Forums: Index > Wiki DiscussionItem Value vs. Item Cost
Note: This topic has been unedited for 5176 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.
I noticed it's not made clear "Item Value" or "Item Cost" and incorrect assumptions are possible. And incorrect values are being filled in already. Hollowness 06:14, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Please can we either add both Item Value and Item Cost to the itemtransformers or something because I find Cost>Value for item I want to know how much it cost far more than what it's value is, maybe in the case of equipment since most is drops or given to you fine but every other item in the game Cost>Value. And for the worries of discounts and non, base cost then. Hollowness | Talk | Contr 16:33, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
- The reason there isn't an Item Cost is because the buy and sell price of any item is related to the merchant. The mechanic of the game is this - every item has a value. That's the only price associated with an item. When you open a merchant tab, that value is multipled by a buy markdown and a sell markup associated with the merchant. For an example of this see User:Caridin/sandbox. Some items are only available on one merchant - eg Felon's Coat, but, that list is fairly short. In conclusion, the buy and sell price only makes sense in the context of a merchant. Here's an examples of a template prototype that allows you to get an item sell price without hard coding the value in. -- tierrie talk contr 18:58, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
{{Merchant
|name=Bodahn
|item=Bergen's Honor
}}
- Within the template {{Merchant}} you would take the parameters to retrieve the markup and markdown prices from the merchant Bodahn, and the values from Bergen's Honor and perform calculations on that value to return the buy and sell price. You would need to modify the MerchantTransformer and ItemTransformer template so that you can extract just one value from it - for example, adding a |style=value transform to Items which returns simply - {{{value}}}.
- Then, I suggest removing value on the item transformer people are putting cost at value and I find it next to useless seeing 50% (not accurate but it feels like it) of the items with 0
0
0
and find if really obtuse seeing values on the rest of the items (most items are between 50
to 25, imo isn't worth documenting on every or any item) unless it is on a merchant page. But I mean if this is truly valued to have values maybe at least un-inputted values to not should up on the as 0 0 0 would be a nice clean up. Hollowness | Talk | Contr 19:21, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
- Then, I suggest removing value on the item transformer people are putting cost at value and I find it next to useless seeing 50% (not accurate but it feels like it) of the items with 0
- You misunderstood what I said. An item always has value. Just inspect it and you will see its intrinsic immutable value. But, a buy and sell price only exists in the context of a merchant. In game terminology, the price you end up seeing is the markup and markdown modifier multiplied by the items value. For example, An Example Necklace is worth 10000 or 1. If you sold it to User:Caridin/sandbox#Bodahn.27s_Wares he'd pay you 25% of it. If you then tried to buy it back he'd charge you 150% of it. The sell price to Bodahn and Bodahn alone is 25. Correspondingly the buy price from Bodahn is 1 50. -- tierrie talk contr 19:52, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
- You misunderstood what I said. An item always has value. Just inspect it and you will see its intrinsic immutable value. But, a buy and sell price only exists in the context of a merchant. In game terminology, the price you end up seeing is the markup and markdown modifier multiplied by the items value. For example, An Example Necklace is worth 10000 or 1
- I think you misunderstand me, I mean in wiki not in game. Grand Oak Acorn is an item and since value wasn't put in it defaults at 000 (as well as other items). Hollowness | Talk | Contr 23:45, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is useful to have the item value in the transformer and shown in the box - or would be if the information were correct/complete. And I agree value is a better measure than the merchant-dependant cost. But I do understand why people might enter a cost rather than value in the field out of confusion. Is there anything we can do to address this, eg make the "Value" cell heading a hyperlink to a short article explaining what value is, how it differs from cost and how to find an item's value? Might be a bit tatty, though so just throwing that idea in there. ♦ Zoev Talk 21:04, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
- Cost values:Greater Injury Kit, Greater Lyrium Potion, and not to mention all items that say 0 0 0. But yes, consistency is needed about values, anyways that you guys decide, I'll help fix. Hollowness | Talk | Contr 23:45, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
- Cost values:Greater Injury Kit, Greater Lyrium Potion, and not to mention all items that say 0
- I think two things can happen to clear this up a bit because it is very confusing.
- 1) Make value a link to the mechanics of how "value" is modified to end up with the merchant price.
- 2) Add a high and low cost to the template
- As a side note I think adding "Maximum Available" section to the template would be very useful as well since there's limited quantities of certain items and it would be very helpful to know if it's a unique item that won't be purchasable anywhere else. Jmjimmy 01:09, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding how the values work - it seems like you're jumping into the middle of the conversation without properly understanding how the price work. There's no high and low cost to an item - there's merchants that has the best markups and the lowest markups. In addition, we are looking at eliminating "value" from the users, so when the "Availability" section is included into the wiki, we can eliminate the value entirely and replace it with a Availability table instead. Until then, you are welcomed to write this mechanic if you wish. -- tierrie talk contr 05:24, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I did read what was said, in full, and I do understand that there is just markups being applied to a base value. The average player doesn't really know this or really need to - all they want to know is "What is the cheapest price I can buy this item for?" ie: low cost and the highest cost so they can decide if it's worth their time to travel to a place where they can get it cheaper or not (availability factors in there too). At the end of the day the mechanics will always spit out a lowest and highest value. Jmjimmy 06:45, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Its good that you mentioned this. At the end of the day, each item should have an "Availability" section, and the MerchantTables were designed so you could include the items there. Those tables display the buy and sell prices. And since the MerchantTables are sortable, it will allow you to see which merchant sells an item cheaply. -- tierrie talk contr 09:14, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I did read what was said, in full, and I do understand that there is just markups being applied to a base value. The average player doesn't really know this or really need to - all they want to know is "What is the cheapest price I can buy this item for?" ie: low cost and the highest cost so they can decide if it's worth their time to travel to a place where they can get it cheaper or not (availability factors in there too). At the end of the day the mechanics will always spit out a lowest and highest value. Jmjimmy 06:45, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding how the values work - it seems like you're jumping into the middle of the conversation without properly understanding how the price work. There's no high and low cost to an item - there's merchants that has the best markups and the lowest markups. In addition, we are looking at eliminating "value" from the users, so when the "Availability" section is included into the wiki, we can eliminate the value entirely and replace it with a Availability table instead. Until then, you are welcomed to write this mechanic if you wish. -- tierrie talk contr 05:24, February 8, 2010 (UTC)