Board Thread:Wiki discussions and announcements/@comment-1990160-20140521040036/@comment-4022742-20140523160759

Willbachbakal wrote: is the item on which percentage movement speed is based on now. Before that, percentage movespeed had been assigned a minimum gold value in accordance with the minimum base movement speed of 325. There's been a solution to it for a long time. It's a solution made from compromise, setting that value at the minimum base movement speed will not accurately reflect it's value to those champions that have more the minimum base. Nor will it accurately reflect it's value for any champion in combination with. It doesn't account for the double soft movement speed caps either. Even passives like can offset the value.

Gold efficiency is trying to generalize statistics into a value number, which is a commendable effort in itself. But in doing so it is omitting the more advanced mechanics of the game, including but not limited to (I can't remember every little thing, only human): The pages in the links provided have neat formula's which can be used to calculate all of it. Yet Gold Efficiency in it's current form doesn't take advantage of any of those formula's. These formula's are not a part of the item's main page either, I guess because it was trivial information, too complicated or bloating them? Instead they were given their own page with a link to it where you could find out more if you wanted to.
 * Diminishing returns of stacking armor] and [[Magic_Resistance#Damage_reduction|magic resistance
 * Level increasing stats like armor and magic resistance in relation to diminishing returns.
 * Level increasing attack damage in relation to life steal and in an offshoot; amount of ability power in relation to spell vamp
 * Resource pools like health and mana in relation to percentage regeneration effects found in and the  build path.
 * Soft caps in movement speed

(Off-topic) @Shaw, 2 questions.
 * 1) Assuming we are keeping the gold efficiency, is the question where we should keep it irrelevant to the discussion?
 * 2) Is calling someone - who has already tried to compromise - obstinate, accusing an unnamed person of "an attempt at abusing power" and who in his own words "...repeated some good points and arguments 6 times already...", in doing so repeating points already made, a civil way of discussion? (Sorry if I took that last quote out of intended context, I don't really see at who or what it was intended)