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

Latest revision as of 02:56, 2 August 2017

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):

Assumptions

There was a baseline that the 'community' designated themselves as to be used as the stander.
- The baseline or base item that was chosen was not picked because they they were RIGHT or WRONG. They were picked based on preference and usefulness. Attempting to justify what is the RIGHT way is pointless as anyone can have their own preference on how they would rather do it, and it would work equally as well.
In choosing the baseline, it is 'assumed' the item is 100% cost efficient.
- There is a reason why this is normally done since they creates a point of reference that anyone can see with their eyes. But the issue with this is that there is no fact that it is correct. It is what the 'community' just picked to be the stander. But two major road blocks hits this assumptions as:

Upper tier items have clear evidence to have increase 'cost efficiency' over basic tier items, thereby affecting spell vamp, % movement speed, armor penetration, life steal, and anything else I forgot.
Attack damage, ability power, and critical strike chance has basic tier items that provide different 'gold value'. What makes choosing the more cheaper item more 'correct' then the more expensive one? In fact, why can't use all 3 of them in cost efficiency instead of the 1? Can the wiki possibly justify this method other than, we wanted it that way?

Ignoring build path and unique tag.
- I just wanted to point these out because it is something that is always ignored, and not many people ever seem to point it out.
The items needs to be brought
- I read this a few times, but I do want to point out, we do sort of ignore this with the Tear of the Goddess transformation items. The final version items technically can't be brought from the store, instead required to be transformed. This has grounds to point out difference that is commonly ignored for reasons that aren't generally justified except for 'people' wanting it and showing inconsistency within rules.

NOTE: Those assumptions above aren't proof to claim 'cost efficiency' needs to be removed, but rather why we can't claim the 'stats' value is worth Xg as a fact. And as a reminder, the wikia's main task is providing facts and not theorizing. And we shouldn't be presenting theories as facts.

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

Questions

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?

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

1.5) 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?

1.75) Can we use gold/statistical value for this different variables 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).

1.9) 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?

2.33) 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?

3.5) 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 Answers

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 Prototype Hex Core had to be purchased from the store for 600 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?

1.25) 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?

1.5) 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?

1.75) 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?

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

2.33) 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?

2.67) What about Sight Ward?

2.99) What about an active that grants a temporary bonus in stats, such as Health Potion, Youmuu's Ghostblade or Righteous Glory? What about passive that grants stats such as Phage or Ardent Censer? 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?

3.5) If you say that it can work, how would you value the 3 seals (yellow runes):

flat health
health per level
% health

3.75) 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 Long Sword 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 (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.

Willbachbakal's Answers

Guideline Questions

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. Amplifying Tome, Cloth Armor, 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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 Homeguard, can be assigned a gold value, and while that may seem ridiculous I think Hecarim 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).
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.
1. 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.
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.
1. 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 Sword of the Divine's attack speed boost not counting into Lucian's The Culling), 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

Wrong on several levels. First off, AP is already accounted for by Amplifying Tome, 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 Sona'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).
1. 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.
2. I don't. It makes no sense to give the Hex Core a static value, because the bonuses it gives are inherently non-static.
3. 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.
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.
1. 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).
2. Sight Wards 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.
3. 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.
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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
Cost efficiency tends to be an overall indicator of an item's power budget, which has factored several times into the valuation of items Athene's Unholy Grail and Morellonomicon. 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.
1. 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 The Black Cleaver 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 Pickaxe doesn't matter, since you'd apply that same reasoning to them, therefore you'd still end up with greater efficiency.
2. 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 Null-Magic Mantle or the like, so as to make them easier or harder to purchase.
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:
3) 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.
5) 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)

Okay. Understand and won't do that again.
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?
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).

--Willbachbakal (talk) 09:18, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Double Slap's Answers

Guideline Answers

1) The value of money is in the worth of its debt. If money cannot pay off any kind of debt, it has lost all purchasing power. Applying this to the game, the statistical value is derived from an item we pay for. This item has statistics; so based on that statistic and the price of the item, a value is determined, showing how much we are paying for with each portion of this statistic. Statistical value is determined using the lowest price item as a base. This system is focused more on a basis of comparison rather than of growth, as the growth model would have items based on the initial items in the build. The reason I find our current system superior is complications that would arise if there were multiple baseline items. Problems would occur with items like Infinity Edge and Wit's End as they have two base items that give the exact same statistic.

1.25) This system is very similar to measuring food by the price and weight. The value is $/oz. in that scenario as gold/stat is in our current system. Just as people compare how much "food" they get by utilizing weight, players compare how much boost they get by utilizing statistics. The larger the statistical value, the more the boost is worth in gold. Just as in real life, some people don't do well with spinach while other sailors are in desperation for some spinach. Some champions don't boost well with some statistics and try their best to avoid it while getting the statistics they prefer.

1.5) Many variables are required in order to make this system viable. The variables we have: attack damage, ability power, armor, magic resistance, health, mana, health regeneration, mana regeneration, critical strike chance, attack speed, magic/armor penetration, lifesteal, spellvamp, cooldown reduction, and movement speed are enough to keep this system afloat; however keeping afloat is fine and dandy, to make this take off, we need to address: cooldowns, range, duration, and ratios. Why we need to address the other variables is to represent exactly how this applies in actual gameplay. Without understanding the limitations of the items' cooldowns/range/duration/ratios and the significant boosts they bring, a majority of the items can't be seen in its full potential. This skews the opinions of these items towards the other items that disregard the latter variables, simply because the former items―that do utilize these other variables―were not measured.

How do we do this? Well, I suggest we formulate champions, but that is another discussion altogether so I'll carry on with this idea later. As for variables we can ignore, any value that is unable to be replicated with another item is able to be ignored. For example, Elixir of Ruin's % tower damage. There is a dragon buff that boosts % tower damage, but there is no other item that does. As for items that do have replicable abilities, we set the base as the lowest value of the ability to mimic the current setup.

1.75) Theorycrafting? Nonsense. If this is set up properly (with champion formulation) then there is no "theory" to this, it is law. This is not for the casual gamer. No, this is for the people who would dedicate days learning a strategy. Accounting for the variables we currently have (alongside the variables I added in), raw numbers and physics should meld together to display, not only what numbers we pump out, how we pump out our damage. This takes into account the individual player, the enemies getting their face slammed, and the allies around you. This admittedly wouldn't account for terrain, and unit collision (moving through units, not hitting them). It is better than misleading our readers with this half-baked information.

The item and all its effects will be accompanied with a champion's "formula" and applied to the abilities that utilize the statistics and effects from the item. Comparing range numbers, movement, and time should explain in what conditions the items' effects will be utilized. However, this is something that cannot be immediately referenced and must be PLANNED beforehand as there is too much information to simply "reference".

1.9) If this gets pulled off, miraculously, then there should be no problems at all with application to theory. There would be some advanced theorizing with things like Lucian's The Culling with its movement speed and how to apply all the damage as well as how far it can potentially extend to with movement speed, but that is mainly the other portion: champion formulation. The problems that could be encountered are missing pieces of a formula. That is a serious problem, however having a formula in the first place is pretty much vital to applying these stats. We have all the variables, what do we plug them into, and how do they chug out? And lo and behold, the formula is a perfect testimony to fact.

2) The reason Statistical Efficiency should remain standing is that it is how people are able to measure the wealth of their ingredients when making their wombo-combo flounder pounder. People who follow a guide can blindly follow the guide, as the guide should help the players the way the guide intends. However, the people who make the guides needs a basis. The people making the guide, should have clear facts as to why their build, their ingredients for the recipe called "success," is a good one.

If cooldowns/range/duration/ratios are taken alongside the current Statistical Efficiency system, people are going to look at this and truly believe in the power of the items. To be able to represent the full potential of an item is the only thing that Statistical Efficiency needs to do, once it does that, people can truly use this information to make better guides, better theories, and have better overall gameplay. (So long as they take the time to absorb the heaps of information from champion formulation)

2.33) What is it ignoring? The fact that there is only one item able to complete a certain task, i.e. no item ability can compare its effect with that item? Yeah, I don't really believe that much in ignoring these things. In fact, I believe that is why people are so easily misled. The information is incomplete; of course people would be misled! We showed them the entrance to the mysteries of League of Legends mechanics without giving them a pass inside. Enough ranting though, my aim is to prevent ignoring as much as possible to provide adequate answers. Wikis are meant to prevent ignorance after all.

3) "A number that represents a piece of information." - Merriam-Webster That really is all a stat is. A stat can be many things in my book: a percentage of lifesteal, a value for armor, a value for health, a passing of time for an item active, a passing of time for cooldown periods, a value for damage output, a ratio for the variable: ability power, or a unit representing distance. There is so much more, but this is enough examples for me. Anyways, there is no difference. If there is a number, and it is associated with something that be considered "information" then it is a stat. On-hit damage takes its own place in the ratios of the champions, albeit a separate one than say, attack damage and ability power.

I wouldn't bother explaining this, but you so kindly requested. I am obligated to oblige. Well then, instead of wasting time, I'll discuss some complex scenarios. Master Yi Alpha Strikes into the enemy team, uses Barrier, and finally Meditates. Simple right? Well, let's get right down into what is a statistic. The range of Alpha Strike is a statistic to consider. The movement speed of Master Yi and the enemy is a statistic to consider. The split second Master Yi takes to cast Alpha Strike is a statistic to consider. The range of Master Yi's Alpha Strike multi-hit radius is a statistic to consider. The number of enemy targets within the radius of Master Yi's Alpha Strike is a statistic to consider. The time that passes while Master Yi is untargetable is a statistic to consider. The base damage, attack damage ratio, and the critical strike ratios for Master Yi's Alpha Strike are statistics to consider. The armor/damage reduction/shield/health of the enemies are statistics to consider. The armor penetrations Master Yi has are statistics to consider. The cooldown until the next Alpha Strike is a statistic to consider. The cooldown reduction Master Yi has is a statistic to consider. The mana lost using Alpha Strike is a statistic to consider. The distance Master Yi travels when he Alpha Strikes in is a statistic to consider. The spell vamp Master Yi has is a statistic to consider. The spell effect slow % Master Yi has is a statistic to consider. The value of the shield on Barrier is a statistic to consider. The duration of the shield on Barrier is a statistic to consider. The cooldown time on Barrier is a statistic to consider. The immobilizing channel time for Meditate is a statistic to consider. The mana lost when Meditate is a statistic to consider. The cooldown time on Meditate is a statistic to consider. The base healing and ability power ratio healing done and during Meditate is a statistic to consider. The reduced damage taken during the Meditate is a statistic to consider. The mana regenerated from mana regeneration this entire duration is a statistic to consider. The health regenerated from health regeneration this entire duration is a statistic to consider. Any % healing boosts are statistics to consider.

Too long? Didn't read? Well in all honesty, it was almost too long; didn't write for me. What is great about that up there is that it doesn't include items at all. However, if I didn't go as far as addressing all of that up there, there would be little to no place to apply the statistics on the various items to Master Yi and his adversaries. This is why that process up there is so important. If someone doesn't know how to make the wombo-combo flounder pounder, how does one expect to use the "random" ingredients to make it? In this case, plugging the statistics, gained from the items, into the formula of this scenario. Well, that is a statistic to me, an effect is quite interesting in my opinion.

Take for example Intervention. Would this be an effect? Lol, nope. In fact, there is only one effect from this: who gets invulnerability? There is no number for that. Other than that, set the damage taken multiplier to 0 to whoever has the condition for the set amount of time. The range to cast Intervention is numerical. Intervention goes on cooldown time-affected by cooldown reduction from Kayle. Finally, movement speed of the target and Kayle is important. In any case, perhaps a prime example of an "effect" for items is Zhonya's Hourglass. It's just as much of an effect as Intervention. Since there is no target but self, the dimension involving targeting someone is cut away. The damage taken multiplier is set to 0. The hit box dimensions for the champion are rendered undefined as subtracting by 100% would leave the point (0,0) which would be open to pain. The champion is uncontrollable during this time, the only effect. To make things simple, if there is no way to place a number on it, then it is not a stat. It is an effect. What these effects will do is shut down some formulas by rendering them undefined for the duration.

3.5) I would give a sourced definition... but... it's too tedious. Classification is the act of classifying; i.e., the arranging or ordering according to class; i.e. a number of things forming a group from common attributes, qualities, and characteristics. I feel categorization would be a better term for this, the act of arranging divisions. Anyways, I feel that every single stat needs to be accounted for, and there are a heck of a lot of stats. Effects should be only present to affect the formulas of a champion by rendering it undefined and therefore unusable. If it was even weakened, it would have to be weakened by a percent which transforms it back into a stat. I feel that the few effects should be noted as they would be extremely valuable conditions in terms of theorizing scenarios. Everything else should be statistically accounted for. So the division between effects and stats shouldn't be all too prominent due to the massive degree of statistics there are. If something can be a statistic, it should be a statistic.

Testing Questions

1) This raises some very good points. What happens when the standard baseline item is a scaling stat? Does this skew our entire system of statistical efficiency? Would the Prototype Hex Core be considered the standard that all ability power is based on? Well, time to set some ground rules for statistical efficiency.

a) The baseline item must be available to champions. If there was an item such as the Prototype Hex Core that became the baseline item, it would violate the gold's value itself by refusing to be legal tender. Champions other than Viktor wouldn't be able to compare other items with the base item, because they don't even have access to purchase it.

b) The standard baseline item must have the least dimensions possible. We can go from few dimensions to multiple dimensions, but we cannot do the reverse. To set Prototype Hex Core as the baseline item, there would be 3 dimensions: ability power, gold, and level. As such, if we attempted to compare this to Amplifying Tome, there would be a serious problem, because we are unable to remove the level dimension. The dimension of level growth is an integral part of the item and can't be ignored. However, we are able to add a dimension. Amplifying Tome would maintain its same level through the infinite plane of the dimension of levels while Prototype Hex Core is raising its value each level.

c) There can only be one. If there are multiple baseline items for the same dimension, there starts to be a problem. We cannot run the risk of crossing over multiple baseline items of the same dimension on one item for items like Infinity Edge and Wit's End.

That said, I reject Prototype Hex Core as our standard baseline item as it fails two tests: the item's availability, and the item's dimensions. If the availability is changed however, I accept this item as a secondary baseline item-in league with lifesteal, spell vamp, armor/ magic penetration, % movement speed. Anyways, I have digressed this entire question as I felt it important to understand this. It would be appropriate to state that 200 gold gives 1 ability power/level.

1.25) I believe in both values. The value of 1 ability power/level at 200 gold and 1 ability power at 21.75 gold. I believe it for the same reason that we believe there is 1 movement speed at 25 gold and 1 %movement speed at 59.5 gold. They are both different dimensions. They both utilize the same stat, but they are different dimensions. As a result, we treat both of them separately, despite their similar variable.

1.5) Both are facts representing the same information. Did we not spend money to buy ability power/level; and did we not spend money to buy ability power? All we are doing is showing how our money was spent on the same stat a different way. Do we delete % health regeneration/5 seconds because health exists already? No, we keep them both, but separately. We can compare their stats on the field by placing them on a chart to see their effectiveness according to the passage of another dimension that one stat doesn't utilize. There is no difference between this example and ability power with ability power/level.

7.5) If the other items follow the ground rules I stated, yes. They are able to become standard baseline items. They would even be able to be used to measure the effectiveness of some items we haven't measured before, so long as they maintain the exact congruent dimensions.

2) This is precisely why we need to incorporate cooldowns/range/duration/ratios into our process. We need to add the physics portion into consideration. There needs to be formula that this Lifeline item can be plugged into to chug out a gold value. The way to measure the value in gold of this is actually quite simple if placing ratios in the equation.

2.33) If <=30%health: for 5 seconds, 100 magic shield=400 gold=1 magic shield costs 4 gold; for 90*(1-item cdr) seconds, 0=400 gold = Pay 400 gold for nothing.

If >30%health, 0=400 gold= Pay 400 gold for nothing. Very simple, quite true. Pretty conditional, completely accurate. This item has 4 dimensions: time, magic shield, gold, and total health %. In order to compare the magic shield to other items with magic shields, the other items need to accommodate all 4 dimensions this lifelink item has and the lifelink item has to accommodate the extra dimensions that the other items have. An undefined dimension (nonexisting dimension) in an item simply means that no matter how much this undefined dimension changes, the value of the other dimensions remain constant. While extremely wordy, the conditions stand true.

There is no way that the community can argue against the truth, because the truth doesn't change, the wiki does. However, I honestly believe with all this wording, it would get to the point where most people would go, "tl;dr." This suggestion isn't anywhere near simple. I do believe a lot of people will be lost. However, that is why there are guides on other websites. Guides that make the most complex things, simple to the readers.

2.67) Incorporate it. Honestly haven't thought too much on wards myself, however they have range, cooldowns, and a radius, there will need to be a vision formula such as: For 60 seconds: destroy sight ward, vison=true, ? radius,3 autoattack-health=75 gold. I am quite aware that wards has quite a complicated level of mechanics. I admit that it is going to be quite a challenge to incorporate terrain. However, if we can understand the physics of vision, I feel it is something the wiki is obligated to mention for items like wards and trinkets.

2.99) Again, another reason why we should incorporate cooldowns/range/duration/ratios. For Health Potion it would be duration: For 15 seconds: destroy health potion, (50 health regeneration/5 seconds)=35 gold. Youmuu's Ghostblade is too easy. Righteous Glory is a bit more interesting. (500 health+300 mana+100% health regeneration)=2500 gold

Cast active: 90(1-item cdr) cooldown time, Grant condition to self and everyone within x radius in 0 seconds:(For 3 seconds, if facing % angle towards enemy: 500 health+300 mana+100% health regeneration+60% movement speed; For 3 seconds, if allies facing % angle towards enemy: 60% (#)allies movement speed)=2500 gold

After active: 80% slow to all enemies in y radius in 0 seconds/3 seconds+(500 health+300 mana+100% health regeneration)=2500 gold

80% (#)enemies' slow=2500 gold-(500 health+300 mana+100% health regeneration)

There are many conditions required to make this work, however that is the grounds that my idea is based on. I believe the stats and conditions must be measured in each condition in order to find a truly accurate display of the potential of the items. Instead of focusing on items alone, we must also look at how the items are used.

