League of Legends Wiki:Discussions/Cost Efficiency Pt 2 Electric Boogaloo

A guideline needs to be created for this section of cost efficiency that exist in the item pages, because, let us not ignore this major tidbit in the current usage, 'cost efficiency section is 100% theory-crafting. This is a problem within wiki because the wiki is supposed to be about providing 'facts' and not theorizing information while presenting it as facts. So let's begin and start this off, let's look at some large assumptions that are made (that I'm aware of):

So the questions is, what does the cost efficiency exactly mean? What are the exact details that holds the foundation of cost efficiency/statistic value/gold value? This is not about general thoughts, but getting into the fine details of the section. I have my own idea, but I know it is 'not well liked', so instead of trying to force my view, I rather see what the community can form. This isn't about the board picture, because that it is easy. It's about the fine details and limits of the cost efficency.

And before I get to the main point, I also want to point out an awesome blog that will help set the mood of this: The Fallacies of Item Efficiency

Questions
{{HiddenB
 * header = Questions
 * align = center
 * content=

Guideline Questions
So you fine people who have any interest in cost efficiency, gold value, statistic value. Let's build a guideline for this, and craft exactly what cost efficiency is supposed to mean and move it away from the realm of random theroycrafting and into the realm of actual information.

Now, anyone who knows about me in the past few years knows about my stance about the current usage, but I lay down this proposal, if there are logical reasoning within a constructed foundation, I will support it. So here are a few list of questions that I want to lay down and I hope someone answers with logical reasoning. Explanation and reasoning is what is important here. Not just a 1 line sentence. And therefore, we can create a solid guideline for future people can use.

1) All of question 1 is set to help create a foundation and base of cost efficiency. How do we find the statistical/gold value that is used throughout the section? What exactly does this value mean and represent? How does the math, variables, and method support this ideal of representation? What defines this value?

) What exactly does the stat's value represent (because this is something that really needs to be clear)? What does it mean?

) Considering all variables, such as: Unique tags, build path, active & passive effects, special triggers, does if the item needs to be brought from the shop. What variables do we keep? what variables do we ignore? Why?

) Can we use gold/statistical value for this different if the situation ever presented themselves in the future and was useful? What implication does this mean? (I want people to actually think about this. This is completely theroycrafting, but if the information is to be considered fact, then we should be able to come up to logical reasoning on why).

) If this is to be considered facts, if someone was to come up with a theorize example, the foundation should have an answer based on logic and reasoning. And please remember, the Wikia main priority is about presenting facts. If information is being tossed around without a clear meaning or worst, multiple 'different' meaning without any clear distinction. --- 2) What is the purpose of the cost efficiency section (exact details please)? What do believe it encompasses and how does it explain it with the information it provides?

) Does the foundation and base of how statistical value justify and provide adequate answers while making clear what it is ignoring?

3) What is a stat to you? What exactly separate a stat from an effect (For example, what makes Attack damage different from on-hit damage, or how health is different from shield value)? Or how you in the camp that stat and an effect is the same? Do you care to explain yourself?

) What does classification mean to you? How do you think we should classify stats different from effects? Do you think classification and how we classify things matters?

Testing Questions
Okay, those are all the questions I can think of creating a foundation. And now, here are just some theorizing hat I hope you lovely reader can answer with using your foundation you created above.

1) Let us pretend that had to be purchased from the store for 600 gold  instead of being of just having it for free. Do you believe it is right/wrong to value '+1 AP per level' as 200g and use it within the cost efficiency section? What reasons do you believe so? Why?

) Follow up question, if you agree with value it at 600g, do you also agree that it is right to value it as 'for every 1 AP it grants, it is wroth an additional 21.75g'.' Why?

) Follow up question, if you agree with both possible value, how do you defend having multiple possible answers, but at the same time have 1 that is static and another that is a changing value? Both cannot be facts representing the same information. What does 1 mean and what does the other mean?

) What about an effect such as 'you steal 5 magic resist with your auto-attacks' and/or 'you deal 20 magic damage with your basic attack'? Can they be given a flat value if there existed a basic tier item that only consisted of the effect? - ) Let us pretend there was a basic item that granted:
 * Unique Passive - Lifeline: Upon taking magic damage that would reduce health below 30%, grants a shield that absorbs 100 magic damage for 5 seconds (90 second cooldown).

