Difference between revisions of "Talk:Invention Accuracy Recipe"

Revision as of 22:18, 13 April 2007

I plotted out the recipe costs alongside those of SO,DO and TO. Note inf is a log scale.

A couple of points I noticed 1) the high levels really get crazy amounts of resale value. A level 50 whom I have been doing most of my testing with gives a distorted pciture of the whole. 2) a Level 15 IO crafting cost is a pretty good 'bang for the buck', slightly worse than a DO at only a minimal incremental cost (assuming the recipe dropped) which keeps you goin until much higher 3) Level 20 recipes (and to a lesser extent level 25) costs seem out of whack. Both visually with the kick in the curve, and are more expensive than the theoretical base cost of a level 20 SO, to which it is inferior. 4) level 30 IO recipes offer ~90% of an SO value, for ~110% of the cost and are at 'sweet spot' in the cost/benefit.

Traditional accuracy enhacers have a perfectly linear cost per level (above 10 anyway) TO = 96*level -384 DO = 383*level +383 SO = 1152*level +1152

The best fit I got to IO recipe costs was exponential, but its not quite right. I'll try a few more complicated models when I get the chance. Knowing Crytpic it will be easy to get to in Excel, its just a matter of finding the key. Catwhoorg 05:51, 11 April 2007 (PDT) Catwhoorg 08:26, 11 April 2007 (PDT)

o.o as drops they might be okay, but buying them... err.. @.@ I've been kind horrified at the cost so far. For all the badges they've added, they seem to be out to get badges.. the shear cost to get the new accolade is staggering, and I can't say the power it gives is exactly attractive.. --Sleepy Kitty 09:07, 11 April 2007 (PDT)

The strategies for an already high level, and for someone rolling up through the levels in regards both common, and set-based inventiosn will be very different. A level 50 'Buying' the accolade is going to spend (*grabs back of envelope*) 170 million inf or so, and thats outside of the costs for salvage (assumption 10 of each x5 x0 IO for the badges). Looking at the lifetime costs throws things round a bit.

Buying a level 30 Acc IO (no recipe drop) is 70700. Buying a 30 SO, plus a 35 SO (and a 40, 45 and 50) is 236160 - roughly 3 times as much. I have no doubt that a lot more numbers will be cruched, but its clear that IO are costed for a longer term benefit than simply 5 levels worth of enhancing. Catwhoorg 10:00, 11 April 2007 (PDT)

Proposed Reformatting

o.o where to start.. Well first of all, thats completely the wrong image. This is the recipe, not the enhancement (which has completely different sales numbers). Being the recipe and not the enhancement, the "Effects" aren't as important to be on here, but if they aren't cluttering, then it probably can't hurt.. For the sales prices, thats definitively an improvement over how I have them, but on the other hand, it isn't one for the salvage (but, it does make better use of space for compacting things).

I know it's the wrong image (mentioned it in the forum post), but I don't know if the right image even exists. Since this is the recipe, I agree that the "Effects" section is misplaced. I forgot that there's a page for the enhancement itself. Though I have to wonder about overall organization, since there's a recipe for every invention enhancement and vice versa. I can argue that the "Effects" section is cluttering; other powers with more effects will be much more cluttering. Also, by removing Effects, we don't need the associated headings, which makes a TOC work if we wanted a page with all common IO recipes. I see your point re: salvage requirements; tell me what you think of the new way. --Lin Chiao Feng 15:18, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

for a Formating note, I'd make all of "Inf Cost" into the link, not just the first part, and you might want to add , to the numbers so that its a bit less of an eye strain. --Sleepy Kitty 12:38, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

What do you think of converting it to read "Influence/Infamy"? I think less jargon is probably better. The numbers I did with spaces instead of commas so as not to annoy our European friends, many of whom use commas as decimal points and have enough trouble reading our numbers already. Also, it's what the people doing the Base articles were doing. Is there a wiki-wide standard? If it needs to be commas, the change is trivial. --Lin Chiao Feng 15:18, 13 April 2007 (PDT)