3) The value of money is in its debt. Can we buy runes with IP? Eeyup. Is IP the "debt" we pay in order to claim a rune? Eeyup. Do runes give stats in game? Eeyup. So, that said, IP is a currency. It has certain dimensions relevant to the statistics used in game. There is no reason why we can't use IP as a store of value to buy statistics. Is the $ the only existing currency? No! There is the ¥, £, ₫, €. Same here, there is IP outside of game and gold inside game. If it ever gets to the point where people are comparing IP and gold, so be it. It would give an interesting dynamic as to legitimizing the effectiveness of certain runes in a build.

3.5) Here we go.

8 health=820 IP, health=102.5 IP, 1 health costs 102.5 IP
1.33 health/level=410 IP, (health/level)=(410/1.33 IP), 1 health/level costs 308 IP
0.5% total health/820 IP, % total health=(820/0.5 IP), 1% total health costs 1640 IP

I've used the greater rune as the baseline as ironically, upgrading the rune drastically decreases the statistical efficiency. The growth of runes is in extraordinarily weak enough that it is much cleaner to find statistical efficiency using the greater runes.

As a sample for flat health: 102.5 IP/health * 4.48 health/5 IP * 100% = 459.2/5 * 100% =9184% statistical efficiency.

By the gods, IT'S OVER 9000! This is pretty much the complete, extreme opposite, of how statistical efficiency plays out in game.

3.75) Well, because people like to blindly follow guides. Amirite? Actually, I haven't got a clue. There really is no reason not to use this other than the fact that it would be a bit of effort to set up at first. Guides could use the rune stats to make comparisons to its weight in gold in game. Comparing to other ranks of the same rune may be redundant, but there can also be informed decisions on which style of rune for the same stat could be used like health, health per level, % total health. So my deduction is laziness.

4) Overall, statistical efficiency is about as effective as measuring food by its weight. The quality is very questionable, but the amount is definitely present. Also the money saved in one area can go towards something else that needs attention. Statistical efficiency is not doing that great right now, however it is accurate. I feel that in order to expand the usefulness of statistical efficiency, formulas must be made to measure up champions’ physics in-game. Looking at the items' statistical efficiency alone does not cut it for revealing how effective the item it is in gameplay. There must be a way to apply everything, the items offer, to action. The best way to do that in my opinion is to expand on physics in gameplay by creating formulas for champions. Formulating everything else can come alongside it, but to really get this going, the champions must be formulated. Otherwise, we settle for mediocrity or abandon the mission altogether. By the looks of it, many want to abandon the mission, because of how broken the system seems. I say, don't give up on a puzzle because it is only half done. Fill the pieces and finish the job. Then we can all see the big picture.

4.1) There is no trading with players in League of Legends. This is very important in understanding how this works. If this was the real world, the increase in price for Long Sword would mean that fewer people buy a longsword or replace the longsword with another item like Pickaxe. This would mean that less demand would be going towards longswords which means that companies that also use longswords to make their items such as Vampiric Scepter will also loose demand. While the drop price change may have been necessary for Long Sword to maintain market equilibrium, Vampiric Scepter doesn't take too fondly of this change and loses income. When Vampiric Scepter loses income, the supply curve for the Vampiric Scepter shifts to the left causing the market equilibrium for Vampiric Scepter to rise in price. This continues with all the other things that utilize Long Sword and all purchasing power of gold drops, because gold can't buy something as simple as a Long Sword as easily as before. This causes sacrifices to other parts of the build and creates a downward spiral since everyone who needs to have a longsword can't buy other things so easily. People who don't need a Long Sword are also affected as the people who do need a longsword are losing money from the increased price and reserves their money instead. The people who don't need a Long Sword then loses money as there is less money flowing around. That means Long Sword and its increase in price overall decreases the value of gold itself, in this scenario.

There is no trading with players in League of Legends. Gold can't "flow" around. Gold in game is simply spent in a different way. The only affects spending money gives is losing money. Nothing else. Therefore, if the price increases in one item, the demand decreases for that item. However, changes in demand does not change the infinite supply of that item. Not buying a Long Sword will not change the infinite supply of it and therefore will not decrease the price of longsword-no matter how low the demand gets. People who need to buy a longsword will be affected by the increase in price. Going along the build path of longswords will be more expense, and more valuable, than going along the other paths. The problem here though, is that the only way the build path of longswords is more valuable than other paths is if one is bought. Not buying a longsword does not affect the prices of the infinite supply of the other items, and therefore does not increase their price. So it is very much possible that affecting one item does not affect another's value, but does affect one item's expense compared to the other.

4.2) If I changed the cost of Deathfire Grasp to 3000 gold, this would not change how valuable Infinity Edge is. What it does change is how expensive Deathfire Grasp is compared to Infinity Edge. In real life, would changing the price of a Harry Potter novel from $20 to $10 change the value of a $800 self-built computer? Nope, but it does change how expensive the computer is compared to the novel. Instead of a computer being the same price as 40 novels, now it is the price of 80 novels. Did the values of the items change? No. What changed is the value of the money. The PURCHASING POWER changed. So when the price of an item rises and another remains the same the PURCHASING POWER=GOLD VALUE changes. Instead of a Guinsoo's Rageblade 2600 gold price being 7+2/9 longswords, the price increase means a Guinsoo's Rageblade is the same price as 6+1/2 longswords. This is 100% true and 100% accurate. The values themselves didn't change, however the prices did. That means we spend more of income on one object than what was required beforehand.

This INCOME we are FORCED to acquire to buy these items is the value we are comparing. NOT the value of the item. Last I checked, the system wasn't called "item value." What was it called again... hmm... Oh right! It was gold value. This is key to understanding why this system is 100% accurate, despite all the claims everyone has against it. What is changing is the value of gold, not the value of items. The reason why this is important is because it is so very difficult to acquire this income. Once we spend it, it disappears forever. All that work = gold. Same as in real life. All that work on the job = money. So despite changes in price not being safe, despite our baseline items not being safe,

5) despite Rito somehow declaring "Oh, 1 health is worth 100 gold," We are not comparing the value of items here. We are comparing the money we are putting into it. If we are putting 400 gold into getting 150 health with a Ruby Crystal and a Randuin's Omen gives 500 health, I sure as hell know that the health on that thing is the same as 3+1/3 Ruby Crystals which would cost 1333+1/3 gold. Ain't no value of gold Rito says health has is going to change that. Double Slap(-My Page-)(-What I did-) 20:24, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all of this. This is a well-formulated set of answers, and one I think can be used to set a solid foundation on how we establish gold value/efficiency and calculate it, even for items that don't exist yet. --Willbachbakal (talk) 22:22, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

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.

Willbachbakal's Protocol

A stat is defined as an in-game numerical value with its own set of functions and properties. All in-game effects that have the exact same functions and properties so as to have no differences between them are considered to be the same stat. Any differences that are listed as special cases do not count.
The gold value of an item is defined as the amount of gold expected to pay for a stat on an item in the shop. If possible, the gold value of a stat is set using a baseline item, using the following rules in order of priority:
1. The item must feature the stat in the simplest way possible, the simplest way possible being defined as the stat's permanent, non-conditional presence on the wielder or, failing that, the state with the least amount of conditions.
2. The item must be in the most basic possible tier where the stat can be evaluated on its own, following rule 1.
3. The item must be the least cost-efficient of its tier from which the stat can be derived using rule 2.
A stat is assumed to always have the same gold value per unit, regardless of item placement or further conditionality.
The gold value of an item is defined as the gold value of the sum of its stats that have assigned gold values.
The gold efficiency of an item is defined as the ratio of its gold value to its total price.
- Not a definition, but the gold efficiency of an item has no relation to its effectiveness on any individual champion or build, and the two should not be confused even if they can sometimes overlap.
A cost analysis is defined as the evaluation of an item's gold value and efficiency, featuring:
1. A stat-by-stat breakdown of the item's gold value.
2. A listing of the item's gold value and efficiency.
3. A listing of the item's uncountable effects, the gold value they are expected to fill, and the context they provide with respect to the item's gold value and efficiency. An uncountable effect is defined as a feature of an item that is not assigned a gold value.

The above is more of a hard set of definitions and assumptions than how-to guidelines, but I think they'd help in establishing those. Furthermore, I think that cost analyses may not even require guidelines: with a rigorous enough set of rules and assumptions, you could make the entire process automated, feeding in a template numbers and strings and have it provide a full cost analysis of the given item. You could even make the job simpler by using the same Data Templates used on champions for items, so that changing just one set of variables would change their display and their cost analysis across the entire wiki. Any change to an item's cost or build path, and just a few quick edits could change all there is to know about the item, its recipe and its gold value/efficiency.

A few questions that I (ClariS) have due to leap of logic.

Where is the proof that the 'gold value' is attached to the 'stat' and not the 'item'? Almost all my further questions directly links to this 'assumption'. The reason why I wrote the 'assumption list' thing on top is because if there exist a 'possible' valid value that grants a different answer(s), the wikia should not be stating something as a fact. This needs fact to support it, not preferences (i.e, we choose the lowest tier item, simplest way possible, least cost-efficient), because everything you wrote is based on this large assumption.
1. For example, using the more efficient basic tier items. We can easily still perform everything that is currently being done right now, with the only side effect is that some gold value is slightly less. Nothing about this is wrong, therefore, a perfectly valid method to use but with stats having a different gold value.
" All in-game effects that have the exact same functions and properties so as to have no differences between them are considered to be the same stat." ~~ I read this and I know you don't follow this rule. This is about classification.
1. Define in-game effect? Does in-game effect include how it interacts with everything else within the game, or is it only certain things? If certain things, why only those certain things and not everything within the game? For example, claiming Wit's End magic damage has the gold value of attack damage when a champion has 'no AD-scaling'. What happened to magic damage & physical damage difference? What about it damages a turret within the game? Interaction with other in-game stats?
2. How do you exactly define ability power? What makes ability power unique and cannot be overlapped by other stats? Based on how I see how you use the gold value, any champion with zero-AP scaling can us the AP gold value for anything in the game, given the right situation.
"Not a definition, but the gold efficiency of an item has no relation to its effectiveness on any individual champion or build, and the two should not be confused even if they can sometimes overlap." `~~ So by this definition, how exactly do a stat and 'effect' overlap? What connects them? Does your method of how you obtained the gold value support this? Does this mean I can say, 42 (magical, physical, true) damage is the same as 42 AD given the right situation? Does this mean that effectiveness should have gold value then since that is the connection that links effectiveness to the stat?
"A stat is assumed to always have the same gold value per unit, regardless of item placement or further conditionality." ~~ Where did this come from? I read your post and nothing you wrote proved that this has to be done. No facts proves that this should be done. No 'facts' proves/support that we should be ignoring these further conditionality. This leap in logic needs evidence to back it up because it is literally telling the user to ignore information that exist when comparing stuff. The fact that things are purposely being ignored needs to be properly addressed with facts (not preferences). If no facts are present, you need to consider how this alter's the actual meaning of the comparison and how we present this to the reader.

Details is important here. It's all about the detail so I know exactly why your method is solid and is a fact. Facts are things that 'has to exist in this' way instead of 'us wanting it to be this' (which are preferences). ClariS (talk) 06:49, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Here are my answers:

I am defining the gold value of a stat and the gold value of an item separately, therefore there is no reason to conflate the two. If you were to include the answers I made for the guideline questions, which explain these "preferences" (and preferably added them before my protocol, which is based on these responses and was made after them), we could discuss that reasoning, instead of addressing it both in the reasoning and on the protocol. It would also help to know what you specifically mean by "proof": proof of what? What is it that you want me to prove, what would constitute acceptable proof, and what makes you want proof?
1. I do not think "possible" alternate values matter, because if you are selecting different bases then you are functionally setting up a different system, and therefore should not realistically expect identical numerical values. However, you will end up with the same answers, namely the efficiency of items relative to each other. It would be like doing math in a different base. As I specified in response 2.1 to the guideline questions, I disagree with using more efficient basic tier items mainly because that would involve using items like B. F. Sword and Needlessly Large Rod as baselines, which isn't good for reasons I put into greater detail there.
You are directly contradicting me without citing examples, and so have no grounding to your objection. If you are referring to my pre- Aether Wisp evaluation of percent movement speed, I was wrong, plain and simple.
1. I thought I made myself clear on this. For two in-game effects to be counted as the same stat, they should have no functional differences whatsoever, which means that no matter which scalings or other effects you put them through, they should work in the exact same way, bar special-cased differences (SotD active + Lucian ult was my example). As with literally everything else concerning gold value and efficiency, this is irrespective of any champion, item or other mechanic, and as such should account for everything.
2. Again, your approach is wrong. You are taking AP and seeing how it works on individual champions, yet no stat ever works like that. Not even stats like AD, armor or health regeneration work in the same way on every champion, so I see no point in giving AP a special treatment. However, each unit of AP will work in the same way on any given champion as any other unit of AP from any source, regardless of their AP scalings, which is my point. Take two samples of the same stat, put them through the exact same thing, and they'd work in the exact same way. You are also making a mistake I explicitly listed, which is confusing gold value and efficiency with effectiveness. A stat doesn't have to do anything on a champion to have value. That you build a Faerie Charm on Garen doesn't matter, because you're still getting the stat you paid for on your item, even if it's completely ineffective.
Again, you pointing out differences just proves me right in that those different effects you listed cannot be recognized as the same stat, and aren't. If, however, you had an item that provided X on-hit physical damage, which also interacted with crit, life steal, AD scalings and everything else in the exact same way as AD so as to have no differences, then that on-hit damage would be officially recognized as AD. It would be terrible item design, but that is not for the system to question.
I think my responses explain this fairly clearly. Not only is this the simplest and best assumption we can make (gold value/efficiency would have no meaning if stats didn't have consistent gold values), but it also ties into the definition of a stat, and the explanation I gave for separating countable effects (stats) from uncountable effects (conditions and other effects with no assigned gold value). Whether your AD comes from the Long Sword you're wielding or the aura from an ally's Zeke's Herald does not matter, as the stat from both sources will interact in the exact same way with respect to your autoattacks, your life steal, your crit and even your scalings, plus any other AD-dependent effects. They are the same stat. The condition is not something we can give a value to, but despite what you say we can nonetheless list it as context (I put a huge amount of emphasis on this).

--Willbachbakal (talk) 07:35, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