If it costed 400 gold, we could give this effect a ‘statistical value’ of 400 gold. Would be valid and possible to compare with other items that met all but for how much damage it absorbed. Why yes or no?

) Do you think it is possible to value any passive and active effect, if the situation was given (there exist a basic item with only that effect) in which the community could do somewhat agree?

) What about ?

) What about an active that grants a temporary bonus in stats, such as, or ? What about passive that grants stats such as  or ? How does it work with your foundation? Why are these acceptable and what supports your idea? -- 3) Could we use the basic foundation of 'cost efficiency' to value runes? Except, replace gold value with IP currency. Would it work? Is there a reason why it can't work?

) If you say that it can work, how would you value the 3 seals (yellow runes):
 * flat health
 * health per level
 * % health

) Why don't you think the wikia or the community don't use cost efficiency for runes? --- 4) What factors do you think cost efficiency plays in the overall balance of the game?

4.1) Let us pretend that in one patch that had its price increased to 400g from 360g (and no other change occurs in the game)? How does it affect cost efficiency for AD? How does it affect AD's effectiveness is game?

4.2) Pretend you could change the game by adjusting 1 item's cost or stat given, is it possible to increase a final tier item's cost efficency without ever touching it's overall effectiveness or impact in a game? -- 5) If Riot was to declare that 1 Health was worth 100 gold (this is a huge overshot), would we use it? Why yes or no? How does this effect all the other values that do not get a declared valued? }}

Answer to my questions
I really want to hear how you, the community, view on my questions.

{{HiddenB
 * header = Willbachbakal's Answers
 * align = center
 * content=

Guideline Questions

 * 1) Starting with the definition: my definition of gold value is the base amount of gold I'd expect to pay for a stat. Gold efficiency is how the gold I expected to pay for an item's stats alone compares to its actual cost. As an average player, my thoughts on how much a stat is worth would immediately go to the first item I'd see on the shop (i.e., , etc.), and as I'd fill out my build I'd expect to have more and more stuff, whether they be stats or unique bonuses (not a matter of gold efficiency, just a matter of expectation), therefore the baseline should, as a general idea, start low and go up.
 * 2) A stat's value should represent the amount of gold you'd expect to shell out for it. It's like a power budget: it means you should always expect your gold's worth of stats on an item, and if you don't, that can be attributed to its uncountable bonuses.
 * 3) Whichever effect that has cannot be reduced to a countable stat should not be counted, but the rest is fair game, provided there is an adequate enough description of their context ("Unique" doesn't need much, if any explanation, whereas auras would probably do with more in-depth presentations). This is not a unanimously shared opinion, and has sparked a major debate before, but I think that, ultimately, all we're looking at is stats, and parceling items out according to countable and uncountable effects. The duration or conditionality of an effect may not be something we can slap a gold value onto, but the stats associated with that effect can.
 * 4) Absolutely, I think the system should be able to take any item, look at it, separate the countable from the uncountable, and plop out a detailed description statistical efficiency. I should probably elaborate below, but I'd like to turn my gold efficiency template into something more automated, with a set of rules programmed into it that would take in any item and output its cost analysis.
 * 5) I agree, and I think this can actually be applied to effects that most people would not even think of assigning a gold value to. Conditional movement speed bonuses, such as the one on, can be assigned a gold value, and while that may seem ridiculous I think is proof that the unique effect has a tangible impact on certain champions' power and even other stats. In fact, I think the system should be fully compatible with any champion, regardless of their scaling: while gold value/efficiency is not a measure of a stat's effectiveness on any individual champion, if we had a new champion that, say, converted a new stat into another (health regen to AP, as a random example), then our cost analysis system would be compatible with that and would point out items that could have a significant impact on them ("could" and not "would" here, as it is not meant to direct build choices, which is in itself the complete opposite of theorycrafting).
 * 6) The cost analysis section of any item describes its "budget": how much of its power is placed into stats, how much isn't, and where that power goes. It should directly account for all of an item's stats, which doesn't have to just include the wielder (so auras should also be valued on the stats they provide others with), and explain if necessary how those stats come into play if they're variable. Whatever the analysis cannot assign a gold value to, it mentions as an uncountable part of the budget. Its purpose is to explain how exactly an item's power is distributed, and how that power comes into play.
 * 7) With the framework mentioned above, yes. One should not expect a purely inefficient item, and if one such item existed, it would be something you could replicate better with the same amount of gold (assuming enough inventory space). As cost analyses list both what they do and do not account for, they should indicate exactly what they're not counting.
 * 8) A stat is a value I can expect to have the same properties regardless of how I use it. 10 AD differs from 10 on-hit physical damage because AD can factor into crit or ability scalings, whereas on-hit physical damage, unless specified otherwise, does not. If an effect has the exact same properties and functions as a stat so as to have no differences, then it can be assimilated to that stat.
 * 9) Classification simply means taking in stats as stats. Whatever is uncountable or outside classification is specified as such, and therefore is separate to the stats themselves, which can always be analyzed and evaluated. In the event that a stat is special-cased on an item to be "different" (i.e. the now-defunct 's attack speed boost not counting into ), then that is indicated, but the value is nonetheless accepted as its indicated stat. Classification matters to me in the sense that it helps separate the countable from the uncountable at a very detailed level, and helps establish a clear reasoning for what is and isn't acceptable to cost-analyze.

