Talk:Invention Accuracy Recipe

Test Format 1

Invention Accuracy Recipe makes an Accuracy Enhancement in the Invention System. It is available in the 10-50 level range.

Purchasing, reselling and crafting this Recipe from a Worktable cost:

Recipe Image Goes Here
for now.. linked to the enhancement as the closest thing..

Level	Influence/Infamy
	Purchase	Resale	Crafting
10	1,650	412	3,300
15	3,500	875	7,000
20	16,000	4,000	32,000
25	17,400	4,350	34,800
30	30,300	7,575	40,400
35	46,050	11,512	61,400
40	72,900	18,225	97,200
45	173,500	43,375	173,500
50	454,600	113,650	454,600

Please note, that with the appropriate badge earned, this recipe is memorized and there is no purchase cost, only a crafting one and the recipe no longer counts toward your recipe storage limit.

Salvage Required

Levels 10-25

1 Luck Charm Salvage
1 Boresight Salvage

Levels 30-40

1 Alchemical Silver Salvage
1 Scientific Theory Salvage

Levels 45-50

1 Fortune Salvage
1 Mathematic Proof Salvage

Related Badges

Use of this recipe to craft an enhancement counts towards the following badges:

• Memorization Crafting Badges
  • Major Badge
  • Colonel Badge
  • Lt. Colonel Badge
  • Major General Badge
  • General Badge
• Overall Crafting badges
  • Artisan Badge
  • Master Artisan Badge
  • Craftsman Badge
  • Master Craftsman Badge
  • Fabricator Badge

See Also

• stuff not on here yet, End of Test Format 1

Test Format 2

Invention Accuracy Recipe makes an Accuracy Enhancement in the Invention System. It is available in the 10-50 level range.

Accuracy

Level	Inf				Invention Salvage
	Purchase	Resale	Crafting	Memorized
10	1,650	412	3,300	?	1 Luck Charm 1 Boresight
15	3,500	875	7,000	?
20	16,000	4,000	32,000	?
25	17,400	4,350	34,800	?
30	30,300	7,575	40,400	?	1 Alchemical Silver + 1 Scientific Theory
35	46,050	11,512	61,400	?
40	72,900	18,225	97,200	?
45	173,500	43,375	173,500	?	1 Fortune, 1 Mathematic Proof
50	454,600	113,650	454,600	?

See Also

• stuff not on here yet, End of Test Format 2

Comments on Test Types

added these in, if I got type 2 wrong, then hopefully Lin Chiao Feng will correct it. My vote is, of course, for type 1 for the individual recipe pages, type 2 with a bit of clean up can work well for the complete listing of recipes pages though.. --Sleepy Kitty 13:14, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

Test format 1 looks good when appropriate graphics are added for the enhancement, the salvage, the badges. Makes a very graphically attractive page. I like test format 2 for a page that lists all the common IO enhancements on one page. I like the formatting of the 10-25 salvage in type 2 the best. I also suggest including the bonus each level of the enhancement provides in the table.--storyteller@fuse.net

older Discussion

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)

Ah, the heck with it. Commas it is. --Lin Chiao Feng 16:04, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

I really liked the lastest change, where you consolidated the Invention Salvage columns. The current format for that is much clearer and easier to follow than the previous grid-like format, I think. -- Sekoia 18:18, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

o,o honestly, that tendency of the Europeans has always annoyed me on computers (I play some European MMO-Text sim games) since the comps all use and display in the American style, but they've usually keyed it in to take input in the EU style, so your using both at once ><

Back on topic.. I think I liked the other table better.. at least for the salvage section. I think what we're going to have to consider is where we'll be going with this. The basic IO enhancements only use up to 9 different salvage bits, but I imagine that the sets probably use more, and we're going to want to have a format, be it just text or in table, that allows us to fit them all in. Besides that, we also have to consider something else, if these are going where I expect it to, once all of the info is recorded and beatification of the pages begins, TonyV will probably have us doing here what was started with the Base craftables, that being, the salvage will have small templates that both link and show a mini-pic of the salvage item...

o.o oh! and the recipe pic does exist, they just have to be combined. In the piggs, all enhancements (and now, recipes) are several different images that are put together by the game. We usually just drop in the (?) badge holder for these things so that one of our image manipulation guys knows its needed. If you want a go at it yourself, they're in textGUI1.pigg/icons/enhancements --Sleepy Kitty 18:29, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Euro memory units (MiB, GiB, etc.) make me break out in hives. Seriously, the old way (1024 for storage, 1000 for everything else) worked fine for decades.