I bring this up because you 'had' to use an item to define the stat's value. The item is important in defining the value because the method you used in the beginning is based on the item. But from what I can see, after using the item to get the value, for no justification, you ignore the item from that point on to get an outcome you desire. If you're going to ignore things, you need to have evidence and reason why we should just ignore the item factor.
1. The reason why having multiple 'valid' gold value for a single stat (i.e Long Sword & B. F. Sword) is an issue is because of 'how' you wish to declare information. You present information as, "stat is worth Xg", and my examples are in the questions you answered below. You even force that within the protocol when you then declared that that using the stat in future event should ignore conditions to have. And the point is, until you prove it as a fact, you cannot be declaring "stat is worth Xg" as a fact, nor presenting it as a 'fact'. It's purposely misleading. So where is this proof? By proof, I mean something along the line of 'why must we use 1 AD = 36g'? If because 1 AD can equal something other than 36g and still work within the system, this is proof that 1 AD is not required to be 36g.
Wit's End was my example. I even wrote it in right below it. Here's a citation then:
1. On auto-attack reliant Champions without AD scaling or crit, (e.g. Volibear or Phoenix Udyr) the 42 on hit damage can be thought of as AD, resulting in 42*36 = 1512 gold value worth of "AD"
2. On auto-attack reliant Champions that deal predominately magic damage (e.g. Warwick or DPS Teemo) the magic resistance reduction can be thought of as magic penetration, resulting in 171.65 gold value worth of penetration per stack, maxing at 858.25 gold value worth of penetration at 5 stacks.
This was added by you on Aug. 20th after I had removed it (occurred long after Aether Wisp addition). This is my example you informing the reader that if you ignore everything that makes 42 magic damage different from 42 AD, then it's fine using the gold value of 36g. You are telling the reader to use a method that goes against your own protocol, by pretending differences don't exist. If you're in the right situation, its fine to use that value. So my question is, if that's your protocol, how do you explain the usage of what I cited.
1. What I'm doing with AP is just an example you placed within cost analysis section, I am only looking at a given situation that results in AP doing nothing for a champion and relate that to an effect matches with the effect of AP, therefore having no differences within the given situation. For example, let's say Garen builds a Muramana and since the item's passive gives him no bonus due to having no mana, while mana regeneration and mana gives him nothing due to having no mana, there is no difference between the stats and item passive, and now I can say within the cost efficiency that the item's passive can be woth between at any possible value (i.e, maybe 0g to 9000000000g) because X mana and Y mana regeneration will always equal no effect for Garen. But if this is wrong, how do you excuse connections such as shield being the same as health, or the Wit's End example. What will you do with them? Will you removed them all?
2. What about 'time' and 'duration'? Do they not also count as 'in-game' effects as all? Should we be ignoring them?
"Not only is this the simplest and best assumption we can make, (gold value/efficiency would have no meaning if stats didn't have consistent gold values)" <--- right there, you are declaring you are making an assumption. As I see it right now, there are pockets of 'assumed' information you have within your protocol that I yet to see be explained why they need to exist. Everything I have seen so far is, Your desired outcome is what is determining your method of finding the outcome. You designed it for your stats to have pre-determined meaning, then you created a rule to 'support' your pre-determined meaning. And my question is, why does the "A stat is assumed to always have the same gold value per unit, regardless of item placement or further conditionality." needs to exist to begin with? Most of the cost analyze section works without this rule. The only reason why I see it exist so far is that, you want to claim that a stat is worth Xg so you can then use it within areas that it normally could not do. ClariS (talk) 18:04, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point: the reason I'm selecting the baseline items the way I am is because my baseline item is the stat, for all intents and purposes. By my definition of gold value, the gold value of an item with just one stat and the gold value of the same amount of that stat are the same. You're also still being extremely vague: how am I "ignoring" the baseline item? How is my evaluation of baseline items inconsistent with their use as baselines? You are accusing me of picking methods to suit my results, when I've specifically stated that I'm not interested in so-called "objective" numerical values.
1. What you're asking for makes no sense. I'm telling you that my system is consistent because it is dependent upon baseline items, and you're telling me to go look for some ultimate value for each stat, which is both impossible due to how gold isn't tied to anything other than items (and I think you know that), and meaningless for the same reason. I stand by my math analogy: saying "1 point of AD is worth 36 gold in base Long Sword" is no more different than saying 1 + 1 is equal to 2 in base 10. If you were to select a different baseline item, you'd get a different numerical value, but you'd also have a different baseline, so you'd maintain consistency.
Answering for every sub-question here: your method makes no sense. I've repeatedly said that a stat always has to work in the same way, regardless of champions or items, to be counted as the same stat, and you're making special cases in an attempt to somehow prove that those different effects you listed are the same stat, at least within those special cases. Your statements are correct, but worthless in the face of the larger system that is actual gold value and efficiency. Whoever wrote those lines on the cost analysis for Wit's End is wrong, and it is disingenuous of you to accuse me of adding them when a simple edit history check could prove otherwise (the editor in question was Willb32764, for your information).
This is petty, and you should know better than to bring up old arguments. Like I said, my pre- Aether Wisp valuation of percent movement speed was wrong, as the method I used was invalid for the reasons I mentioned here, on this discussion. I'm not telling the reader to ignore anything, and I'm not special-casing different effects to make them look like the same stat.
1. Again, you are picking special cases that do not contradict my rules. Gold efficiency applies only to items, and even if Garen has no mana to spend that does not mean Muramana's mana suddenly stops existing on the item (and I mean the item, not him).
2. Time and duration do count as in-game effects, which is why I think we should mention them. I'm not ignoring anything here, I just don't think their existence allows you to ignore the stats they're attached to.
I should dissect this further, because there are a lot of things I disagree with here:
1. "right there, you are declaring you are making an assumption. As I see it right now, there are pockets of 'assumed' information you have within your protocol that I yet to see be explained why they need to exist. " Yes, I did make an assumption. Assumptions are at the foundation of literally every system out there, including pretty tight ones like mathematics, physics and biology. You will never be able to establish a system without basing it upon a set of axioms, and this is one of them. I also justified the assumption; if you have a better one I'd like to hear it.
2. "Everything I have seen so far is, Your desired outcome is what is determining your method of finding the outcome." And what outcome would that be? Please be more specific.
3. "You designed it for your stats to have pre-determined meaning, then you created a rule to 'support' your pre-determined meaning." Again, what meaning would that be? You're making all these vague accusations that have little apparent logic or relation to the system I established.
4. "And my question is, why does the "A stat is assumed to always have the same gold value per unit, regardless of item placement or further conditionality." needs to exist to begin with?" Because otherwise there is absolutely no way to establish a consistent system for evaluating items based on their stats, or any kind of consistent system at all. You're asking me to prove the law of noncontradiction in item form. If we cannot agree upon something so self-evident, then I don't think there's even a point to this discussion.
5. "Most of the cost analyze section works without this rule." No it does not. Whatever inconsistencies that currently exist in the cost analyses on the mainspace come from your own "preferences" with respect to conditional effects (your handling of aura items, for example), and from numerous incorrect additions made by other users. You think these conditionals somehow give those stats a different value, and I think you're not properly separating these countable effects (i.e. the stats) from the uncountable effects (the conditions). Again, it would be nice for you to elaborate on the assumptions you yourself are running with, perhaps by answering the questions and formulating your own guidelines, because it's clear you're not criticizing my system objectively; rather, you're hurling your own assumptions against my own. It is also bizarre of you to make the argument "our current cost analyses are built this way, therefore your justification here is wrong" while accusing me of manipulating the methods to suit the results, because that's exactly what you'd be doing here if you were to bend the principles of gold value and efficiency to suit existing cost analyses.
6. "The only reason why I see it exist so far is that, you want to claim that a stat is worth Xg so you can then use it within areas that it normally could not do." This is interesting, because it highlights your own biases: what does "normally could not do" mean here? What is normal to you? What standards of normalcy are you setting in this discussion, and how are you justifying them?

This conversation is going nowhere fast, and I fear this is just going to revert to one of our previous clashes on gold value and efficiency. I also feel this discussion is seriously lopsided: I'm the one formulating the responses and suggesting a protocol, the one justifying my assertions and being required to formulate proof for everything I say, and you're the one critiquing me, often with assumptions of your own that you don't feel the need to validate or even explain. This is not the first time this has happened, and I think it would be a refreshing change if you were to explain your ideas in the same way I did, so that I could have a chance to understand your reasoning. --Willbachbakal (talk) 20:33, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Response (REPEAT)--

I could, as I wrote in your message, but why would knowing my method matter if you can create a method is logically sound. And the thing is, and the reason why I always against your idea is simply this:
- IF WE WERE TO FOLLOW YOUR PROTOCOL, EVERY VALUE WITHIN THE COST ANALYSIS HINGES ON 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 pick the value of a stat.
Yup, I said normal, because it sadden me to see you use the basis of a standard method in the world and add a bunch of conditions and rules that have no relation with the basic first move of 'picking an item, and using that to be your baseline to compare stuff'.
Because otherwise there is absolutely no way to establish a consistent system for evaluating items based on their stats ClariS (talk) There is actually a way, without the requirement of having the stat be worth Xg. Maybe there is a way to also have the stat be wroth Xg, but you need to have a legit reason of removing the 'item' factor if you're gonna begin your process by picking an item.
So by "Your desired outcome is what is determining your method of finding the outcome", i mean this has an example, the only reason you have given me why this rule, "A stat is assumed to always have the same gold value per unit, regardless of item placement or further conditionality." is because you 'need' to establish a consistent system for evaluating items based on their stats. The problem with this logic is that you created this rule to get the consistent system. This isn't a justification of the rule since the justification of the rule is the outcome the rule attempts to produce.

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

I would like to understand your method because it would give me greater insight into the principles you're basing yourself upon, and the reasoning you're using, since all of this is bleeding into your criticism of my protocol. After reading your guideline, I still don't know how you want to set baseline items, or construct cost analyses, or even establish any kind of a consistent system related to the relation between gold and items. You offer no real justification or explanation for your guideline, and therefore still aren't giving me a clue as to what reasoning it is you're following.
- If we were to follow my protocol, every value produced by any cost analysis based on it would be consistent and valid. Like you said, you could slap on any gold value to any stat and still end up with a correct system, especially if you follow my protocol, except my protocol also lays down the rules for what constitute the best baseline items. If you'd like, we could debate those rules instead, instead of looking for some nonsensical objective standard for gold value which, ultimately, has no bearing on the validity of the system.
  - See above.
Again, this is your standard of "normal". This is not my standard of "normal", because I think the conditionals you lump in so often with stats do not affect the latter, and I see no reason why they should (I've also justified this above, see the example of AD from Long Sword versus AD from Zeke's Herald). You are going to have to justify your own standard of normalcy to me if you want me to take it seriously, as I have done for mine.
If you were to establish a gold value system in which stats did not have a gold value, it would not be a gold value system. Again, the specific value of a stat isn't as important as the underlying calculations and relations that stat entails on items, but I've nonetheless established a set of rules for selecting baseline items that I think would be the most intuitive and well-adapted for a reader (with justification, by the way). We can argue over those rules, but this whole issue of stats not having objective gold values is meaningless and detrimental to the discussion.
Again, this is the law of noncontradiction ("a statement and its opposite cannot be true" -> "a stat cannot be worth two different values per unit within the same system (i.e. one using the same base)"). This is self-evident, and should require no justification, but even if I were making the assumption purely for consistency's sake I wouldn't be manipulating my assumptions to suit results. Again, this can just go down to math: a number always being itself is one of the basic axioms of mathematics, and one that, if not made, would render the whole of math meaningless, since there would be no consistency within the system. This is the same thing. Moreover, this squabbling over what ultimately boils down to a philosophical question is both pointless and destructive to the larger discussion at hand, so I suggest you take a look at the assumptions you yourself are making (which you still haven't shared, by the way) and rectify them, or just drop the issue.

--Willbachbakal (talk) 09:18, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

ClariS Guidlines

There must be a baseline designated
- Baselines are the items from which we compare all other items to. There is no RIGHT or WRONG baseline, but some are more useful than others.
There must be a way of assigning a numerical value to a statistic
- We use the gold value as our numerical value and stats to be our statistic. The value has to be something that cannot be disrupted once the baseline is set. This valued is a reference point to the baseline that had been designated.
When comparing two different items, only the variables that are being measured may changed. All unaccounted variables and conditions must remain the same within the comparison.
- Unaccounted variables or other factors leaves uncertainties in our answers, making the answer given less accurate and devalues the wroth of the actual comparison.

Assumption that are made:

In choosing the baseline, we mark it as being “100% cost efficient”
- We have to choose 100% cost efficient because this allows us to create a point of reference that is easy to obtain and not disruptable.
Build path and build components
- This is ignored due to the unique nature of each individual case. We would not be able to get off the ground if this rule was enforced.
Unique tag
- This is ignored because the general consensus is to never build the same item due to basic game design in slot usage and incentives. Though, if someone would want to argue for its usage, I would not argue.

Questions, comments and criticism from Willbachbakal:

This guideline doesn't really say anything about how one would go about choosing baseline items, and so would not be adapted to potential new baseline items whose effects and conditionals differed from the cases mentioned here, i.e. unique passives. A complete guideline would require a method for selecting and updating baseline items, or at least set the consensus for which items qualify as baselines.
It would be good to define the terms used here (e.g. "statistic", "variable", "baseline", but also "cost efficient" and "value"), as it would clarify their full intended meaning and would also be helpful to those unfamiliar with the concept of gold value and associated topics.
Following this, it would be useful to understand the distinction between unaccounted variables and statistics, and why such a distinction is being made. "Making the answer less accurate" presupposes a standard of accuracy that is not explained in the guideline, and so would require further clarification.
I also think it would be worth looking deeper into the distinction between the Unique tag, which is a condition, and other conditions. If it's possible to justify disregarding the Unique tag when evaluating a statistic, why are other conditions different? If we can assume that an item isn't being purchased more than once, why can't we assume that an aura would be used by a set amount of champions, that a stacking passive has a set amount of stacks, or that an active is being used?
- Going further, wouldn't the purchase of the item itself be a condition? While I may have the item in my inventory, I could always sell it: should the item's gold value be based on it when it's sold or when it's bought? Why would one option be more justified than the other? If purchasing the item is not a condition, why isn't it?
The guideline needs to explain in greater detail what constitutes a cost analysis, and how one would go about constructing it. This is, after all, meant to be a set of instructions on how to understand gold value/efficiency and how to go about applying it properly on items.

--Willbachbakal (talk) 09:18, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Reply,

The reason why I am not being up the preferences on what to choose is because, it is irrelevant on 'what' it is decided and by all means has been never been a real topic of discussion to anything. During the initial phase of when I was first adding the cost analysis section, I asked the community on which items should be chosen as the baseline. Though it was not much, people brought up good points on using the using the items that had the highest stat-gold ratio. A system needs to be in place only for the sake of not showing bias or varying information (unless there is a justification for this variance of baseline). Afterwards choosing one (which had been chosen a very long time ago by the community and not me) All that matters is that we present it clear and obvious what was chosen.
- On that matter, as a whole, I don't care what the community chosen to use as their preferences (as long as there is any form of justification). My only care is that they follow the method so their comparisons have any backbone. This include the assumed 100% cost efficiency and unique tag.
'Statistic' - a numerical set of values (the stats in our case), that the two things being compared share. If the statistic is the exact same in what it means, we use this as the link to compare the two things.
'Variable' - Simple term, anything that can be changed in the system/or item. What actually matters, anything that can be changed that would alter the information that we are comparing (i.e, passive, effects, triggers, aura, duration, time). Variable does not only mean 1 thing. A mixture of things can be grouped up as 1 variable, but you have to follow all conditions within that 1 variable to use it.
'Baseline' - Baselines are the items chosen to be compared to all other items. There is no RIGHT or WRONG baseline, but some are more useful than others.
The reason why unique tag and arua is different is because, "how I define cost analysis, it has nothing to do with the amount of power it gives at any 'single' time." I treat cost analysis as spending money and the gold value are just the price tag of an item. It does not matter how many stats an effect provides, if an zeke's aura was priced tag at 1000g, than the aura's gold value is 1000g. The price is what determines its gold value. Though, how the usefulness of it is very limited due to having a lot of varying factors within it. So Willbach, stop assuming the gold value is attached to the stat. This system that I am placing has no regards in proving the stat's value is Xg. It's structured is based around the items.
- The reason I bring up unique tag is because it does somewhat effect on how we choose to buy an item. If someone wanted to, it would be justified to use two different 'CDR' gold values, one that has the unique tag and one that doesn't since there are a decent amount of items that has either.
- About having to purchase an item, it depends about how the community would want it. In my ideal version, buying an item would matter and Tear of the Goddess final tier items need to be removed from cost analysis since they technically can't be brought. You have to buy their first version and transform them, which makes it technically different. But seeing how the cost analysis section is being used on those pages, the community probably ignores it. Now, i could force my rules onto them and as long as it doesn't wreck the meaning of the comparison itself, I don't really mind letting a few cracks exist if the community is happy.
Because I can care less about the 'exact' method, Wilbach. As I said in the beginning, if you could create something that was logically sound, I would support you all the way. But hey, since you asked, I'll try to summarize it in more 'define terms'.
And lastly, in my idea version, the only assumption that I would have to make is ignoring build path and item components. There would be no advance-tier items that are used as our baseline. Anything with a unique tag would go unvalued due to the unique tag. But understand this, I am willing to bend as long as there is some justification that exist before the implementation of the assumption. If someone has a logical reason other than 'I want it this way', I'm not going to argue for it's removal or it's reason to be kept out. I have listened to you WIllbach, but your things never have that justification, that evidence to support itself other than, "i need this so I can do it the way I want it". I call you a broken record player because you go on a loop system.

You have an ideal what you think it means
You create the rule to support your ideal
You justify the rule because of the ideal you want
Therefore, you think my idea is wrong
Repeat step 1-4.

You always do this when we discuss about this. It doesn't matter what differences or flaws I point out, you don't care. You just go along with your little system and just use bandwagoning as your defense. And in case you need an example here, you believe the correct way to do cost analysis section is that you 'have' to find the stat's value. This is the only justification you have present all throughout this conversation. Stop arguing on the assumption that the gold value is about the stat. You have never proved that. I let you go first to see if you could justify it, but you never did. You just assumed it had to be the case, and then you use that as your means to deflect anything I point out. For example:
- "a stat cannot be worth two different values per unit within the same system (i.e. one using the same base)"). This is self-evident, and should require no justification <-- This only works if you actually had found the stats value, but I keep telling you, you haven't. You never justified your step of discarding the item from the gold value. You just picked an item, based on preferences you think will work and then declared that is the stat's value.

ClariS (talk) 15:18, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

"how I define cost analysis, it has nothing to do with the amount of power it gives at any 'single' time.": Why? Isn't time itself a condition you're ignoring? What does this say for an item like Rod of Ages, which gains stats over time: are you really going to value it purely on the stats it gives upon purchase, discounting the rest of its power as uncountable? Wouldn't listing its stat gain over time be equally correct, and if not, why not?
- You also didn't define the two most important terms in this discussion: gold value, and gold efficiency. This makes statements like "stop assuming the gold value is attached to the stat" difficult to fully understand: what is a gold value, to you? What is it tied to? Why can it not apply to a stat?
Wouldn't "letting a few cracks exist" be evidence that your system is flawed, or at least doesn't correspond to the consensus of gold value? If your system is flawless, why would you have to manipulate certain results in order for your model to look acceptable?
- Attacking me personally doesn't lend to your credibility or objectivity, and neither does relegating the community's opinion to "bandwagoning". This discussion is meant to establish a consensus, and if you happen to be in the minority you can't just go around editing the mainspace as you please, as if you were somehow better than everyone else and only your opinion mattered. You clearly came to this discussion with a grudge, and even now you're letting it get in the way of a productive exchange. I've said this before: I'm not trying to oppose you, I'm trying to work with you, and you continuously antagonizing me isn't going to make this easier for either of us.
From what I understand, you want cost analyses to be a recipe of baseline items, avoiding stats entirely. I disagree with this approach for several reasons:
- Even though you may not be referring explicitly to stats here, you're implicitly including them in all of your calculations. You're taking the stats on the original item, selecting the appropriate baselines, and parcelling them out so that they match the main item's stat values. All of this is far more complicated than just going directly to the stats, and your recipe method has little to do with how items work (what does 4.5 Long Swords even mean? does it even make sense to talk about half a Long Sword?).
- It's completely counter-intuitive, and would confuse anyone looking at a cost analysis even if they knew what you meant by gold value (which I still don't, as you still haven't given your definition). The unfinished prototype you attempted to add to the mainspace was an eyesore; by contrast, a stat-based breakdown is immediately recognizable, as it ties directly to the item itself without having to go through secondary items every time.
- It completely distorts the reasoning I think is at the core of gold value: if I buy a B. F. Sword, I'm expecting to pay for attack damage, not Long Swords or Pickaxes or whatever. Like both of us said, the baseline items aren't important in themselves to the validity of the gold value/efficiency and cost analysis system, so why put them in the foreground? Isn't what they represent (stats) more important?

--Willbachbakal (talk) 09:25, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

The cost analysis section is a comparing tool between different items, using gold as its measuring stick.