Testing Questions

 * 1) Wrong on several levels. First off, AP is already accounted for by, so the item's gold value per level wouldn't change. Even if the item were free (which it is), there would be no point in using it as a baseline as it's a champion-exclusive item, and makes therefore as much sense to establish as a baseline as 's old aura stats (which were also free). The per-level component shouldn't matter, as it doesn't change the value of the AP itself (the AP is countable, the per-level restraint isn't).
 * 2) Were I to cost-analyze the item myself, I would list the gold value the item gained with every level, and give a corresponding analysis of its efficiency ("this item is X% efficient at level 1, and gains Y% efficiency per level for a maximum of Z% efficiency). Take the item at any level, and the analysis would give you a perfect valuation of its stats and efficiency, which would be consistent with the system overall. The per-level component doesn't matter in this case, since you are accounting for its context by describing the conditional.
 * 3) I don't. It makes no sense to give the Hex Core a static value, because the bonuses it gives are inherently non-static.
 * 4) Effects with conditionals are, by nature, composite. If you could plot an effect's progression in the same way as you could a stat's, then sure (so the 20 magic damage on-hit could work), but otherwise you would have to refer to the involved stats' baseline components or keep them as uncountable.
 * 5) By the immediate above response, it would make no sense to assign that effect a gold value in the first place, since it having multiple variable conditionals means that you could never plot its progression in the same way as a stat's (what if you increased the shield's duration, or the health requirement? How would that factor in?). Therefore, it would not make sense either to assign comparative gold efficiency to similar effects with tweaked values.
 * 6) Yes, as I think there is a protocol and logical reasoning to these things (see above). Whatever is up to debate is not a matter of opinion, but of reasoning, and one that should be ultimately resolvable using proper application of protocol (which would have to be agreed upon first, but that's why you made this blog).
 * 7) are a red herring. What you should be looking for are the item's effects, which are 3 minutes of sight in a 1100-unit radius. This is a composite effect with multiple variable conditions (sight duration and radius), which therefore cannot be plotted like a stat and thus does not factor in as a baseline value for anything.
 * 8) Yes, I think temporary stat bonuses can be valued. While the conditionals are uncountable, the stats are themselves countable, so it is possible to describe the value and efficiency of these stats while mentioning the context established by these uncountable effects, as should always be the case. This might lead to surprising results (health pots are massively gold efficient when active), I think the only obstacle here is disbelief rather than any flaw in reasoning. If there is anything that can be done to alleviate the often ridiculously high conditional value or efficiency of those items on a conceptual level, it's that those actives or consumables are meant to be really good while they're in use, hence the high (but non-permanent) value/efficiency.
 * 9) There is no relation whatsoever between runes and items. IP isn't something you unlock over the course of a game, it's unlocked outside of games, and the permanence of IP and runes means that IP efficiency has no real meaning. You could technically do a stat-to-IP ratio (which would be completely separate to gold value or efficiency) and describe runes in terms of IP efficiency, but it would have nothing in common with gold efficiency. You could technically correlate any stat to any other stat (base attack speed to base movement speed on champions, for example), and that wouldn't have anything to do with gold efficiency.
