el wrote:
Amonia - While I'm posting over at EJ, you've posted here! I cannot easily read Excel 2007 format, so I cannot comment on your spreadsheet specifically yet. I'll look forward to seeing the "classic" version.
Here it is ! http://thechosenone.free.fr/WoW/Leveling_Professions_v0.10.zip
Going back to xls file format removed the xml compression... the file is now 30+megs ...
Here are some general points on the mechanics of the calculation, as I see them:
1. Personal aims: A pure power-leveler may level regardless of the value/use of the items produce, while someone leveling the profession as they level may gain benefit from the BoP items. A pragmatic position exists in the middle, where one focuses on items that will sell. Inscription looks like there will be plenty of value at lower levels: It might be worth burning an extra stack of herbs to make a few glyphs that will sell at auction, instead of some junk that immediately gets vendored. Unfortunately, that's very hard to explain in the "just tell me how to level" culture that exists for a lot of players.
I plan on taking this parameter into account, it's quite easy in fact to add to the sheet.
2. Ink then items: You may have considered this already. Ink goes grey faster than anything else, yet you need a lot of ink. As such, it makes sense to produce all the ink you are sure you will need "up front", even if that pushes you right to the grey.
This is already taken into account as inks are cheaper than the items they are used for (the cost calculation is redundant).
3. Efficient use of pigments gained from milling: My working assumption is that you mill all your own herbs (hold that "but" thought for a moment). As such, the level-up should seek to use pigments in proportion to their creation: About 1 rare:6 common in most cases. The current problem is that you can choose between a common+rare=ink or a common=ink, and so not using the rare pigment is just as efficient, assuming the overall volume of ink required by items is the same to level - and generally it is (or the common is more efficient than the rare). Of course you could conclude that we should buy common pigments at auction. But since the pigments ultimately come from milling, the market will balance out such that buying common pigments costs the same as milling your own and discarding the rare. Messy design IMHO, which I hope will change.
That's something I didn't think of, I'll look into it.
4. There is a strong tendency to grouping of glyphs: 2 or 3 that give identical skill-up chance. The mechanics need to acknowledge that there is a free choice between those, rather than trying to maintain a single-item path. Many players will take advantage of that choice, even if their overall aim is to skill-up as efficiently as possible.
Maybe this one will be "solved" by number 1 above, as most rentable glyphs will be favored.
