Board Thread:Wiki discussions and announcements/@comment-3308937-20150122092301/@comment-4091261-20150219202425

HOLD IT!

Before destroying the notion altogether, I would like to present the one thing that can be recycled from our current form of 'gold value' with 100% accuracy.

While it is truly illogical to compare the stats of every other item based on stats given from one of the basic items, it is by no means inaccurate to say that we can compare how effective a is compared to a.
 * Comparing Base Reagents

It is also false to try and compare the 'value' of different basic stats based on their 'cost;' but when the means of value of two items are exactly the same, there is no issue with comparing them by their cost. That said, I believe that even though gold efficiency may be broken on higher--more complicated--levels, it can still be used to represent a comparison within the boundaries of its simplest form--the accurate one.

Outside of this, everything else is subjective and should be removed if the main goal is to maintain objectivity. With this in mind, I have one final suggestion to replace what is to be removed. A Cost/Benefit analysis utilizing the upgrade costs of items. (with Ntoulinho in mind) While this may not be as specified as the gold efficiency model being removed, this gives a better view of what is gained through upgrading.

The premise lies on figuring out the difference in value between the upgraded item and its material items. With the values acquired, the price to upgrade into the item is then set as the cost of the bonus values. The cost of relying on this model is that the cost cannot be divided evenly into the values if there are multiple values, thus preventing a ratio to be obtained; however, the benefit is that every value that could not be accounted for previously is able to be displayed in this system. One example would be the on-hit damage from.

While the item was 'efficient' without its passive, that meant that the value of the on-hit damage was completely unaccounted for. With this new model, we are able to show that the on-hit damage is the value added from upgrading to a --the way it should be thought as.

If gold efficiency is to be cut down, then so be it. However, should we cut down the one piece of objective information alongside it? I don't agree with that. Instead of using a 'base' to somehow compare every item, I believe it is more accurate to compare the 'basic' items if they have the same stat. Everything else gains their benefits through upgrading, and upgrading has a cost. So if we can show what is gotten and plop in the cost to upgrade the item, then looking at items will be a lot easier--due to the fact that we aren't looking at the stats that were already obtained from the previous items. I believe this is an appropriate replacement for what we are getting rid of. Instead of the seemingly random gold efficiency percentage that makes people think, "oh, just ignore that," if people look at this model, people will think, "oh, that's basically what you get if you upgrade this."