 * 10) See above, I don't think such a system has any real meaning or value. You could, however, make a thought experiment out of it, and establish rules that would allow you to quantify the IP efficiency of literally every rune. I think any such rules would be arbitrary and fairly devoid of meaning, so I wouldn't do it and sound convincing at the same time, but if anyone were to somehow provide a good basis for rules of IP value and IP efficiency, I'd follow those rules and do the math on those runes.
 * 11) For the same reason we don't calculate the RP efficiency of skins, or the IP efficiency of champions. It makes no sense to quantify the cost efficiency of runes, because despite the possibility of establishing stat-to-IP ratios and even a pretty complete system around runes and their IP cost, that system would have no meaning.
 * 12) Cost efficiency tends to be an overall indicator of an item's power budget, which has factored several times into the valuation of items and . Both items were way too stat efficient at one point and were nerfed accordingly, and that efficiency could easily be seen with a cost analysis. It also means an item's power can also be described in terms of its efficiency (e.g. "This item's too cost efficient, and so needs a nerf" or "This item's really inefficient and needs a buff"), and so can the changes made to it.
 * 13) The gold value of AD would increase, and consequently the efficiency of every other AD item would increase. Effectiveness isn't, and has never been a factor in gold value, and would remain unchanged. This may sound weird, but if you think about it: suppose that happened, and consequently had its stat efficiency increased. By both logical reasoning and the cost analysis system (which should be the same), if you were to try to buy the same stats on that item, you'd have to pay a lot more than before, and so your item's more efficient. Avoiding Long Sword and instead using components like B. F. Sword and  doesn't matter, since you'd apply that same reasoning to them, therefore you'd still end up with greater efficiency.
 * 14) It's always possible to change an item's cost efficiency without changing its effectiveness in-game, since efficiency and effectiveness are unrelated. However, you'd likely change the impact of that item, since its build would be affected: you could build it sooner, or would have to wait longer to get it, or could purchase items with similar stats sooner or later in the same manner. This is why Riot often adjusts the price and stats of basic components like Long Sword or or the like, so as to make them easier or harder to purchase.
 * 15) Absolutely. Whatever Riot says is canon, and whichever gold values they list would replace the ones we have now. This doesn't necessarily mean Riot's own valuation is necessarily bulletproof, but whatever baseline they'd state is official would work, as the system would already be able to account for that, bar the event of some gross contradiction (AD not being worth the same on two different items, for example, which would break the system if held as true). If they happen to list the value of a stat or effect that has been traditionally held as uncountable, then it would be made countable, under the proviso that Riot explains how non-plottable effects scale in value/efficiency, if there are any.


 * My lack of words is not because I agree with your answers, but rather, I'm still waiting for your protocol to thoroughly explain your answers here without the need of throwing arbitrary rules in to enforce your decisions. But I do want to say:
 * It's actually really easy. No effort required to make it runes with IP efficency. Useless, but easy to make and it will be based exactly how item efficiency is designed.
 * Just want to point this out. If whatever Riot says is canon, even if it goes against the method of how you found the data, what does make of the data you have right now? What does your data actually means. If you're claiming these stats is worth 'Xg' amount as a fact, why would you then take their words for it, even if it contradicts and possibly break your system? Aren't you admitting that you have a system that is not accurate with what you're claiming?