Designate baseline items (no limit exist)
1. Items that provides 1 stat is useful because it just requires 1 stat to match instead of having to match 2 or more.
2. There should be a decent amount of items the baseline item can go into. The more items it can go into, the more useful the baseline item is as a whole.
3. Ideally, one preference should be used to determine what is chosen as our baseline to form as much consistency possible while avoiding bias. The preference that is chosen is using the possible lowest tier items that provide the highest stat-gold ratio.
Upon choosing the item that you want to compare, match the chosen item as close as possible with the baseline items. Add up the gold value of the used base line items and compare it to the chosen item.
1. What makes a good comparison is keeping all 'possible' variables identical except for what is being measured (in our case, the gold value). Unaccounted variables or other factors leaves uncertainties in our answers, making the answer given less accurate and devalues the wroth of the actual comparison.
2. For example, if the item provides 30 AD and 15% AS, we choose 2 Long Sword and 1 Dagger to match the chosen item's stats. Afterward, we add the 2 Long Sword and 1 Dagger cost together (getting around 1070g) to get our 'gold value'. We use the gold value to compare to the chosen item to determine the chosen item's efficiency.
3. This can also be interpreted as, find the base item stat's value (a.k.a, 1 AD = 36AD & 1 AS = 37.5h) and use those values to be multiplied with the chosen item's stats to determine it's gold value. Both works as they take different steps to reach the same information, and still retain the idea of the baseline items being compared to the chosen item.
If there exist something the base items cannot match within the chosen item, it needs to be mentioned and not included in the calculation due to having an undefined value.

ClariS (talk) 15:13, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

This overall looks fairly sound. My only reservation is that I don't think it's worth mentioning baseline items within a cost analysis, for reasons of clarity (30 AD and 15% attack speed is a lot more easily identifiable than 3 Longswords + 1 Dagger). While these would be the baseline items selected to evaluate the stats (and I think that should be mentioned on the gold value article), I think the cost analysis should just be there to give a stat-by-stat rundown of an item's gold value and efficiency, and therefore be as clear and concise as possible. --Willbachbakal (talk) 09:25, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Add my response to you is this, no, if you want to use this method, I will put the item for the simple sake of cutting out the 'middle-man' of the entire comparison to avoid confusion (a.k.a, your confusion on the section). Stop assuming the stat is what is important here. It isn't. The stat is just a mean to connect the different items to be compared. The importance is the items. The items are the backbone of the comparison because the items were what was chosen to determine the baseline, not the stat. People can say with a fact that; Long Sword grants +10 AD for a cost of 360g. But they can't say a fact is that; 1 AD is worth 36g, because even with the theory of how you determined the value, if someone wanted to say 1 AD can be worth something else, there is no evidence in the game that would support which one is a correct.
- Also it's redundant to be listing down the stats twice on the same page.
- It's actually not confusing. It's pretty simple. How much does 3 Dagger cost? 900g. Tada. That's it's gold value. Hence the name, gold value. That's what we're comparing between the items. Their cost or in other words, how much gold it requires to purchase the item compared to purchasing it through a different means.
- And the reason why the system only allows looking at that comparison is because 'the cost' was what was assigned to be our measuring stick, and because so, we could only look at what 'cost of an item' is relevant for, which is, when buying an item. It serves no other purpose outside of that within the game.
You do realize that by accepting my method, all passive/aura/active effects that are given gold values (i.e Guinsoo's Rageblade, Youmuu's Ghostblade, etc) will have to be removed due to they don't have a 'baseline' to be valued as. I am not going to allow those to exist since they dilute the meaning of gold value itself. Unlike the base stats on items which I can find support for, those passive/active/aura works in a completely different method that requires so much assumed steps without evidence to support it (making it purely a estimation and actually have a different meaning), while at the same time using the exact same terminology that those base stats uses.
- By different meaning, I mean, this method is not about looking when you purchase it, but when you use it. For example on Youmuu's Ghostblade with how it is presented on the item pages, the cost efficiency actually changes based on how you used the item. A buyer does not get a choice rather he gets the item while active or not, the buyers gets all it's pros and cons at purchase. It sends a conflicting message that 'how you use the passive/active/aura' affects gold value and to any unknowing reader, they then might assume this is true for that 'how you use the stat' affects its gold value.
Lastly, what you're trying to do within your method does not require gold value at all (or any value at all). The addition of a value is 100% worthless and adds nothing you will make with it. Any person should know that if you have an aura granting bonus stats to nearby allies, you are granting a lot of stats when nearby those items. The percentage that is placed within the section is not related to when you purchased it nor is it comparing an item. It just adds a lot more terms, which could be summed up easier like this, you add X amount of stats when next to Y amount of allies.
And before I sign off, I am fully aware where you are coming from. I was like you when I first started setting this up in how I thought it was meant to mean. I even some what argued for what you are trying to do when we first argued. But the thing is, someone pointed out the huge assumptions I was making and with it, I realized what I had initially done was misleading.ClariS (talk) 16:51, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Again, not defining gold value or gold efficiency in a discussion that revolves around both means there's no real way of knowing what you mean with those terms. In fact, the system you're proposing here is so divorced from anything resembling gold value that it may as well be an entirely different system altogether. It is you who are making an assumption in stating that gold value is unrelated to stats, and that assumption is demonstrably false: the only reason a fraction of an item makes any sense is because you're implicitly bringing it down to the stats it represents. The only reason you're selecting certain baselines for certain items is because they share stats in common. Stats are at the core of even your system, despite your attempts to hide them. People don't think in terms of baseline items when they look at an item, they look at its stats and effects, and that is why I think any gold value system pertaining to itemization would be based around stats, and not other items (even though those items are selected to establish the gold value of the stat they represent). You claim to have somehow advanced to a new level of understanding, but what you're proposing makes no sense, and has little to offer to anyone who'd be looking at your cost analyses besides very confusing pseudo-item recipes. You have made a fundamental mistake in attempting to deliberately cut stats out of gold value, and no amount of special pleading or modification to suit readers' expectations is going to make your system any less broken. --Willbachbakal (talk) 03:38, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Response~ Oh my god.... do I really need to spell this out for you.

Gold value - the amount of gold you will spend for the baseline items if you were to buy them
Gold efficiency - the amount of gold you spend for the actual item compared to the theoretical constructed one (a.k.a, the baseline items).

Willbach, this is what I been telling you, STOP ASSUMING IT'S ABOUT THE STAT. This is not me saying, stat is irrelevant. This is me saying, stop looking only at the stats and actually consider the item that provides the stat and the gold value. Use your brain and actually think about everything around it. The currency League of Legends uses is gold. Gold is used to buys items that provides stats/bonuses/or whatever Riot decides to do within an item. Gold has no direct relation with the stat itself, therefore, using gold as a measuring stick to define a stat's value is meaningless on a whole.

Don't be assuming on false information from my information. The item encompasses the stat's requirement. You have to match as closely as possible to the item, which naturally includes the stat. But the stat is 'not' everything. It's the item. The item is the core. Stats are just one of the other things we have to consider within the item.

And yes, as I had stated this before, this is a Wikia. The main task of the wikia is to provide facts, not provide theories that is based on theorized value. Reader's expectation has to be changed if you want any validity to the actual section. If your objective is to just keep people happy at the expense of providing worthless information that is also misleading, I'm not gonna allow that every. If you want to add something, then 'prove it' and figure out what it means. If you can, I will use it without a question. Until then, I'm gonna delete anything to keep it as close to factual as possible. ClariS (talk) 04:22, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you do need to spell these things out, as these definitions frame everything we're talking about right now. Your definition of gold value is also incomplete, and likely erroneous: baseline item for what? Why baseline items? What does gold value mean? You just gave a description of how it applies to certain very specific items, and that's not what a definition is. You accuse me of wanting to push non-factual information, and ask me to back everything I say with proof, but your own approach is riddled with specious assumptions and a serious lack of clarity. In the end, you're also making a big argument out of nothing at all: we're both using similar methods, but whereas I focus on stats, you focus on baseline items. A simple item-to-stat conversion (e.g. 1 Long Sword = 10 AD) flips from your method to mine, and vice versa. However, I think my method is better, because stats are easier to understand and read, especially for anyone new to gold efficiency, and breaking down gold value according to stats makes a lot more sense due to how you're comparing baseline items to the main item in question (0.5 Long Swords, on the other hand, makes no sense at all, especially if you decide to take your own "gold value can only apply to items and not stats" approach). It is disingenuous of you to accuse me of "providing worthless information" and avoiding facts when you're doing exactly the same thing as me, except with a mode of presentation so confusing as to make cost analyses impossible to understand, even to an experienced user. I can say this for sure because I have seen your format on the mainspace, and even with my full knowledge of every baseline item behind each stat I could not derive anything useful from your cost analyses or understand what you were trying to convey. Your method and presentation are inferior in every way to the wiki's current model, which manages to convey more information in a better format and be just as factual. I'm not saying the mainspace's model should stay the same, per se, but I think there is nothing that could justify replacing it with your own system. --Willbachbakal (talk) 10:59, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, didn't see this when I posted my outline, in fact, i'm pretty sure you wrote this after I wrote the outline because I wrote a response and my outline at the same time:

Why? Isn't time itself a condition you're ignoring? What does this say for an item like Rod of Ages, which gains stats over time: are you really going to value it purely on the stats it gives upon purchase, discounting the rest of its power as uncountable? Wouldn't listing its stat gain over time be equally correct, and if not, why not?
- My response: How am I ignoring time if the reason why we can't give it a value is because of it's time. Understand this, just because there isn't a value being given does not mean those effect has zero value. It just means, any value that can be given is nothing more but a 'theory'.
Attacking me personally doesn't lend to your credibility or objectivity, and neither does relegating the community's opinion to "bandwagoning". This discussion is meant to establish a consensus, and if you happen to be in the minority you can't just go around editing the mainspace as you please, as if you were somehow better than everyone else and only your opinion mattered. You clearly came to this discussion with a grudge, and even now you're letting it get in the way of a productive exchange. I've said this before: I'm not trying to oppose you, I'm trying to work with you, and you continuously antagonizing me isn't going to make this easier for either of us.
- I'm sorry if you thinking a consensus is what you think this is, because it's not. As I told you, this is a wiki about providing facts. If the community consensus is to believe a factless theory, the section will be be deleted and kept out from the main pages. You can do it the cost efficiency page all you want, but it stays out of the items.
- And I will keep calling you a broken record because you still are. For the longest time we have been arguing, I have always known you had no evidence to back up the 'stats is what we're looking at only', but you keep using it over and over and over and over as your base of arguments. The reason why I gave you the chance to go first, was to see if you actually had legit different method, but the moment I saw you going through the structure of picking the cheapest tier item, I already knew you had no chance of ever providing the fact. You had nothing to support it other than, 'i wanted it that way'. But yet, you keep using that as a basis on many of your questions right now.
It completely distorts the reasoning I think is at the core of gold value: if I buy a B. F. Sword, I'm expecting to pay for attack damage, not Long Swords or Pickaxes or whatever. Like both of us said, the baseline items aren't important in themselves to the validity of the gold value/efficiency and cost analysis system, so why put them in the foreground? Isn't what they represent (stats) more important?
- I actually do believe that putting the stats is important, and is why I initially used it. Except it hits 1 large problem. People like you who thinks the stats is 'everything' and is what is the sole thing that makes the section valuable. That's why I'm changing it so your misconception of the section is in the background where the fact and backbone is in the front.
Wouldn't "letting a few cracks exist" be evidence that your system is flawed, or at least doesn't correspond to the consensus of gold value? If your system is flawless, why would you have to manipulate certain results in order for your model to look acceptable?
- Because unlike what you think I am, I don't like being a strict moderator. If people want something, I am willing to bend for their wants as long as they have some justification. But as I told you, in my ideal version, there would only be 1 assumption and that is the ignorance of buildpath with all other assumption being taken care of. And because of that assumption or ignoring build path and components, gold efficiency and build path needs to be kept as two different entity when in discussions, which doesn't seem to have much of an issue.
- And also, what I am manipulating? Unlike you, I do follow the concept of everything I put in place, and any assumption or thing I can't do, I modify the meaning of what I'm doing to account for those assumptions/things I can't do.

ClariS (talk) 06:29, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

If there is one thing valuable to the discussion in this ad hominem-riddled set of paragraphs, it's that you think the current model of cost analyses doesn't take items enough into account: what would you suggest to make items more important in the current cost analysis format? Aside from your proposed baseline item-centric method, which is a terrible and ultimately pointless way of showcasing an item's value, how would you go about modifying the current format? For example, if each stat had an collapsible asterisk or a tooltip indicating the baseline item it's derived from, would you consider that an improvement to the system? --Willbachbakal (talk) 10:59, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

~~ OMG, Willbach, ad hominem is about attacking a personality characteristic to undermine their argument. But apparently, you do realize that I keep saying, "PROVE YOUR THEORY!" I keep calling you a broken record is because you keep using an argument that has no factual evidence to support itself. ANd everytime I bring you up is because these are differences you and I do in regards to things. If you need proof, they are in your protocol.

it's that you think the current model of cost analyses doesn't take items enough into account: what would you suggest to make items more important in the current cost analysis format?
1. BY simply not discarding all conditions that comes along the item for no reason when establishing what is the baseline. And then you can only apply the baseline in a comparison when all factors are the same. The item's conditions are just as important as the stat's condition.
Aside from your proposed baseline item-centric method, which is a terrible and ultimately pointless way of showcasing an item's value, how would you go about modifying the current format?
1. Actually, there was a somewhat different method I tried to do first, but constantly kept on failing on creating the template. It was that if you just hover over the item, it would list it's cost and stat it gives. But the format would have been what you saw already WIllbach. LIst items, list a theoretically amount of them that would equal up the stats of the items (even if it requires a decimal), and list the amount of gold it would theoretically cost to obtain. But note this, no matter what is done, everything is still a theory, except in this one, it's a theory based on actual things in the game.
For example, if each stat had an collapsible asterisk or a tooltip indicating the baseline item it's derived from, would you consider that an improvement to the system?
1. It's a slight improvement, but I won't settle for anything less than making the item the forefront. The items is what gives it any validity to the 'gold' value that is given in the entire comparison. The stat does not do that. The item does that because it requires gold to buy the items. There is a strong implication that item conditions does not matter. And I use you as my prime example, a person who keeps ignoring the condition of the item that are chosen as a baseline even though there is no proof or evidence that would support such a course of action.
2. Willbach, even if you don't ever think about buying the item, but just for the stats, it does not change the fact that you need to spend gold to buy the item to acquire the stat.

ClariS (talk) 15:05, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Good to know we agree on this. This is, by the way, why I want to list the conditionals when it comes to stats attached to variable effects (i.e. "Rod of Ages becomes X% more gold efficient per stack" and the like), and not simply discount the effect altogether.
Putting baseline items at the forefront instead of stats does not make your system more factual, it's just worse presentation. I'm not saying your system isn't valid enough for a Wiki, it's just that you're running along exactly the same core reasoning and methods as mine, which you've been criticizing for supposed lack of factuality.
Good to know that you consider that an improvement. I think this might be worth pitching in the discussion announcement. While I agree that you need to spend gold to buy an item in order to acquire stats (hence both stats and items having gold values), I don't think that means you're specifically buying Long Swords whenever you're purchasing items like Infinity Edge, Guinsoo's Rageblade or Frozen Mallet, which is one of the many reasons why I think putting baseline items at the forefront makes a lot less sense than going directly to stats. --Willbachbakal (talk) 22:42, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

~~ response again

No WIllbach, I do not agree with you on variable effects (i.e. "Rod of Ages becomes X% more gold efficient per stack" and the like). That is everything I am going against and every reason that the people who disagree with the section is right. Doing stuff like that is just a glorified way of informing people, you get more stats. The reason why in my method this cannot be done is because 'the passive does not match the 'item' condition of the baseline item', something you constantly keep ignoring. Stop ignoring the conditions the item has as well.
I keep criticizing your lack of factuality is because you keep ignoring the condition of the baseline items. That's what making your information lack any factuality. Once again, I'm gonna change it soly on the basis to stop people from making the wrong conclusion. And once again, my prime example is you. You keep believing that the stat is most important part in regards to this and completely ignore the baseline items condition. For example, how are you even giving ROd of Ages passive effect a gold value. The passive has a delay condition that the baseline items do not have. That's a difference that is going accounted for and has all means to alter the gold value at any amount that you have no idea.
The stat's value you use are determined by the baseline items you choose. Once again, I keep telling you, you're doing the exact same thing as well. And I don't care Willbach, people can adjust to change easily. It's not that hard. I'm not going to let the stats be in the foreground anymore so that people like you don't assume the stat is 'everything'. It never has been.
And lastly, Willbach, I know you're going to disagree with me on this but, this is all I see Cost analysis is useful for. It helps determine 'when' you buy an item, and nothing else. Cost analysis is best when a person is on a tight budget, but the more gold someone has, the less important cost efficiency becomes. Any reasons of why to buy an item, the section cannot do. And also, because the total gold for a champion is always increasing, the less useful it becomes and slot efficiency and effectiveness becomes the sole factor of what we choose.

ClariS (talk) 15:23, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

I think the main difference here is that you view items as static entities, whereas I think the better way to evaluate them is dynamically: to you, Rod of Ages's passive effect is a static entity, and so is exactly the same whether you just bought the item or are ten minutes later into the game. I agree that if you were to take the whole passive it would be a static entity, but that's ignoring what the passive does, and stopping at it without separating the stats from the conditions: at any point in time, Rod of Ages gives an exact amount of stats, and I think that's enough to justify evaluating it on a minute-by-minute basis: the stats its passive gives work in exactly the same way as its core stats, and its condition just means you unlock more of these stats over time. It is you who are ignoring the uniqueness of items and their conditional passives, not me, and therefore it is you who should be questioning the factuality of your own system. You are assuming that items are always the same regardless of conditions, and that assumption is provably false (see the Rod of Ages example). This isn't really relevant to your mode of presentation, which I think wouldn't be a good choice for the wiki (people can adjust to change easily, but why do that when the original version is just plain better?), but I think this mistake you're making is at the core of our disagreement, and the reason why you're butting heads against me and many other users who have been working on cost analyses. --Willbachbakal (talk) 17:12, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

response ~ Willbach, you have no evidence that your values from your baseline is even valid for a dynamic value. Secondly, that defeats the entire purpose of even using the cost of an item if you're just gonna look at the minute-by-minute stat it acquires, when the cost only factors at the moment you purchase the item. No one needs the wikia to tell them that their item is giving them more than stats. If you want that dynamica values, then don't use gold and cost of an item because those things aren't dynamic. It is both misleading and completely pointless when you're not even holding onto how gold and cost even factor in the game.

