nu.kanga.list.mud-dev

17939: Re: [MUD-Dev] Virtual Good Value Assertion

According to F. Randall Farmer:
> Eric Rhea said

>>  http://www.enkanica.com/MUD-DEV/Pg.htm
 
> I put in some best guess values for tiny shards in AC.  I got a
> negative number as a result.  Even if I got the figures way wrong, I
> should have never gotten that. :-)

As far as I can see, it attempts to provide a value to the item using
three factors:

  - Difficulty of obtaining the item (level, or a "skill equivalent",
  plus party size, plus average spawn time)

  - Relative rarity in the world (number of items, amount of items)

  - Turn-over rate, either by decay, or by the time one acquires
  something "better".

Pyreal motes/Cracked shards are probably one of the worst items to
attempt to measure by this method. It's aimed at "equipment", not at
"reagents" (a category I'd include the motes/shards/SIK in). For a
better measure, I'd try to attempt to measure the value of a
shadowhunter armor piece itself.

In fact, the method reflects accurately a way of measuring items in EQ
or maybe UO, but it fails rather badly in other models, like AC where
there are no "average spawn time", and no way of measure the total
items in the PSW, because all pieces of equipment are nearly all
unique ones (except quest items).

In fact, one of the categories bother me a lot. Player level/Player
Skill Points/Player Stats are 3 methods aimed at finding out "which
level do you need to get the item". However, there's one glaring
omission: "Maximum player level possible" (the other two categories
have the current/max ratio measurable). A level 55 in EQ is near its
maximum possible. Levels 55 in AC are considered high mid-levels by a
lot of people.

--
Vincent Archer                                         Email: archer@nevrax.com

Nevrax France.                              Off on the yellow brick road we go!
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev