you mention account age… it wouldn’t surprise me if ID number (which would correlate with age and be a fixed reference point) has something to do with code numbers, as we DO know account IDs come into play with the collectible item merit. I’d be very curious to see if anything could be worked out, but it’d be hard with such limited data.

I just added a better table with more data to my previous post.

I'm the only one to supply more than one code so far. I've gotten four codes varying from low to medium size but none with big numbers yet.

AlexeaNikkole who is nearly 6000 days old submitted the second-smallest code 11-28-12, so maybe it was only a coincidence that the codes with biggest numbers came from the oldest players.

More codes might help us to figure it out so for now I'll just keep collecting them if people submit more.

Just got 34 - 88 - 36.

Thank you. It conforms with all the rules but the starting number is just outside the table.

However, I might be able to add both the 34-series and 35-series to the table as well while actually reducing the total number of combos.
Generally the smaller the left number, the smaller the gap between it and the right number.

- I could probably remove the rows for L+3 anywhere where the left number is say 25 or less since we so far have only seen the right number equal L+3 after the left number hits 28. (This would remove 85 combos)

- Also, I could possibly remove the rows where the right number equals L+0 for any codes where L is greater than 20 (this would remove 95 combos - or double that if I repeat this for L+1 as well)

I'd like to get some more data before optimizing the table though, just in case, but I'm not sure how long that might take.

Just got 45 - 11 - 48.