Misleading efficiency and highlighting 'what to buy next'.

Create issue
Issue #11 open
Former user created an issue

The numbers in the game are currently leading only to one conclusion: with most of the upgrades bought, the only structures worth it are grandmas time machines and anti-matter condensers. Everything in between is just a step on the ladder to get to the good, efficient structures.

Because of that, the current efficiency formula seems somewhat lacking, as it promotes the cheapest Price/CPS upgrade possible. As it may sound effective, it is not, when juxtaposing later structures with the earliest ones, i.e. buy cursor with low price/CPS value, even if there are other structures available and would yield more cookies overall.

For an example, please refer to the attached screenshot.

If the tool developer were kind enough to add the ('Add CPS' / 'Payoff in seconds') value described in the title of the enhancement, it would be easier to judge what to buy next. Pointing out the next structure to buy by checking only the Price/CPS values seems inadequate.

With the current system, when the user wants to buy as few structures as possible (i.e. 1 of each and wait for the next one available, clicking like mad or idling in the meantime) then it makes no sense, the system proposes to buy more cursors, while they may be cheap and their price/cps factor is the lowest available, they are not the best choice.

If possible, make several sorting patterns to be chosen from, with the current one marked as 'legacy' and the new ones with their own names.

It would be a further enhancement if formula 1/(Add CPS * Price/CPS) could be included in another column as well, as it shows the added cps in relation to price - effectively disregarding the cursors and other structures when they are simply not viable.

Comments (1)

  1. Riikka Kalliomäki repo owner
    • changed status to open

    The current efficiency is actually calculated via $price / $cps + $price / $delta, where lower is better. So it's not just $price / $delta. ($delta is the CPS increase provided by the object/upgrade, $cps is the current CPS). The displayed percentage is just $bestEfficiency / $objectEfficiency.

    The reasoning behind the formula is this: Given two purchase considerations A and B, it's best to buy A first, if you can buy them both faster by buying A first. In other words, A.Price / CPS + B.Price / (CPS + A.CPS) < B.Price / CPS + A.Price / (CPS + B.CPS). With a bit of algebra, we get A.Price / CPS + A.Price / A.CPS < B.Price / CPS + B.Price / B.CPS. Which allows us to get a nice comparable number to reach the highest CPS in the shortest amount of time.

    Having run several simulations, testing just $price / $delta, the one above and the ones you provided (i.e. $delta / ($price / $delta) and 1 / ($delta * $price / $cps)), I've pretty much come to the conclusion, that the formula I use to offer best purchases is the fastest path to highest CPS.

    I've also followed several discussions about this matter from people who are much more capable than me in Math and Economics than I, and I believe the conclusion has mostly been the same.

    In other words, I'm so far not convinced that you've provided me with a method of more efficient play of cookie clicker. I implore you to give more reasons behind your formulas and explain them to me thoroughly so that I may understand how they work and what their purpose is. Also, I would like a good explanation (and preferably also proving it mathematically) on why you believe that the earlier buildings are useless.

    Given that I do not see how the formulas you provided are more efficient or how the information is interesting or useful, I do not see a reason to implement them at this moment.

  2. Log in to comment