And willbach, I'm through arguing about this. I don't have much time to be spending on this. So if you're gonna argue for your thing, I'm gonna say this to you, after a month or so when I come back to this wikia, if I come back and see the item pages still providing 'values' to the passive/actives/aura (a.k.a, you call it evaluating them dynamically), I'm gonna delete the entire section because:

The base values of all the stats are a theorized value base on a few steps that requires large steps of ignoring information, and then everything else hinges on the completely theorized numbers. Making this, 100% theorized with zero facts. And this something the Wikia is not meant to do, especially on a main page like the item page.
It is misleading because both gold and the cost of the item as no real function with your comparison. You're looking and valuing things that are past the point where cost and gold even mattered for the item.
There is no evidence to back up the information, nor what you are doing is even needed to be giving the stat (and only the stat) an arbitrary number and comparing it to cost when they have NO CORRELATION with each other. It means nothing of importance.

And so, my final words to you if you really want your 'ideal section' within the item pages:

Develop a completely different framework on how stats are values. Basing it on the items has no grounds for stats value and I will remove if I see it being used as your grounds for the values.
Don't use the 'gold' as your unit, when you don't care about the item in which the gold is required to use to buy from. Don't use cost of an item when you're not using the gold of the item.

I'm tired and I'm gonna get busy again and most likely won't be spending much of any of my freetime here for the next month. Later ~~ ClariS (talk)

Good to know you never really cared about this discussion, and still want to change the wiki your way, regardless of what other people say. I wouldn't recommend you going through with your threat of vandalism, not just because it's going to get reverted anyway, but also because it's just going to make you lose what little credibility you have left. Nothing that you have formulated in this discussion has been positive or conducive to constructive exchange, and I seriously doubt your capability to ever contribute positively to this issue in the future. --Willbachbakal (talk) 02:01, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