ClariS (talk) 06:50, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Responses:
 * I think it would be better to put the answers first and the protocol second, as my answers give the reasoning for the protocol. This current setup just forces me to backtrack to my responses, pull the relevant answer, lay it out in my defense of my protocol, then go over here to repeat my point. It is insulting of you to refer to the definitions in my protocol as arbitrary, when those definitions are backed by my responses here, half of which you also happened to have cut out for no apparent reason. You are expecting my protocol to justify my responses when it should be the other way round.
 * How are IP efficiency and item efficiency related? Aside from the ratio of a bonus to an apparent cost, what do the rune system and in-game itemization have in common? What rules hold true for both systems, and how would you justify them?
 * Again, whether you do math in base 10 or base 12 will not affect the underlying calculations, just the visual representation, and I think that analogy holds true for gold value. Changing the baseline for any stat simply shifts everything the stat was tied to in a certain direction, but does not change the meaning of those items' cost analyses. It would not break the system, but would merely create a new system with the same underlying rules and a different base. I am not claiming that a stat is worth a specified amount of gold as a fact, as I think that's not only irrelevant to the validity of gold value and efficiency as a system, but would also be wrong, as proven by the changes in costs and stats to items. AD now does not have the same gold value as AD three years ago, so it makes no sense to chase this idyllic gold standard for a stat's value because the very idea of it has no meaning.

--Willbachbakal (talk) 07:53, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Responses to a response:
 * I read your guideline. Most if not all falls under, I think this way is better or I perfer it this way. Second, you can post it up if you want.
 * Because it's how I define variable/cost relationship. The method I use is not tied to League of Legend at the slightlest. The variables used are tied to LoL, but not the method. I could go into a bit more details, but let's not get side-tracked here.
 * So by this, can we drop thatt cost anaylsis has nothing to do with stat's value? The fact that the stat value can be changed and still have the entire method works shows that the value of the stat is not vital to the method. As long as some value exist, we can use the method.

ClariS (talk) 19:00, January 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * I added the section and rearranged the discussion in a manner I find more logical and more economical. You are also making vague attacks on the credibility of my justifications without so much as citing examples (again). I put a lot of effort into making those answers, and I'm not going to repeat myself all over again. Quote what you think I need to justify better, and I may be able to help.
 * It would actually be nice if you were to post your own answers to these guideline/testing questions, since right now I have no idea what your model of gold value or efficiency is, or how you would go about constructing a cost analysis. You're throwing around terms like you've defined them but you haven't, all while expecting me to provide rigorous proof for every one of my own assertions. If you want this to be a rigorous discussion, you're going to have to be a bit more specific than "The method I use is not tied to League of Legend at the slightest".
 * "The fact that the stat value can be changed and still have the entire method works shows that the value of the stat is not vital to the method:" yes, that's exactly what I've been trying to say, but that doesn't mean the value itself isn't important. We need a consistent base for the system used to make cost analyses, and the justifications I put forth (or, as you call them, "preferences") are there to explain how we should go about selecting baselines in a manner that is most intuitive to the reader.

--Willbachbakal (talk) 19:46, January 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Okay. Understand and won't do that again.
 * 2) I was only trying to do a quick reply to a few questions you wrote down about IP efficiency and item efficiency. But there is no point in explaining any of this. I'm not arguing for my case. I only asked this question to see how restricted your template/protocol/guideline is?
 * 3)  We need a consistent base for the system used to make cost analyses  And my problem with that is, EVERY VALUE WITHIN YOUR PROTOCOL HINGES ON A THEORY. The method of how you choose your value has no direct correlation of finding the stat's value, and does not prove that it is a the stat's gold value. It all amounts to is preference, since all conditions attached to the stat and its value is stripped away when you choose to ignore the item and all future conditions regarding the usage of the stat. Therefore any value chosen for any stat is equally as valid as the one you choose now, performing your entire protocol without a hickup. It doesn't even have to come from an item because the item serves nothing but to base your pick on the stat's value.

ClariS (talk) 02:24, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

}}
 * "Therefore any value chosen for any stat is equally as valid as the one you choose now": That's the thing: this is true, but whereas I don't see an issue, you do. Since all item-based stats are tied to items, and items are purchased with gold, the only way to set a gold value will inevitably be to base yourself upon an item. While technically almost any item could be a valid baseline, what I'm saying is that there are certain items out there that are better as baselines, and I gave my reasoning why (less gold efficient items are better so that you don't end up having too many items with purely sub-100% values, etc.). I think the discussion we should be having here is what priorities we should establish for baseline items. As I argued below, there is no issue of finding an objective gold value standard because there is no objective gold value standard, and such a standard would be impossible unless given by Riot (though that would be more of an official standard than an objective standard).