The long-term problem with the older table is that if there are more than 3 level ranges of salvage, or when you get to the things that need 3-4 salvage types per recipe, the table runs right off the right side of the page. The current format does not have that problem; each type of salvage is a line, and they're grouped by level range.

Do you have an example page showing what TonyV wants done with base stuff?

Lastly, what is this (?) badge holder you speak of? Just the text, or another graphic? --Lin Chiao Feng 19:36, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Empowerment_Station is an example of tables I put together. Havent had time to dig out the salvage pics, but it would be good to include them. Some people are a little more visual than text focused.Catwhoorg 19:52, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

o.o actually Mystic Advisor has the best example, just drop down to Salvage Required on the table and you'll see what we'll eventually be formating the the salvage links to look like. ^^ and please pardon the mess on that page, the base items are slightly back burner right now, had to get all the purchasable ones up first, so these will be back on the top of my list once the i9 salvage related items are done with.--Sleepy Kitty 20:27, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

I changed the template for Mystic Element to make the name link to the salvage page. However, there is no way to do this (in wikitext) for the icon as well; the icon will always link to the page for the image. So I'm not 100% keen on putting images in the tables, since a) it won't lead to the salvage page, which is where the user wants to look, and b) the image is on the target page when you click on the link, anyway. Ideas? --Lin Chiao Feng 07:32, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

Regarding the Mystic Advisor formatting, I added cellpadding=5 cellspacing=0 to the table, since the 3-D Netscape table format is too visually distracting. However, I would contend that, in the case of base items like Mystic Advisor, the whole page should come from a template. --Lin Chiao Feng 07:39, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

A friend pointed out his pet peeve with the Wiki: information is spread out across a lot of pages, so that it's very difficult to do a side-by-side comparison of anything. We should be looking at different ways to organize this information as well. I'm proposing that we have a page with all the common recipes on it, and a page for each set. There really isn't much reason to have a page per recipe, unless we just don't value our own time. I can see how it might be easier to link to a recipe if it has its own page, but in that case I recommend that the page be a redirect that points to the recipe on its set page. --Lin Chiao Feng 07:39, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

^^;; err... you mean like... (Invention Origin Enhancement Recipes) this one? I can't speak for everyone, but one of the first things I do when I create a category is to make a page of the same name with links to all things in said cat. o.o though, it could use a couple redirs to it since the name is a bit wordy.. Spreading out among many pages isn't a problem as long as everything has a good strutcher, and by that, I mean a good category and "see Also" structure pointing to relevant information. right now thats part of what we're doing with the recipes and salvage, both are pointing to each other, so you can find it in several ways. o.o course, we still need to flush out the info structure a bit, and the sets still have alot of work to do.

>.> my final comment here though is on templates.. the whole page from one? sounds nice.. uniform, and ultimately completely unforgiving for individual quirks. Templates are best used in moderation, their good for organizing, and in some cases, shrinking pages down. They're also often fairly ugly and force things to stick to a structure that they don't always fit into. Which is one of the reasons why I would go with them for the numbers (which reeaalllly need them to make it look nice) and some of the data thats used across the board, but not for the whole page. Have the templates something you put in, not the entirety of the object ^_^ (I assume that we're talking templates of all sorts, and not just templates for tables.. I don't think I've seen you use anything other than tables which is why I mention this) --Sleepy Kitty 08:31, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

I haven't used templates yet because I wanted to get the general arrangement of data worked out first; changing that after templating gets messy. Now that people seem happy with it, I can move to templates. --Lin Chiao Feng 14:01, 14 April 2007 (PDT)