For Wants Its Out-Right Removal

And lastly for all those who oppose the cost efficiency section and want its 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)
  - I think gold efficiency is mostly useful only for theorycrafting, and I think the methods used can be problematic. But that's a different discussion. Anyway, yeah, clarity. I think a big problem is how prominently the cost analysis is displayed on the page: it's right below the recipe, and above Notes and Strategy, both of which tend to feature more actual advice and information about the item from a gameplay perspective. It's a fairly natural assumption that more prominent information is more useful - why do we put Trivia at the bottom, for instance? I think cost efficiency, if it should indeed be featured on item pages, should be above Trivia and below Notes/Strategy. Thus it's only reached after reading through the more directly useful and new-player friendly information. That would be the clarity change I feel to be the most important, even if none of my other suggestions are implemented, but... I also think the disclaimer should be changed: for a start, it's not visible to anyone who doesn't know to mouseover a bit of dotted-underlined text on Wikia. Perhaps if cost efficiency is in a drop-down box (as it currently is on a few pages including Black Cleaver) it could be listed at the start of the section, above the calculation. Even if it remains in the dotted-underline mouseover text, though, I feel it should at the very least have the bit about "cost efficiency is not a measure of the item's overall effectiveness" moved to the start rather than at the end after a description of the calculation, so people won't just tl;dr it and miss that bit of information. Finally, I think the %values can be misleading, rather than just an addition of the gold value of the stats; I refer to my aforementioned experience of the "100% efficient = good" assumption from a newcomer, but perhaps with a more prominent disclaimer with that illusion dispelled at the very start as I suggested, people would be less likely to fall into that trap.
    - I really like the idea of making cost analyses even more discrete on item pages. The drop-down template was made to reduce the amount of space taken by cost analyses, and I think it could be made even more space-efficient (though ideally still visible enough for people wanting to see an item's cost analysis). If it could happen, I'd really like an item's cost analysis to actually be a collapsible part of the item's infobox, so pressing a button would just make a section pop out to the side or something and give a detailed account of the item's gold value and efficiency, and not pressing it would make the analysis take zero space on the visible page. If an item's cost analysis could take zero space on its article and be fully ignored by people not interested in it, would you support it, and if so, would you prefer it or still rather go for removal (due to questionable usefulness, validity, etc.)? Clarity would be important here, so the template would likely not be so invisible as to be easily overlooked or impossible to find, but ignoring that for the moment, how much visibility would you go for, assuming cost analyses remained a part of item articles? --Willbachbakal (talk) 22:30, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
  - Example Extra Clarity™ disclaimer: "Cost analysis is not a valuation of an item's strength or effectiveness, rather a comparison tool using statistical values as reference points... etc." All the information there for people who are interested, the important bit at the beginning for people who are quickly browsing to check out item information and might not read the whole thing. - Unevent
    - I agree with this, the disclaimer was a major point in the last discussion and it was implemented with the idea of balancing visibility, clarity and conciseness. While I think it did good, at least compared to when it didn't exist, it clearly isn't quite there yet. How visible would you like the information to be? Does the tooltip format work, or should the disclaimer be spelled out explicitly on the page? Would you rather the disclaimer be directly included in every cost analysis, as it is now, or would you prefer if the template linked to it? --Willbachbakal (talk) 22:30, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
      - I'm no savant at Wikia coding, but I attempted to sandbox something like what I envisage as a possibility using excerpts from The Black Cleaver page as a base. http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/User:Unevent/Sandbox - At the bottom of the page, above Patch History and Trivia but below Notes/Strategy we have an expandable section for gold efficiency, with the disclaimer prominently displayed at the top, but in a smallish font so as not to dominate the section. I left out the %calculation for the sake of time and because it's not strictly speaking necessary, but you could chuck it back in if you wanted. Apologies for it looking a little rough: I tried to knock it up quickly without knowing all the wikicode to implement everything as it'd look on the page. Thoughts? - Unevent
      - Moving it to the bottom is perfectly fine. As for the description, as soon as the exact details are worked out, it should be easy to be added, maybe even smaller, like with a front with half the size. Hehhe. ClariS (talk) 15:41, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
        Sounds good to me. I'd be much more okay with cost efficiency being on item pages if such changes went through. - Unevent
I think cost efficiency as a whole is a sub-optimal analysis. The much more beneficial analysis would be Cost/Benefit choice analysis. Like Least Ratio -> Best Choice, as per Volibear#comm-1176230. Nonetheless this analysis requires "exponential" effort(cost) valuable for single binary choices but the cost is too great to do the same for the number of Items Riot provides. We would need to compare every single item with every other. Effort = [ Time invested for the Analysis for 1 Item x ( Number of All items - 1 Item)] ^ 2 Restricting the analysis with comparable Items only would be optimal Ntoulinho
- Ntoulinho can you explain your model? I understand your process, but could you expand upon your idea and show how we would be able to implement a cost/benefit ratio as a replacement for a gold efficiency ratio. If you model how the cost/benefit ratio would be implemented, then we would be able to apply the model into our analysis. I believe if we can merge the idea of formulating champions and analyzing the items with a cost/benefit ratio, we would be able to more accurately judge an item's value. -- Double Slap(-My Page-)(-What I did-) 22:51, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
The biggest issue I have with Gold Efficiency stems from the statement "information without context is meaningless". When asking the pole-bearers for Gold Efficiency what the actual definition of it is, you will most likely get wildly varying answers. So the biggest hurdle would be to educate people on what gold efficiency actually is and how it can be used.The second issue is that Gold Efficiency isn't easy. It is in fact a highly theoretical concept, one which is difficult to translate into any practical use due to the many variables provided by League of Legends as a game. Just like the attack speed and attack delay pages, the majority of users will not take the effort to completely understand how it works and just use one of the many builder websites to calculate attack speed.I see no point in maintaining and updating information that the majority won't use correctly, and is of arguable benefit for people that do understand it. Deshiba, the Nitpicker 10:54, March 26, 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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-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):
+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):
+{{HiddenB|Assumptions|align = center|content=
-{{HiddenB
-|header = Assumptions
-|align = center
-|content=
 * There was a baseline that the 'community' designated themselves as to be used as the stander.
 ** The baseline or base item that was chosen was not picked because they they were '''RIGHT''' or '''WRONG'''. They were picked based on preference and usefulness. Attempting to justify what is the '''RIGHT''' way is pointless as anyone can have their own preference on how they would rather do it, and it would work equally as well.
 * In choosing the baseline, it is 'assumed' the item is 100% cost efficient.
 ** There is a reason why this is normally done since they creates a point of reference that anyone can see with their eyes. But the issue with this is that there is no fact that it is correct. It is what the 'community' just picked to be the stander. But two major road blocks hits this assumptions as:
-:1) Upper tier items have clear evidence to have increase 'cost efficiency' over basic tier items, thereby affecting spell vamp, % movement speed, armor penetration, life steal, and anything else I forgot.
+::# Upper tier items have clear evidence to have increase 'cost efficiency' over basic tier items, thereby affecting spell vamp, % movement speed, armor penetration, life steal, and anything else I forgot.
-:2) [[Attack Damage]], [[Ability Power]], and [[Critical Strike Chance]] has basic tier items that provide different 'gold value'. What makes choosing the more cheaper item more 'correct' then the more expensive one? In fact, why can't use all 3 of them in cost efficiency instead of the 1? Can the wiki possibly justify this method other than, we wanted it that way?
+::# [[Attack damage]], [[ability power]], and [[critical strike]] chance has basic tier items that provide different 'gold value'. What makes choosing the more cheaper item more 'correct' then the more expensive one? In fact, why can't use all 3 of them in cost efficiency instead of the 1? Can the wiki possibly justify this method other than, we wanted it that way?
 * Ignoring build path and unique tag.
 ** I just wanted to point these out because it is something that is always ignored, and not many people ever seem to point it out.
 * The items needs to be brought
 ** I read this a few times, but I do want to point out, we do sort of ignore this with the {{ii|Tear of the Goddess}} transformation items. The final version items ''technically'' can't be brought from the store, instead required to be transformed. This has grounds to point out difference that is commonly ignored for reasons that aren't generally justified except for 'people' wanting it and showing inconsistency within rules.
-<br>
 NOTE: Those assumptions above aren't proof to claim 'cost efficiency' needs to be removed, but rather why we can't claim the 'stats' value is worth Xg as a fact. And as a reminder, the wikia's main task is providing facts and not theorizing. And we shouldn't be presenting theories as facts.
 }}
@@ Line 21: / Line 18: @@
 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:  [http://www.reignofgaming.net/blogs/a-different-view/vvinrar/23377-the-fallacies-of-item-efficiency The Fallacies of Item Efficiency]
+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: [http://www.reignofgaming.net/blogs/a-different-view/vvinrar/23377-the-fallacies-of-item-efficiency The Fallacies of Item Efficiency]
 == Questions ==
-{{HiddenB
+{{HiddenB|Questions|align = center|content=
-|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.
@@ Line 51: / Line 45: @@
 {{fd|3.5}}) 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 ==
+== Testing Answers ==
 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.
-) Let us pretend that {{ii|Prototype Hex Core}} had to be purchased from the store for [[Gold|<font style="color:gold;">600 gold</font>]] 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?
+) Let us pretend that {{ii|Prototype Hex Core}} had to be purchased from the store for {{g|600}} 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?
 {{fd|1.25}}) 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?
@@ Line 64: / Line 58: @@
 {{fd|2}}) 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 [[Gold|<font style="color:gold;">400 gold</font>]], we could give this effect a ‘statistical value’ of [[Gold|<font style="color:gold;">400 gold</font>]]. Would be valid and possible to compare with other items that met all but for how much damage it absorbed. Why yes or no?
+If it costed {{g|400}}, we could give this effect a ‘statistical value’ of {{g|400}}. Would be valid and possible to compare with other items that met all but for how much damage it absorbed. Why yes or no?
 {{fd|2.33}}) 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?
@@ Line 87: / Line 81: @@
 .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?
 ----------------------------------------------
-) If Riot was to declare that 1 Health was worth [[Gold|<font style="color:gold;">100 gold</font>]] (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?
+) If Riot was to declare that 1 Health was worth {{g|100}} (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?
 }}
@@ Line 93: / Line 87: @@
 I really want to hear how you, the community, view on my questions.
+{{HiddenB|Willbachbakal's Answers|align = center|content=
-{{HiddenB
-|header = Willbachbakal's Answers
-|align  = center
-|content=
 == Guideline Questions ==
 #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. {{ii|Amplifying Tome}}, {{ii|Cloth Armor}}, 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.
@@ Line 160: / Line 151: @@
 --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 09:18, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
+}}
+{{HiddenB|Double Slap's Answers|align = center|content=
+== Guideline Answers ==
+) The value of money is in the worth of its debt. If money cannot pay off any kind of debt, it has lost all purchasing power. Applying this to the game, the statistical value is derived from an item we pay for. This item has statistics; so based on that statistic and the price of the item, a value is determined, showing how much we are paying for with each portion of this statistic. Statistical value is determined using the lowest price item as a base. This system is focused more on a basis of comparison rather than of growth, as the growth model would have items based on the initial items in the build. The reason I find our current system superior is complications that would arise if there were multiple baseline items. Problems would occur with items like {{ii|Infinity Edge}} and {{ii|Wit's End}} as they have two base items that give the exact same statistic.
+{{fd|1.25}}) This system is very similar to measuring food by the price and weight. The value is $/oz. in that scenario as gold/stat is in our current system. Just as people compare how much "food" they get by utilizing weight, players compare how much boost they get by utilizing statistics. The larger the statistical value, the more the boost is worth in gold. Just as in real life, some people don't do well with spinach while other sailors are in desperation for some spinach. Some champions don't boost well with some statistics and try their best to avoid it while getting the statistics they prefer.
+{{fd|1.5}}) Many variables are required in order to make this system viable. The variables we have: attack damage, ability power, armor, magic resistance, health, mana, health regeneration, mana regeneration, critical strike chance, attack speed, magic/armor penetration, lifesteal, spellvamp, cooldown reduction, and movement speed are enough to keep this system afloat; however keeping afloat is fine and dandy, to make this take off, we need to address: cooldowns, range, duration, and ratios. Why we '''need''' to address the other variables is to represent exactly how this applies in actual gameplay. Without understanding the limitations of the items' cooldowns/range/duration/ratios and the significant boosts they bring, a majority of the items can't be seen in its full potential. This skews the opinions of these items towards the other items that disregard the latter variables, simply because the former items―that do utilize these other variables―were not measured.
+How do we do this? Well, I suggest we formulate champions, but that is another discussion altogether so I'll carry on with this idea later. As for variables we can ignore, any value that is unable to be replicated with another item is able to be ignored. For example, {{ii|Elixir of Ruin|Elixir of Ruin's}} % tower damage. There is a dragon buff that boosts % tower damage, but there is no other item that does. As for items that do have replicable abilities, we set the base as the lowest value of the ability to mimic the current setup.
+{{fd|1.75}}) Theorycrafting? Nonsense. If this is set up properly (with champion formulation) then there is no "theory" to this, it is law. This is not for the casual gamer. No, this is for the people who would dedicate days learning a strategy. Accounting for the variables we currently have (alongside the variables I added in), raw numbers and physics should meld together to display, not only what numbers we pump out, how we pump out our damage. This takes into account the individual player, the enemies getting their face slammed, and the allies around you. This admittedly wouldn't account for terrain, and unit collision (moving through units, not hitting them). It is better than misleading our readers with this half-baked information.
+The item and all its effects will be accompanied with a champion's "formula" and applied to the abilities that utilize the statistics and effects from the item. Comparing range numbers, movement, and time should explain in what conditions the items' effects will be utilized. However, this is something that cannot be immediately referenced and must be '''PLANNED''' beforehand as there is too much information to simply "reference".
+{{fd|1.9}}) If this gets pulled off, miraculously, then there should be no problems at all with application to theory. There would be some advanced theorizing with things like {{cai|The Culling|Lucian}} with its movement speed and how to apply all the damage as well as how far it can potentially extend to with movement speed, but that is mainly the other portion: champion formulation. The problems that could be encountered are missing pieces of a formula. That is a serious problem, however having a formula in the first place is pretty much vital to applying these stats. We have all the variables, what do we plug them into, and how do they chug out? And lo and behold, the formula is a perfect testimony to fact.
+----
+) The reason Statistical Efficiency should remain standing is that it is how people are able to measure the wealth of their ingredients when making their wombo-combo flounder pounder. People who follow a guide can blindly follow the guide, as the guide should help the players the way the guide intends. However, the people who make the guides needs a basis. The people making the guide, should have clear facts as to why their build, their ingredients for the recipe called "success," is a good one.
+If cooldowns/range/duration/ratios are taken alongside the current Statistical Efficiency system, people are going to look at this and truly believe in the power of the items. To be able to represent the full potential of an item is the only thing that Statistical Efficiency needs to do, once it does that, people can truly use this information to make better guides, better theories, and have better overall gameplay. (So long as they take the time to absorb the heaps of information from champion formulation)
+{{fd|2.33}}) What is it ignoring? The fact that there is only one item able to complete a certain task, i.e. no item ability can compare its effect with that item? Yeah, I don't really believe that much in ignoring these things. In fact, I believe that is why people are so easily misled. The information is incomplete; of course people would be misled! We showed them the entrance to the mysteries of League of Legends mechanics without giving them a pass inside. Enough ranting though, my aim is to prevent ignoring as much as possible to provide adequate answers. Wikis are meant to prevent ignorance after all.
+----
+) ''"A number that represents a piece of information."'' - [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statistic?show=0&t=1422005384 Merriam-Webster] That really is all a stat is. A stat can be many things in my book: a percentage of lifesteal, a value for armor, a value for health, a passing of time for an item active, a passing of time for cooldown periods, a value for damage output, a ratio for the variable: ability power, or a unit representing distance.  There is so much more, but this is enough examples for me. Anyways, there is no difference. If there is a number, and it is associated with something that be considered "information" then it is a stat. On-hit damage takes its own place in the ratios of the champions, albeit a separate one than say, attack damage and ability power.
+I wouldn't bother explaining this, but you so kindly requested. I am obligated to oblige. Well then, instead of wasting time, I'll discuss some complex scenarios. {{ci|Master Yi}} {{ai|Alpha Strike|Master Yi|Alpha Strikes}} into the enemy team, uses {{si|Barrier}}, and finally {{ai|Meditate|Master Yi|Meditates}}. Simple right? Well, let's get right down into what is a statistic. The range of {{ai|Alpha Strike|Master Yi}} is a statistic to consider. The movement speed of {{ci|Master Yi}} and the enemy is a statistic to consider. The split second {{ci|Master Yi}} takes to cast {{ai|Alpha Strike|Master Yi}} is a statistic to consider. The range of {{cai|Alpha Strike|Master Yi}} multi-hit radius is a statistic to consider. The number of enemy targets within the radius of {{cai|Alpha Strike|Master Yi}} is a statistic to consider. The time that passes while {{ci|Master Yi}} is untargetable is a statistic to consider. The base damage, attack damage ratio, and the critical strike ratios for {{cai|Alpha Strike|Master Yi}} are statistics to consider. The armor/damage reduction/shield/health of the enemies are statistics to consider. The armor penetrations {{ci|Master Yi}} has are statistics to consider. The cooldown until the next {{ai|Alpha Strike|Master Yi}} is a statistic to consider. The cooldown reduction {{ci|Master Yi}} has is a statistic to consider. The mana lost using {{ai|Alpha Strike|Master Yi}} is a statistic to consider. The distance {{ci|Master Yi}} travels when he {{ai|Alpha Strike|Master Yi|Alpha Strikes}} in is a statistic to consider. The spell vamp {{ci|Master Yi}} has is a statistic to consider. The spell effect slow % {{ci|Master Yi}} has is a statistic to consider. The value of the shield on {{si|Barrier}} is a statistic to consider. The duration of the shield on {{si|Barrier}} is a statistic to consider. The cooldown time on {{si|Barrier}} is a statistic to consider. The immobilizing channel time for {{ai|Meditate|Master Yi}} is a statistic to consider. The mana lost when {{ai|Meditate|Master Yi}} is a statistic to consider. The cooldown time on {{ai|Meditate|Master Yi}} is a statistic to consider. The base healing and ability power ratio healing done and during {{ai|Meditate|Master Yi}} is a statistic to consider. The reduced damage taken during the {{ai|Meditate|Master Yi}} is a statistic to consider. The mana regenerated from mana regeneration this entire duration is a statistic to consider. The health regenerated from health regeneration this entire duration is a statistic to consider. Any % healing boosts are statistics to consider.
+Too long? Didn't read? Well in all honesty, it was almost too long; didn't write for me. What is great about that up there is that it doesn't include items at all. However, if I didn't go as far as addressing all of that up there, there would be little to no place to apply the statistics on the various items to {{ci|Master Yi}} and his adversaries. This is why that process up there is so important. If someone doesn't know how to make the wombo-combo flounder pounder, how does one expect to use the "random" ingredients to make it? In this case, plugging the statistics, gained from the items, into the formula of this scenario. Well, that is a statistic to me, an effect is quite interesting in my opinion.
+Take for example {{ai|Intervention|Kayle}}. Would this be an effect? Lol, nope. In fact, there is only one effect from this: who gets invulnerability? There is no number for that. Other than that, set the damage taken multiplier to 0 to whoever has the condition for the set amount of time. The range to cast {{ai|Intervention|Kayle}} is numerical. {{ai|Intervention|Kayle}} goes on cooldown time-affected by cooldown reduction from {{ci|Kayle}}. Finally, movement speed of the target and {{ci|Kayle}} is important. In any case, perhaps a prime example of an "effect" for items is {{ii|Zhonya's Hourglass}}. It's just as much of an effect as {{ai|Intervention|Kayle}}. Since there is no target but self, the dimension involving targeting someone is cut away. The damage taken multiplier is set to 0. The hit box dimensions for the champion are rendered undefined as subtracting by 100% would leave the point (0,0) which would be open to pain. The champion is uncontrollable during this time, the only effect. To make things simple, if there is no way to place a number on it, then it is not a stat. It is an effect. What these effects will do is shut down some formulas by rendering them undefined for the duration.
+{{fd|3.5}}) I would give a sourced definition... but... it's too tedious. Classification is the act of classifying; i.e., the arranging or ordering according to class; i.e. a number of things forming a group from common attributes, qualities, and characteristics. I feel categorization would be a better term for this, the act of arranging divisions. Anyways, I feel that every single stat needs to be accounted for, and there are a heck of a lot of stats. Effects should be only present to affect the formulas of a champion by rendering it undefined and therefore unusable. If it was even weakened, it would have to be weakened by a percent which transforms it back into a stat. I feel that the few effects should be noted as they would be extremely valuable conditions in terms of theorizing scenarios. Everything else should be statistically accounted for. So the division between effects and stats shouldn't be all too prominent due to the massive degree of statistics there are. If something can be a statistic, it should be a statistic.
+== Testing Questions ==
+) This raises some very good points. What happens when the standard baseline item is a scaling stat? Does this skew our entire system of statistical efficiency? Would the {{ii|Prototype Hex Core}} be considered the standard that all ability power is based on? Well, time to set some ground rules for statistical efficiency.
+a) The baseline item must be available to champions. If there was an item such as the {{ii|Prototype Hex Core}} that became the baseline item, it would violate the gold's value itself by refusing to be legal tender. Champions other than {{ci|Viktor}} wouldn't be able to compare other items with the base item, because they don't even have access to purchase it.
+b) The standard baseline item must have the least dimensions possible. We can go from few dimensions to multiple dimensions, but we cannot do the reverse. To set {{ii|Prototype Hex Core}} as the baseline item, there would be 3 dimensions: ability power, gold, and level. As such, if we attempted to compare this to {{ii|Amplifying Tome}}, there would be a serious problem, because we are unable to remove the level dimension. The dimension of level growth is an integral part of the item and can't be ignored. However, we are able to add a dimension. {{ii|Amplifying Tome}} would maintain its same level through the infinite plane of the dimension of levels while {{ii|Prototype Hex Core}} is raising its value each level.
+c) There can only be one. If there are multiple baseline items for the same dimension, there starts to be a problem. We cannot run the risk of crossing over multiple baseline items of the same dimension on one item for items like {{ii|Infinity Edge}} and {{ii|Wit's End}}.
+That said, I reject {{ii|Prototype Hex Core}} as our standard baseline item as it fails two tests: the item's availability, and the item's dimensions. If the availability is changed however, I accept this item as a secondary baseline item-in league with lifesteal, spell vamp, armor/ magic penetration, % movement speed.
+Anyways, I have digressed this entire question as I felt it important to understand this. It would be appropriate to state that 200 gold gives 1 ability power/level.
+{{fd|1.25}}) I believe in both values. The value of 1 ability power/level at 200 gold and 1 ability power at 21.75 gold. I believe it for the same reason that we believe there is 1 movement speed at 25 gold and 1 %movement speed at 59.5 gold. They are both different dimensions. They both utilize the same stat, but they are different dimensions. As a result, we treat both of them separately, despite their similar variable.
+{{fd|1.5}}) Both are facts representing the same information. Did we not spend money to buy ability power/level; and did we not spend money to buy ability power? All we are doing is showing how our money was spent on the same stat a different way. Do we delete % health regeneration/5 seconds because health exists already? No, we keep them both, but separately. We can compare their stats on the field by placing them on a chart to see their effectiveness according to the passage of another dimension that one stat doesn't utilize. There is no difference between this example and ability power with ability power/level.
+{{fd|7.5}}) If the other items follow the ground rules I stated, yes. They are able to become standard baseline items. They would even be able to be used to measure the effectiveness of some items we haven't measured before, so long as they maintain the exact congruent dimensions.
+----