Construction of the Guideline
This is the main meat of the topic and I do not want to see it constantly going off topic with every other thread. Let's create the foundation. Reasoning is important here. Any assumptions, without logical reasoning behind it, will be crossed out and thrown away. Similar things does not equal same thing.

For Wants Its Out-Right Removal
And lastly for all those who oppose the cost efficiency section and want it's outright removal. I ask you guys to post bullet points on the specific details on why it shouldn't exist? Please do not rant but every piece of information can be useful, because for those who support the section, I ask, please, instead of arguing their points, instead, take the mindset they are right and what can we do as a community to correct that issue (unless they are really off-topic)? Please feel free to add it within this section, but please try to keep it low on ranting. Concerns, issues you see with it, flaws you see with it?


 * I think one of the main arguments against "cost efficiency" is that it's an incredibly misleading piece of "information", even disregarding how useful it actually is. I was introducing someone to League recently and showing them articles on this very wiki about certain items, and they immediately pointed to "cost efficiency" on one item's article saying "So this item is 100% efficient without its passive, does that mean it's really good?" The item in question? None other than the famed Executioner's Calling - almost never bought due to being objectively a bad item. But to a new player who's looking through, and has seen lots of "gold inefficient" items? Looks really good. Are we meant to only be providing information to experienced players with a background in theorycrafting? Or really expecting everyone to know to mouseover a dotted underlined titled to get a disclaimer of sorts (which again, some new players wouldn't understand in the first place)? Given that this is one of the number one LoL resources on the net, essentially saying "screw you" to newer players seems... unfair. And to anyone who thinks we don't, get someone with no League knowledge to look at an item page without explaining to them that they should ignore the %score on gold efficiency, and ask them to estimate how good the items are. Most of them will assume the more "efficient" items are the better ones.
 * On a somewhat related note, very few items are "gold efficient" without their passives. Ultimately almost every item is judged by what it gives other than raw stats, with a very small number of exceptions in items with ludicrously good stats and a strong passive (e.g. pre-nerf Athene's). How useful, therefore, is a "cost efficiency" analysis on any item that's not just a primarily a statball like Phantom Dancer or Rod of Ages? I would argue not very. It's just assigning an (ultimately arbitrary) value to stats and listing them. It's not even as if this gives you an indicator as to whether or not an item gives you, say, the most damage relative to the cost - Void Staff can give more damage than Rabadon's, but people looking to "cost efficiency" for how best to spend their gold would assume Rabadon's is the better investment every time. Can we provide such information on an item page? No, it depends on too many variables. Does providing a less useful, potentially misleading metric in its place really offer a better solution? I would argue not. - Unevent
 * Thank you for your input. If no guideline can be set that avoids the trapping of assumptions and no better way to explain itself, I believe it would serve best to remove the section outright to avoid confusion on what it means or could mean. ClariS (talk) 02:51, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. As I mentioned, it was rather frustrating having to explain to a new player after I'd recommended LoLWiki to them "No, just ignore gold efficiency, it's got nothing to do with how good the item is", particularly given that I'm a contributor. If it can be made extremely plain that cost efficiency is useful for little more than theorycrafting, then by all means keep it in. If not, perhaps cost efficiency could have its own article or somesuch for archive purposes/for those that are interested in the more theory-oriented side of League. But as long as it remains as an incredibly misleading piece of information to anyone that doesn't have a background in such things, I will continue to advocate for its removal as a prominent feature of item pages. - Unevent
 * Yeah, I agree, the applications of gold efficiency can be confusing to newcomers, and the issue of clarity has been a crucial part of the gold value debate for some time. I wouldn't go so far as to call gold value/efficiency a useless bit of theorycrafting (I don't think it is), but clarity is still a big potential point of improvement, and one that needs feedback from as many users as possible. Other than removing cost analyses altogether, Unevent, what would you suggest could be done to improve their clarity, especially with respect to newcomers who aren't familiar with the idea of gold value? --Willbachbakal (talk) 08:11, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Format Changes
Though this is not the main objective here, if you have any format suggestions, please feel free and add it here. Any improvements on how it is seen or displayed is always important and welcomed.