+) This is precisely why we need to incorporate cooldowns/range/duration/ratios into our process. We need to add the physics portion into consideration. There needs to be formula that this Lifeline item can be plugged into to chug out a gold value. The way to measure the value in gold of this is actually quite simple if placing ratios in the equation.
+{{fd|2.33}}) If <=30%health: for 5 seconds, 100 magic shield=400 gold=1 magic shield costs 4 gold; for 90*(1-item cdr) seconds, 0=400 gold = Pay 400 gold for nothing.
+If >30%health, 0=400 gold= Pay 400 gold for nothing. Very simple, quite true. Pretty conditional, completely accurate. This item has 4 dimensions: time, magic shield, gold, and total health %. In order to compare the magic shield to other items with magic shields, the other items need to accommodate all 4 dimensions this lifelink item has and the lifelink item has to accommodate the extra dimensions that the other items have. An undefined dimension (nonexisting dimension) in an item simply means that no matter how much this undefined dimension changes, the value of the other dimensions remain constant. While extremely wordy, the conditions stand true.
+There is no way that the community can argue against the truth, because the truth doesn't change, the wiki does. However, I honestly believe with all this wording, it would get to the point where most people would go, "tl;dr." This suggestion isn't anywhere near simple. I do believe a lot of people will be lost. However, that is why there are guides on other websites. Guides that make the most complex things, simple to the readers.
+{{fd|2.67}}) Incorporate it. Honestly haven't thought too much on wards myself, however they have range, cooldowns, and a radius, there will need to be a vision formula such as: For 60 seconds: destroy sight ward, vison=true, ? radius,3 autoattack-health=75 gold. I am quite aware that wards has quite a complicated level of mechanics. I admit that it is going to be quite a challenge to incorporate terrain. However, if we can understand the physics of vision, I feel it is something the wiki is obligated to mention for items like wards and trinkets.
+{{fd|2.99}}) Again, another reason why we should incorporate cooldowns/range/duration/ratios. For {{ii|Health Potion}} it would be duration: For 15 seconds: destroy health potion, (50 health regeneration/5 seconds)=35 gold. {{ii|Youmuu's Ghostblade}} is too easy. {{ii|Righteous Glory}} is a bit more interesting.
+(500 health+300 mana+100% health regeneration)=2500 gold
+Cast active: 90(1-item cdr) cooldown time, Grant condition to self and everyone within x radius in 0 seconds:(For 3 seconds, if facing % angle towards enemy: 500 health+300 mana+100% health regeneration+60% movement speed; For 3 seconds, if allies facing % angle towards enemy: 60% (#)allies movement speed)=2500 gold
+After active: 80% slow to all enemies in y radius in 0 seconds/3 seconds+(500 health+300 mana+100% health regeneration)=2500 gold
+% (#)enemies' slow=2500 gold-(500 health+300 mana+100% health regeneration)
+There are many conditions required to make this work, however that is the grounds that my idea is based on. I believe the stats and conditions must be measured in each condition in order to find a truly accurate display of the potential of the items. Instead of focusing on items alone, we must also look at how the items are used.
+----
+) The value of money is in its debt. Can we buy runes with IP? Eeyup. Is IP the "debt" we pay in order to claim a rune? Eeyup. Do runes give stats in game? Eeyup. So, that said, IP is a currency. It has certain dimensions relevant to the statistics used in game. There is no reason why we can't use IP as a store of value to buy statistics. Is the $ the only existing currency? No! There is the ¥, £, ₫, €. Same here, there is IP outside of game and gold inside game. If it ever gets to the point where people are comparing IP and gold, so be it. It would give an interesting dynamic as to legitimizing the effectiveness of certain runes in a build.
+{{fd|3.5}}) Here we go.
+*8 health=820 IP, health=102.5 IP, 1 health costs 102.5 IP
+*1.33 health/level=410 IP, (health/level)=(410/1.33 IP), 1 health/level costs 308 IP
+*0.5% total health/820 IP, % total health=(820/0.5 IP), 1% total health costs 1640 IP
+I've used the greater rune as the baseline as ironically, upgrading the rune drastically decreases the statistical efficiency. The growth of runes is in extraordinarily weak enough that it is much cleaner to find statistical efficiency using the greater runes.
+As a sample for flat health:
+.5 IP/health * 4.48 health/5 IP * 100% = 459.2/5 * 100% =9184% statistical efficiency.
+By the gods, '''IT'S OVER 9000!''' This is pretty much the complete, extreme opposite, of how statistical efficiency plays out in game.
+{{fd|3.75}}) Well, because people like to {{ci|Lee Sin|blindly follow}} guides. Amirite? Actually, I haven't got a clue. There really is no reason not to use this other than the fact that it would be a bit of effort to set up at first. Guides could use the rune stats to make comparisons to its weight in gold in game. Comparing to other ranks of the same rune may be redundant, but there can also be informed decisions on which style of rune for the same stat could be used like health, health per level, % total health. So my deduction is laziness.
+----
+) Overall, statistical efficiency is about as effective as measuring food by its weight. The quality is very questionable, but the amount is definitely present. Also the money saved in one area can go towards something else that needs attention. Statistical efficiency is not doing that great right now, however it is accurate. I feel that in order to expand the usefulness of statistical efficiency, formulas must be made to measure up champions’ physics in-game. Looking at the items' statistical efficiency alone does not cut it for revealing how effective the item it is in gameplay. There must be a way to apply everything, the items offer, to action. The best way to do that in my opinion is to expand on physics in gameplay by creating formulas for champions. Formulating everything else can come alongside it, but to really get this going, the champions must be formulated. Otherwise, we settle for mediocrity or abandon the mission altogether. By the looks of it, many want to abandon the mission, because of how broken the system seems. I say, don't give up on a puzzle because it is only half done. Fill the pieces and finish the job. Then we can all see the big picture.
+{{fd|4.1}}) There is no trading with players in League of Legends. This is very important in understanding how this works. If this was the real world, the increase in price for {{ii|Long Sword}} would mean that fewer people buy a longsword or replace the longsword with another item like {{ii|Pickaxe}}. This would mean that less demand would be going towards longswords which means that companies that also use longswords to make their items such as {{ii|Vampiric Scepter}} will also loose demand. While the drop price change may have been necessary for {{ii|Long Sword}} to maintain market equilibrium, {{ii|Vampiric Scepter}} doesn't take too fondly of this change and loses income. When {{ii|Vampiric Scepter}} loses income, the supply curve for the {{ii|Vampiric Scepter}} shifts to the left causing the market equilibrium for {{ii|Vampiric Scepter}} to rise in price. This continues with all the other things that utilize {{ii|Long Sword}} and all purchasing power of gold drops, because gold can't buy something as simple as a {{ii|Long Sword}} as easily as before. This causes sacrifices to other parts of the build and creates a downward spiral since everyone who needs to have a longsword can't buy other things so easily. People who don't need a {{ii|Long Sword}} are also affected as the people who do need a longsword are losing money from the increased price and reserves their money instead. The people who don't need a {{ii|Long Sword}} then loses money as there is less money flowing around. That means {{ii|Long Sword}} and its increase in price overall decreases the value of gold itself, in this scenario.
+There is no trading with players in League of Legends. Gold can't "flow" around. Gold in game is simply spent in a different way. The only affects spending money gives is losing money. Nothing else. Therefore, if the price increases in one item, the demand decreases for that item. However, changes in demand does not change the infinite supply of that item. Not buying a {{ii|Long Sword}} will not change the infinite supply of it and therefore will not decrease the price of longsword-no matter how low the demand gets. People who need to buy a longsword will be affected by the increase in price. Going along the build path of longswords will be more expense, and more valuable, than going along the other paths. The problem here though, is that the only way the build path of longswords is more valuable than other paths is if one is bought. Not buying a longsword does not affect the prices of the infinite supply of the other items, and therefore does not increase their price. So it is very much possible that affecting one item does not affect another's value, but does affect one item's expense compared to the other.
+{{fd|4.2}}) If I changed the cost of {{ii|Deathfire Grasp}} to 3000 gold, this would not change how valuable {{ii|Infinity Edge}} is. What it does change is how expensive {{ii|Deathfire Grasp}} is compared to {{ii|Infinity Edge}}. In real life, would changing the price of a Harry Potter novel from $20 to $10 change the value of a $800 self-built computer? Nope, but it does change how expensive the computer is compared to the novel. Instead of a computer being the same price as 40 novels, now it is the price of 80 novels. Did the values of the items change? No. What changed is the value of the money. The '''PURCHASING POWER''' changed. So when the price of an item rises and another remains the same the '''PURCHASING POWER'''='''GOLD VALUE''' changes. Instead of a {{ii|Guinsoo's Rageblade}} 2600 gold price being 7+2/9 longswords, the price increase means a {{ii|Guinsoo's Rageblade}} is the same price as 6+1/2 longswords. This is 100% true and 100% accurate. The values themselves didn't change, however the prices did. That means we spend more of income on one object than what was required beforehand.
+This '''INCOME''' we are '''FORCED''' to acquire to buy these items is the value we are comparing. '''NOT''' the value of the item. Last I checked, the system wasn't called ''"item value."'' What was it called again... hmm... Oh right! It was gold value. This is key to understanding why this system is 100% accurate, despite all the claims everyone has against it. What is changing is the value of gold, not the value of items. The reason why this is important is because it is so very difficult to acquire this income. Once we spend it, it disappears forever. All that work = gold. Same as in real life. All that work on the job = money. So despite changes in price not being safe, despite our baseline items not being safe,
+----
+) despite Rito somehow declaring "Oh, 1 health is worth 100 gold," We are not comparing the value of items here. We are comparing the money we are putting into it. If we are putting 400 gold into getting 150 health with a {{ii|Ruby Crystal}} and a {{ii|Randuin's Omen}} gives 500 health, I sure as hell know that the health on that thing is the same as 3+1/3 {{ii|Ruby Crystal|Ruby Crystals}} which would cost 1333+1/3 gold. Ain't no value of gold Rito says health has is going to change that. {{User:Double Slap/sig}} 20:24, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
+I agree with pretty much all of this. This is a well-formulated set of answers, and one I think can be used to set a solid foundation on how we establish gold value/efficiency and calculate it, even for items that don't exist yet. --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 22:22, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 }}
@@ Line 165: / Line 258: @@
 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.
+{{HiddenB|Willbachbakal's Protocol|align = center|content=
-{{hiddenB
-|header= Willbachbakal's Protocol:
-|align = center
-|content =
 *A stat is defined as an in-game numerical value with its own set of functions and properties. All in-game effects that have the exact same functions and properties so as to have no differences between them are considered to be the same stat. Any differences that are listed as special cases do not count.
 *The gold value of an item is defined as the amount of gold expected to pay for a stat on an item in the shop. If possible, the gold value of a stat is set using a '''baseline item''', using the following rules in order of priority:
@@ Line 208: / Line 298: @@
 # I bring this up because you 'had' to use an item to define the stat's value. The item is important in defining the value because the method you used in the beginning is based on the item. But from what I can see, after using the item to get the value, for no justification, you ignore the item from that point on to get an outcome you desire. If you're going to ignore things, you need to have evidence and reason why we should just ignore the item factor.
-## The reason why having multiple 'valid' gold value for a single stat (i.e {{ii|Long Sword}} & {{ii|B.F. Sword}}) is an issue is because of 'how' you wish to declare information. You present information as, "stat is worth Xg", and my examples are in the questions you answered below. You even force that within the protocol when you then declared that that using the stat in future event should ignore conditions to have. And the point is, until you prove it as a fact, you cannot be declaring "stat is worth Xg" as a fact, nor presenting it as a 'fact'. It's purposely misleading. So where is this proof? By proof, I mean something along the line of 'why must we use 1 AD = 36g'? If because 1 AD can equal something other than 36g and still work within the system, this is proof that 1 AD is not required to be 36g.
+## The reason why having multiple 'valid' gold value for a single stat (i.e {{ii|Long Sword}} & {{ii|B. F. Sword}}) is an issue is because of 'how' you wish to declare information. You present information as, "stat is worth Xg", and my examples are in the questions you answered below. You even force that within the protocol when you then declared that that using the stat in future event should ignore conditions to have. And the point is, until you prove it as a fact, you cannot be declaring "stat is worth Xg" as a fact, nor presenting it as a 'fact'. It's purposely misleading. So where is this proof? By proof, I mean something along the line of 'why must we use 1 AD = 36g'? If because 1 AD can equal something other than 36g and still work within the system, this is proof that 1 AD is not required to be 36g.
 # {{ii|Wit's End}} was my example. I even wrote it in right below it. Here's a citation then:
 ##''On auto-attack reliant Champions without AD scaling or crit, (e.g. {{Ci|Volibear}} or Phoenix {{Ci|Udyr}}) the 42 on hit damage can be thought of as AD, resulting in 42*36 = 1512 gold value worth of "AD"''
 ##''On auto-attack reliant Champions that deal predominately magic damage (e.g. {{Ci|Warwick}} or DPS {{Ci|Teemo}}) the magic resistance reduction can be thought of as magic penetration, resulting in 171.65 gold value worth of penetration per stack, maxing at 858.25 gold value worth of penetration at 5 stacks.''
 #This was added by you on Aug. 20th after I had removed it (occurred long after {{ii|Aether Wisp}} addition). This is my example you informing the reader that if you ignore everything that makes 42 magic damage different from 42 AD, then it's fine using the gold value of {{tt|36g|Let's not forget that this only makes sense if only AD's true worth is 36g since you have no disclaimer of any kind visible}}. You are telling the reader to use a method that goes against your own protocol, by pretending differences don't exist. If you're in the right situation, its fine to use that value. So my question is, if that's your protocol, how do you explain the usage of what I cited.
-## What I'm doing with AP is just an example you placed within cost analysis section, I am only looking at a given situation that results in AP doing nothing for a champion and relate that to an effect matches with the effect of AP, therefore having no differences within the given situation. For example, let's say {{ci|Garen}} builds a {{ii|Muramana}} and since the item's passive gives him no bonus due to having no mana, while [[mana regen]] and [[mana]] gives him nothing due to having no mana, there is no difference between the stats and item passive, and now I can say within the cost efficiency that the item's passive can be woth between at any possible value (i.e, maybe 0g to 9000000000g) because X [[mana]] and Y [[mana regen]] will always equal no effect for Garen. But if this is wrong, how do you excuse connections such as [[shield]] being the same as [[Health]], or the {{ii|Wit's End}} example. What will you do with them? Will you removed them all?
+## What I'm doing with AP is just an example you placed within cost analysis section, I am only looking at a given situation that results in AP doing nothing for a champion and relate that to an effect matches with the effect of AP, therefore having no differences within the given situation. For example, let's say {{ci|Garen}} builds a {{ii|Muramana}} and since the item's passive gives him no bonus due to having no mana, while [[mana regeneration]] and [[mana]] gives him nothing due to having no mana, there is no difference between the stats and item passive, and now I can say within the cost efficiency that the item's passive can be woth between at any possible value (i.e, maybe 0g to 9000000000g) because X [[mana]] and Y [[mana regeneration]] will always equal no effect for Garen. But if this is wrong, how do you excuse connections such as [[shield]] being the same as [[health]], or the {{ii|Wit's End}} example. What will you do with them? Will you removed them all?
 ##What about 'time' and 'duration'? Do they not also count as 'in-game' effects as all? Should we be ignoring them?
 # "Not only is this the simplest and best assumption we can make, (gold value/efficiency would have no meaning if stats didn't have consistent gold values)" <--- right there, you are declaring you are making an assumption. As I see it right now, there are pockets of 'assumed' information you have within your protocol that I yet to see be explained why they need to exist. Everything I have seen so far is, ''Your desired outcome is what is determining your method of finding the outcome''.  You designed it for your stats to have pre-determined meaning, then you created a rule to 'support' your pre-determined meaning. And my question is, why does the  "''A stat is assumed to always have the same gold value per unit, regardless of item placement or further conditionality.''" needs to exist to begin with? Most of the cost analyze section works without this rule. The only reason why I see it exist so far is that, you want to claim that a stat is worth Xg so you can then use it within areas that it normally could not do. [[User:ClariS|ClariS]] ([[User talk:ClariS|talk]]) 18:04, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
@@ Line 253: / Line 343: @@
 }}
+{{HiddenB|ClariS Guidlines|align = center|content=
-{{HiddenB
-|ClariS Guidlines
-|align= center
-|content=
 *There must be a baseline designated
 **Baselines are the items from which we compare all other items to. There is no RIGHT or WRONG baseline, but some are more useful than others.
@@ Line 301: / Line 388: @@
 ** "a stat cannot be worth two different values per unit within the same system (i.e. one using the same base)"). This is self-evident, and should require no justification <-- This only works if you actually had found the stats value, but I keep telling you, you haven't. You never justified your step of discarding the item from the gold value. You just picked an item, based on preferences you think will work and then declared that is the stat's value.
 [[User:ClariS|ClariS]] ([[User talk:ClariS|talk]]) 15:18, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
+* ''"how I define cost analysis, it has nothing to do with the amount of power it gives at any 'single' time."'': Why? Isn't time itself a condition you're ignoring? What does this say for an item like {{ii|Rod of Ages}}, which gains stats over time: are you really going to value it purely on the stats it gives upon purchase, discounting the rest of its power as uncountable? Wouldn't listing its stat gain over time be equally correct, and if not, why not?
+** You also didn't define the two most important terms in this discussion: gold value, and gold efficiency. This makes statements like "stop assuming the gold value is attached to the stat" difficult to fully understand: what is a gold value, to you? What is it tied to? Why can it not apply to a stat?
+* Wouldn't "letting a few cracks exist" be evidence that your system is flawed, or at least doesn't correspond to the consensus of gold value? If your system is flawless, why would you have to manipulate certain results in order for your model to look acceptable?
+** Attacking me personally doesn't lend to your credibility or objectivity, and neither does relegating the community's opinion to "bandwagoning". This discussion is meant to establish a consensus, and if you happen to be in the minority you can't just go around editing the mainspace as you please, as if you were somehow better than everyone else and only your opinion mattered. You clearly came to this discussion with a grudge, and even now you're letting it get in the way of a productive exchange. I've said this before: I'm not trying to oppose you, I'm trying to work with you, and you continuously antagonizing me isn't going to make this easier for either of us.
+* From what I understand, you want cost analyses to be a recipe of baseline items, avoiding stats entirely. I disagree with this approach for several reasons:
+** Even though you may not be referring explicitly to stats here, you're implicitly including them in all of your calculations. You're taking the stats on the original item, selecting the appropriate baselines, and parcelling them out so that they match the main item's stat values. All of this is far more complicated than just going directly to the stats, and your recipe method has little to do with how items work (what does 4.5 Long Swords even mean? does it even make sense to talk about half a Long Sword?).
+** It's completely counter-intuitive, and would confuse anyone looking at a cost analysis even if they knew what you meant by gold value (which I still don't, as you still haven't given your definition). The unfinished prototype you attempted to add to the mainspace was an eyesore; by contrast, a stat-based breakdown is immediately recognizable, as it ties directly to the item itself without having to go through secondary items every time.
+** It completely distorts the reasoning I think is at the core of gold value: if I buy a B. F. Sword, I'm expecting to pay for attack damage, not Long Swords or Pickaxes or whatever. Like both of us said, the baseline items aren't important in themselves to the validity of the gold value/efficiency and cost analysis system, so why put them in the foreground? Isn't what they represent (stats) more important?
+--[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 09:25, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 ----------------------------------------------------
 The cost analysis section is a comparing tool between different items, using gold as its measuring stick.
@@ Line 314: / Line 413: @@
 [[User:ClariS|ClariS]] ([[User talk:ClariS|talk]]) 15:13, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
+This overall looks fairly sound. My only reservation is that I don't think it's worth mentioning baseline items within a cost analysis, for reasons of clarity (30 AD and 15% attack speed is a lot more easily identifiable than 3 Longswords + 1 Dagger). While these would be the baseline items selected to evaluate the stats (and I think that should be mentioned on the gold value article), I think the cost analysis should just be there to give a stat-by-stat rundown of an item's gold value and efficiency, and therefore be as clear and concise as possible. --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 09:25, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
+* Add my response to you is this, no, if you want to use this method, I will put the item for the simple sake of cutting out the {{tt|'middle-man'|the stat}} of the entire comparison to avoid confusion (a.k.a, your confusion on the section). Stop assuming the stat is what is important here. It isn't. The stat is just a mean to connect the different items to be compared. The importance is the items. The items are the backbone of the comparison because the items were what was chosen to determine the baseline, not the stat. People can say with a fact that; {{ii|Long Sword}} grants +10 AD for a cost of 360g. But they can't say a fact is that; 1 AD is worth 36g, because even with the theory of how you determined the value, if someone wanted to say 1 AD can be worth something else, there is no evidence in the game that would support which one is a correct.
+** Also it's redundant to be listing down the stats twice on the same page.
+** It's actually not confusing. It's pretty simple. How much does 3 {{ii|Dagger}} cost? 900g. Tada. That's it's gold value. Hence the name, gold value. That's what we're comparing between the items. Their cost or in other words, how much gold it requires to purchase the item compared to purchasing it through a different means.
+** And the reason why the system only allows looking at that comparison is because 'the cost' was what was assigned to be our measuring stick, and because so, we could only look at what 'cost of an item' is relevant for, which is, when buying an item. It serves no other purpose outside of that within the game.
+* You do realize that by accepting my method, all passive/aura/active effects that are given gold values (i.e {{ii|Guinsoo's Rageblade}}, {{ii|Youmuu's Ghostblade}}, etc) will have to be removed due to they don't have a 'baseline' to be valued as. I am not going to allow those to exist since they dilute the meaning of gold value itself. Unlike the base stats on items which I can find support for, those passive/active/aura works in a completely different method that requires so much assumed steps without evidence to support it (making it purely a estimation and actually have a different meaning), while at the same time using the exact same terminology that those base stats uses.
+** By different meaning, I mean, this method is not about looking  when you purchase it, but when you use it. For example on {{ii|Youmuu's Ghostblade}} with how it is presented on the item pages, the cost efficiency actually changes based on how you used the item. A buyer does not get a choice rather he gets the item while active or not, the buyers gets all it's pros and cons at purchase. It sends a conflicting message that 'how you use the passive/active/aura' affects gold value and to any unknowing reader, they then might assume this is true for that 'how you use the stat' affects its gold value.
+* Lastly, what you're trying to do within your method does not require gold value at all (or any value at all). The addition of a value is 100% worthless and adds nothing you will make with it. Any person should know that if you have an aura granting bonus stats to nearby allies, you are granting a lot of stats when nearby those items. The percentage that is placed within the section is not related to when you purchased it nor is it comparing an item. It just adds a lot more terms, which could be summed up easier like this, you add X amount of stats when next to Y amount of allies.
+* And before I sign off, I am fully aware where you are coming from. I was like you when I first started setting this up in how I thought it was meant to mean. I even some what argued for what you are trying to do when we first argued. But the thing is, someone pointed out the huge assumptions I was making and with it, I realized what I had initially done was misleading.[[User:ClariS|ClariS]] ([[User talk:ClariS|talk]]) 16:51, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
+Again, not defining gold value or gold efficiency in a discussion that revolves around both means there's no real way of knowing what you mean with those terms. In fact, the system you're proposing here is so divorced from anything resembling gold value that it may as well be an entirely different system altogether. It is you who are making an assumption in stating that gold value is unrelated to stats, and that assumption is demonstrably false: the only reason a fraction of an item makes any sense is because you're implicitly bringing it down to the stats it represents. The only reason you're selecting certain baselines for certain items is because they share stats in common. Stats are at the core of even your system, despite your attempts to hide them. People don't think in terms of baseline items when they look at an item, they look at its stats and effects, and that is why I think any gold value system pertaining to itemization would be based around stats, and not other items (even though those items are selected to establish the gold value of the stat they represent). You claim to have somehow advanced to a new level of understanding, but what you're proposing makes no sense, and has little to offer to anyone who'd be looking at your cost analyses besides very confusing pseudo-item recipes. You have made a fundamental mistake in attempting to deliberately cut stats out of gold value, and no amount of special pleading or modification to suit readers' expectations is going to make your system any less broken. --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 03:38, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
+Response~
+Oh my god.... do I really need to spell this out for you.
+* Gold value - the amount of gold you will spend for the baseline items if you were to buy them
+* Gold efficiency - the amount of gold you spend for the actual item compared to the theoretical constructed one (a.k.a, the baseline items).
+Willbach, this is what I been telling you, STOP ASSUMING IT'S ABOUT THE STAT. This is not me saying, stat is irrelevant. This is me saying, stop looking only at the stats and actually consider the item that provides the stat and the gold value. Use your brain and actually think about everything around it. The currency League of Legends uses is gold. Gold is used to buys items that provides stats/bonuses/or whatever Riot decides to do within an item. Gold has no direct relation with the stat itself, therefore, using gold as a measuring stick to define a stat's value is meaningless on a whole.
+Don't be assuming on false information from my information. The item encompasses the stat's requirement. You have to match as closely as possible to the item, which naturally includes the stat. But the stat is 'not' everything. It's the item. The item is the core. Stats are just one of the other things we have to consider within the item.
+And yes, as I had stated this before, this is a Wikia. The main task of the wikia is to provide facts, not provide theories that is based on theorized value. Reader's expectation has to be changed if you want any validity to the actual section. If your objective is to just keep people happy at the expense of providing worthless information that is also misleading, I'm not gonna allow that every. If you want to add something, then 'prove it' and figure out what it means. If you can, I will use it without a question. Until then, I'm gonna delete anything to keep it as close to factual as possible.  [[User:ClariS|ClariS]] ([[User talk:ClariS|talk]]) 04:22, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
+Yes, you do need to spell these things out, as these definitions frame everything we're talking about right now. Your definition of gold value is also incomplete, and likely erroneous: baseline item for what? Why baseline items? What does gold value ''mean''? You just gave a description of how it applies to certain very specific items, and that's not what a definition is. You accuse me of wanting to push non-factual information, and ask me to back everything I say with proof, but your own approach is riddled with specious assumptions and a serious lack of clarity. In the end, you're also making a big argument out of nothing at all: we're both using similar methods, but whereas I focus on stats, you focus on baseline items. A simple item-to-stat conversion (e.g. 1 Long Sword = 10 AD) flips from your method to mine, and vice versa. However, I think my method is better, because stats are easier to understand and read, especially for anyone new to gold efficiency, and breaking down gold value according to stats makes a lot more sense due to how you're comparing baseline items to the main item in question (0.5 Long Swords, on the other hand, makes no sense at all, especially if you decide to take your own "gold value can only apply to items and not stats" approach). It is disingenuous of you to accuse me of "providing worthless information" and avoiding facts when you're doing exactly the same thing as me, except with a mode of presentation so confusing as to make cost analyses impossible to understand, even to an experienced user. I can say this for sure because I have seen your format on the mainspace, and even with my full knowledge of every baseline item behind each stat I could not derive anything useful from your cost analyses or understand what you were trying to convey. Your method and presentation are inferior in every way to the wiki's current model, which manages to convey more information in a better format and be just as factual. I'm not saying the mainspace's model should stay the same, per se, but I think there is nothing that could justify replacing it with your own system. --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 10:59, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
+Okay, didn't see this when I posted my outline, in fact, i'm pretty sure you wrote this after I wrote the outline because I wrote a response and my outline at the same time:
+*Why? Isn't time itself a condition you're ignoring? What does this say for an item like {{ii|Rod of Ages}}, which gains stats over time: are you really going to value it purely on the stats it gives upon purchase, discounting the rest of its power as uncountable? Wouldn't listing its stat gain over time be equally correct, and if not, why not?
+** My response: How am I ignoring time if the reason why we can't give it a value is because of it's time. Understand this, just because there isn't a value being given does not mean those effect has zero value. It just means, any value that can be given is nothing more but a 'theory'.
+*Attacking me personally doesn't lend to your credibility or objectivity, and neither does relegating the community's opinion to "bandwagoning". This discussion is meant to establish a consensus, and if you happen to be in the minority you can't just go around editing the mainspace as you please, as if you were somehow better than everyone else and only your opinion mattered. You clearly came to this discussion with a grudge, and even now you're letting it get in the way of a productive exchange. I've said this before: I'm not trying to oppose you, I'm trying to work with you, and you continuously antagonizing me isn't going to make this easier for either of us.
+** I'm sorry if you thinking a consensus is what you think this is, because it's not. As I told you, this is a wiki about providing facts. If the community consensus is to believe a factless theory, the section will be be deleted and kept out from the main pages. You can do it the cost efficiency page all you want, but it stays out of the items.
+** And I will keep calling you a broken record because you still are. For the longest time we have been arguing, I have always known you had no evidence to back up the 'stats is what we're looking at only', but you keep using it over and over and over and over as your base of arguments. The reason why I gave you the chance to go first, was to see if you actually had legit different method, but the moment I saw you going through the structure of picking the cheapest tier item, I already knew you had no chance of ever providing the fact. You had nothing to support it other than, 'i wanted it that way'. But yet, you keep using that as a basis on many of your questions right now.
+* It completely distorts the reasoning I think is at the core of gold value: if I buy a B. F. Sword, I'm expecting to pay for attack damage, not Long Swords or Pickaxes or whatever. Like both of us said, the baseline items aren't important in themselves to the validity of the gold value/efficiency and cost analysis system, so why put them in the foreground? Isn't what they represent (stats) more important?
+** I actually do believe that putting the stats is important, and is why I initially used it. Except it hits 1 large problem. People like you who thinks the stats is 'everything' and is what is the sole thing that makes the section valuable. That's why I'm changing it so your misconception of the section is in the background where the fact and backbone is in the front.
+* Wouldn't "letting a few cracks exist" be evidence that your system is flawed, or at least doesn't correspond to the consensus of gold value? If your system is flawless, why would you have to manipulate certain results in order for your model to look acceptable?
+** Because unlike what you think I am, I don't like being a strict moderator. If people want something, I am willing to bend for their wants as long as they have some justification. But as I told you, in my ideal version, there would only be 1 assumption and that is the ignorance of buildpath with all other assumption being taken care of. And because of that assumption or ignoring build path and components, gold efficiency and build path needs to be kept as two different entity when in discussions, which doesn't seem to have much of an issue.
+** And also, what I am manipulating? Unlike you, I do follow the concept of everything I put in place, and any assumption or thing I can't do, I modify the meaning of what I'm doing to account for those assumptions/things I can't do.
+[[User:ClariS|ClariS]] ([[User talk:ClariS|talk]]) 06:29, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
+If there is one thing valuable to the discussion in this ad hominem-riddled set of paragraphs, it's that you think the current model of cost analyses doesn't take items enough into account: what would you suggest to make items more important in the current cost analysis format? Aside from your proposed baseline item-centric method, which is a terrible and ultimately pointless way of showcasing an item's value, how would you go about modifying the current format? For example, if each stat had an collapsible asterisk or a tooltip indicating the baseline item it's derived from, would you consider that an improvement to the system? --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 10:59, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
+~~ OMG, Willbach, ad hominem is about attacking a personality characteristic to undermine their argument. But apparently, you do realize that I keep saying, "PROVE YOUR THEORY!" I keep calling you a broken record is because you keep using an argument that has no factual evidence to support itself. ANd everytime I bring you up is because these are differences you and I do in regards to things. If you need proof, they are in your protocol.
+#  it's that you think the current model of cost analyses doesn't take items enough into account: what would you suggest to make items more important in the current cost analysis format?
+## BY simply not discarding all conditions that comes along the item for no reason when establishing what is the baseline. And then you can only apply the baseline in a comparison when all factors are the same. The item's conditions are just as important as the stat's condition.
+# Aside from your proposed baseline item-centric method, which is a terrible and ultimately pointless way of showcasing an item's value, how would you go about modifying the current format?
+## Actually, there was a somewhat different method I tried to do first, but constantly kept on failing on creating the template. It was that if you just hover over the item, it would list it's cost and stat it gives. But the format would have been what you saw already WIllbach. LIst items, list a theoretically amount of them that would equal up the stats of the items (even if it requires a decimal), and list the amount of gold it would theoretically cost to obtain. But note this, no matter what is done, everything is still a theory, except in this one, it's  a theory based on actual things in the game.
+#For example, if each stat had an collapsible asterisk or a tooltip indicating the baseline item it's derived from, would you consider that an improvement to the system?
+## It's a slight improvement, but I won't settle for anything less than making the item the forefront. The items is what gives it any validity to the 'gold' value that is given in the entire comparison. The stat does not do that. The item does that because it requires gold to buy the items. There is a strong implication that item conditions does not matter. And I use you as my prime example, a person who keeps ignoring the condition of the item that are chosen as a baseline even though there is no proof or evidence that would support such a course of action.
+## Willbach, even if you don't ever think about buying the item, but just for the stats, it does not change the fact that you need to spend gold to buy the item to acquire the stat.
+[[User:ClariS|ClariS]] ([[User talk:ClariS|talk]]) 15:05, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
+# Good to know we agree on this. This is, by the way, why I want to list the conditionals when it comes to stats attached to variable effects (i.e. "Rod of Ages becomes X% more gold efficient per stack" and the like), and not simply discount the effect altogether.
+# Putting baseline items at the forefront instead of stats does not make your system more factual, it's just worse presentation. I'm not saying your system isn't valid enough for a Wiki, it's just that you're running along exactly the same core reasoning and methods as mine, which you've been criticizing for supposed lack of factuality.
+# Good to know that you consider that an improvement. I think this might be worth pitching in the discussion announcement. While I agree that you need to spend gold to buy an item in order to acquire stats (hence both stats and items having gold values), I don't think that means you're specifically buying Long Swords whenever you're purchasing items like {{ii|Infinity Edge}}, {{ii|Guinsoo's Rageblade}} or {{ii|Frozen Mallet}}, which is one of the many reasons why I think putting baseline items at the forefront makes a lot less sense than going directly to stats. --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 22:42, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
+~~ response again
+# No WIllbach, I do not agree with you on variable effects (i.e. "Rod of Ages becomes X% more gold efficient per stack" and the like). That is everything I am going against and every reason that the people who disagree with the section is right. Doing stuff like that is just a glorified way of informing people, you get more stats.  The reason why in my method this cannot be done is because 'the passive does not match the 'item' condition of the baseline item', something you constantly keep ignoring. Stop ignoring the conditions the item has as well.
+# I keep criticizing your lack of factuality is because you keep ignoring the condition of the baseline items. That's what making your information lack any factuality. Once again, I'm gonna change it soly on the basis to stop people from making the wrong conclusion. And once again, my prime example is you. You keep believing that the stat is ''most important part'' in regards to this and completely ignore the baseline items condition. For example, how are you even giving ROd of Ages passive effect a gold value. The passive has a delay condition that the baseline items do not have. That's a difference that is going accounted for and has all means to alter the gold value at any amount that you have no idea.
+# The stat's value you use are determined by the baseline items you choose. Once again, I keep telling you, you're doing the exact same thing as well. And I don't care Willbach, people can adjust to change easily. It's not that hard. I'm not going to let the stats be in the foreground anymore so that people like you don't assume the stat is 'everything'. It never has been.
+# And lastly, Willbach, I know you're going to disagree with me on this but, this is all I see Cost analysis is useful for. It helps determine 'when' you buy an item, and nothing else. Cost analysis is best when a person is on a tight budget, but the more gold someone has, the less important cost efficiency becomes. Any reasons of why to buy an item, the section cannot do. And also, because the total gold for a champion is always increasing, the less useful it becomes and slot efficiency and effectiveness becomes the sole factor of what we choose.
+[[User:ClariS|ClariS]] ([[User talk:ClariS|talk]]) 15:23, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
+I think the main difference here is that you view items as static entities, whereas I think the better way to evaluate them is dynamically: to you, Rod of Ages's passive effect is a static entity, and so is exactly the same whether you just bought the item or are ten minutes later into the game. I agree that if you were to take the whole passive it would be a static entity, but that's ignoring what the passive does, and stopping at it without separating the stats from the conditions: at any point in time, Rod of Ages gives an exact amount of stats, and I think that's enough to justify evaluating it on a minute-by-minute basis: the stats its passive gives work in exactly the same way as its core stats, and its condition just means you unlock more of these stats over time. It is you who are ignoring the uniqueness of items and their conditional passives, not me, and therefore it is you who should be questioning the factuality of your own system. You are assuming that items are always the same regardless of conditions, and that assumption is provably false (see the Rod of Ages example). This isn't really relevant to your mode of presentation, which I think wouldn't be a good choice for the wiki (people can adjust to change easily, but why do that when the original version is just plain better?), but I think this mistake you're making is at the core of our disagreement, and the reason why you're butting heads against me and many other users who have been working on cost analyses. --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 17:12, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
+response ~
+Willbach, you have no evidence that your values from your baseline is even valid for a dynamic value. Secondly, that defeats the entire purpose of even using the cost of an item if you're just gonna look at the minute-by-minute stat it acquires, when the cost only factors at the moment you purchase the item. No one needs the wikia to tell them that their item is giving them more than stats. If you want that dynamica values, then don't use gold and cost of an item because those things aren't dynamic. It is both misleading and completely pointless when you're not even holding onto how gold and cost even factor in the game.
+And willbach, I'm through arguing about this. I don't have much time to be spending on this. So if you're gonna argue for your thing, I'm gonna say this to you, after a month or so when I come back to this wikia, if I come back and see the item pages still providing 'values' to the passive/actives/aura (a.k.a, you call it evaluating them dynamically), I'm gonna delete the entire section because:
+# The base values of all the stats are a theorized value base on a few steps that requires large steps of ignoring information, and then everything else hinges on the completely theorized numbers. Making this, 100% theorized with zero facts. And this something the Wikia is not meant to do, especially on a main page like the item page.
+# It is misleading because both gold and the cost of the item as no real function with your comparison. You're looking and valuing things that are past the point where cost and gold even mattered for the item.
+#  There is no evidence to back up the information, nor what you are doing is even needed to be giving the stat (and only the stat) an arbitrary number and comparing it to cost when they have NO CORRELATION with each other. It means nothing of importance.
+<br>
+And so, my final words to you if you really want your 'ideal section' within the item pages:
+# Develop a completely different framework on how stats are values. Basing it on the items has no grounds for stats value and I will remove if I see it being used as your grounds for the values.
+# Don't use the 'gold' as your unit, when you don't care about the item in which the gold is required to use to buy from. Don't use cost of an item when you're not using the gold of the item.
+I'm tired and I'm gonna get busy again and most likely won't be spending much of any of my freetime here for the next month. Later ~~ [[User:ClariS|ClariS]] ([[User talk:ClariS|talk]])
+Good to know you never really cared about this discussion, and still want to change the wiki your way, regardless of what other people say. I wouldn't recommend you going through with your threat of vandalism, not just because it's going to get reverted anyway, but also because it's just going to make you lose what little credibility you have left. Nothing that you have formulated in this discussion has been positive or conducive to constructive exchange, and I seriously doubt your capability to ever contribute positively to this issue in the future. --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 02:01, January 27, 2015 (UTC)
 }}
 == 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?
+And lastly for all those who oppose the cost efficiency section and want its 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.
@@ Line 328: / Line 505: @@
 ** 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? --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 08:11, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
 *** I think gold efficiency is ''mostly'' useful only for theorycrafting, and I think the methods used can be problematic. But that's a different discussion. Anyway, yeah, clarity. I think a big problem is how prominently the cost analysis is displayed on the page: it's right below the recipe, and above Notes and Strategy, both of which tend to feature more actual advice and information about the item from a gameplay perspective. It's a fairly natural assumption that more prominent information is more useful - why do we put Trivia at the bottom, for instance? I think cost efficiency, if it should indeed be featured on item pages, should be above Trivia and '''below''' Notes/Strategy. Thus it's only reached after reading through the more directly useful and new-player friendly information. That would be the clarity change I feel to be the most important, even if none of my other suggestions are implemented, but... I also think the disclaimer should be changed: for a start, it's not visible to anyone who doesn't know to mouseover a bit of dotted-underlined text on Wikia. Perhaps if cost efficiency is in a drop-down box (as it currently is on a few pages including Black Cleaver) it could be listed at the start of the section, above the calculation. Even if it remains in the dotted-underline mouseover text, though, I feel it should at the very least have the bit about "cost efficiency is '''not''' a measure of the item's overall effectiveness" moved to the start rather than at the end after a description of the calculation, so people won't just tl;dr it and miss that bit of information. Finally, I think the %values ''can'' be misleading, rather than just an addition of the gold value of the stats; I refer to my aforementioned experience of the "100% efficient = good" assumption from a newcomer, but perhaps with a more prominent disclaimer with that illusion dispelled at the very start as I suggested, people would be less likely to fall into that trap.
-**** I ''really'' like the idea of making cost analyses even more discrete on item pages. The drop-down template was made to reduce the amount of space taken by cost analyses, and I think it could be made even more space-efficient (though ideally still visible enough for people wanting to see an item's cost analyses). If it could happen, I'd really like an item's cost analysis to actually be a collapsible part of the item's infobox, so pressing a button would just make a section pop out to the side or something and give a detailed account of the item's gold value and efficiency, and not pressing it would make the analysis take zero space on the visible page. If an item's cost analysis could take zero space on its article and be fully ignored by people not interested in it, would you support it, and if so, would you prefer it or still rather go for removal (due to questionable usefulness, validity, etc.)? Clarity would be important here, so the template would likely not be so invisible as to be easily overlooked or impossible to find, but ignoring that for the moment, how much visibility would you go for, assuming cost analyses remained a part of item articles? --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 22:30, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
+**** I ''really'' like the idea of making cost analyses even more discrete on item pages. The drop-down template was made to reduce the amount of space taken by cost analyses, and I think it could be made even more space-efficient (though ideally still visible enough for people wanting to see an item's cost analysis). If it could happen, I'd really like an item's cost analysis to actually be a collapsible part of the item's infobox, so pressing a button would just make a section pop out to the side or something and give a detailed account of the item's gold value and efficiency, and not pressing it would make the analysis take zero space on the visible page. If an item's cost analysis could take zero space on its article and be fully ignored by people not interested in it, would you support it, and if so, would you prefer it or still rather go for removal (due to questionable usefulness, validity, etc.)? Clarity would be important here, so the template would likely not be so invisible as to be easily overlooked or impossible to find, but ignoring that for the moment, how much visibility would you go for, assuming cost analyses remained a part of item articles? --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 22:30, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
-*** Example Extra Clarity™ disclaimer:  "Cost analysis is '''not''' a valuation of an item's strength or effectiveness, rather a comparison tool using statistical values as reference points... etc." All the information there for people who are interested, the important bit at the beginning for people who are quickly browsing to check out item information and might not read the whole thing. - Unevent
+*** Example Extra Clarity™ disclaimer: "Cost analysis is '''not''' a valuation of an item's strength or effectiveness, rather a comparison tool using statistical values as reference points... etc." All the information there for people who are interested, the important bit at the beginning for people who are quickly browsing to check out item information and might not read the whole thing. - Unevent
 **** I agree with this, the disclaimer was a major point in the last discussion and it was implemented with the idea of balancing visibility, clarity and conciseness. While I think it did good, at least compared to when it didn't exist, it clearly isn't quite there yet. How visible would you like the information to be? Does the tooltip format work, or should the disclaimer be spelled out explicitly on the page? Would you rather the disclaimer be directly included in every cost analysis, as it is now, or would you prefer if the template linked to it? --[[User:Willbachbakal|Willbachbakal]] ([[User talk:Willbachbakal|talk]]) 22:30, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
+***** I'm no savant at Wikia coding, but I attempted to sandbox something like what I envisage as a possibility using excerpts from The Black Cleaver page as a base. http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/User:Unevent/Sandbox - At the bottom of the page, above Patch History and Trivia but below Notes/Strategy we have an expandable section for gold efficiency, with the disclaimer prominently displayed at the top, but in a smallish font so as not to dominate the section. I left out the %calculation for the sake of time and because it's not strictly speaking necessary, but you could chuck it back in if you wanted. Apologies for it looking a little rough: I tried to knock it up quickly without knowing all the wikicode to implement everything as it'd look on the page. Thoughts? - Unevent
-*
+***** Moving it to the bottom is perfectly fine. As for the description, as soon as the exact details are worked out, it should be easy to be added, maybe even smaller, like with a front with half the size. Hehhe. [[User:ClariS|ClariS]] ([[User talk:ClariS|talk]]) 15:41, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
-*
+****** Sounds good to me. I'd be much more okay with cost efficiency being on item pages if such changes went through. - Unevent
-*
+*I think cost efficiency as a whole is a sub-optimal analysis. The much more beneficial analysis would be Cost/Benefit choice analysis. Like Least Ratio -> Best Choice, as per Volibear#comm-1176230. Nonetheless this analysis requires "exponential" effort(cost) valuable for single binary choices but the cost is too great to do the same for the number of Items Riot provides. We would need to compare every single item with every other. Effort = [ Time invested for  the Analysis for 1 Item x ( Number of All items - 1 Item)] ^ 2 Restricting the analysis with comparable Items only would be optimal [[User:Ntoulinho|Ntoulinho]]
+** [[User:Ntoulinho|Ntoulinho]] can you explain your model? I understand your process, but could you expand upon your idea and show how we would be able to implement a cost/benefit ratio as a replacement for a gold efficiency ratio. If you model how the cost/benefit ratio would be implemented, then we would be able to apply the model into our analysis. I believe if we can merge the idea of formulating champions and analyzing the items with a cost/benefit ratio, we would be able to more accurately judge an item's value. --{{User:Double Slap/sig}} 22:51, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
+* The biggest issue I have with Gold Efficiency stems from the statement "information without context is meaningless". When asking the pole-bearers for Gold Efficiency what the actual definition of it is, you will most likely get wildly varying answers. So the biggest hurdle would be to educate people on what gold efficiency actually is and how it can be used.The second issue is that Gold Efficiency isn't easy. It is in fact a highly theoretical concept, one which is difficult to translate into any practical use due to the many variables provided by League of Legends as a game. Just like the [[attack speed]] and [[attack delay]] pages, the majority of users will not take the effort to completely understand how it works and just use one of the many builder websites to calculate attack speed.I see no point in maintaining and updating information that the majority won't use correctly, and is of arguable benefit for people that do understand it.  [[User:Deshiba|Deshiba, the Nitpicker]] 10:54, March 26, 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.
-*
-*