What curious to get?

[Markoff_Chaney]

Why not just put it up on Google Docs to begin with?

I like that idea. That way, people could edit it as we discover new info about curios values.

The problem is: I'm not really familiar with how Google Docs works. If a person entered the quality values of their own curios into the yellow input fields of the shared doc, then would everyone else be able to see it? Like if I wanted to use the spreadsheet to compare a Q17 cone cow and a Q13 pearl, then could you log into the document and see me typing that?

And would everyone be forced to log in to use the spreadsheet, or just to edit it?

[RongoMatane]

If a person entered the quality values of their own curios into the yellow input fields of the shared doc, then would everyone else be able to see it? Like if I wanted to use the spreadsheet to compare a Q17 cone cow and a Q13 pearl, then could you log into the document and see me typing that?

Yes. You can even use it as a chat. You can decide who has access to the spreadsheet (all, everyone who has the link, all with accounts) - and if its only read or also write.

We use it for quite a time now. I find it useful to keep track of the quality of all items like anvils, tanning tubs and so on. In my last village we used runestones...which was quite inconvenient
Besides that it's really nice for comparing your curios, as you have already figured out. Putting in only the curios that you are able to get and also adding the quality of these, you can really nicely see which curios are worth it at the end. I mean, there is no point in putting in curios in a ranking that you never get or use, like pearls or shocked frogs or strange roots.
I think there also should be some sort of "weight" benefiting longer study time (as MagicMan said). But how this weight should look like depends on every single player, so theres no real use for it in a shared doc.

Another point is, that at some point the required attention becomes less and less important. So one can switch from looking at lp/h/weight to lp/h/size. But this also is not a certain jump, so there should be also a kind of weight which - depending on your int - gradually gives better ratings for good lp/h/size curios instead of lp/h/weight. What you take in in the calculation always depends on what limits you: study inventory space, attention limit etc.

This will result in a ranking that says, how good the curio is for your exact situation. Another thing that should go in there is, how easy it is to get these curios. If it's very easy, the curio should get a better rating than one that is hard to get.

In the end i think this is overkill

[Markoff_Chaney]

Yes. You can even use it as a chat. You can decide who has access to the spreadsheet (all, everyone who has the link, all with accounts) - and if its only read or also write.

Hmm. I want to provide this as a resource to the whole community. I think it will streamline a confusing aspect of the game for a lot of players.

But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that any edits to a Google Doc will be viewable by all other users of that doc? That's a good thing if only your allies are users of the Doc, but it's a bad thing if your enemies also have access. People generally don't like to broadcast their stats to the forum-at-large. That's why most in-game screenshots are edited.

For example, let's say that a noobie acquires a Q50 pearl. If he enters that info into the public Google Doc and some unsavory player sees it, then suddenly that noobie will become a target.

I don't want that to happen. Is there a better way to safeguard privacy and still use Google Docs?

Putting in only the curios that you are able to get and also adding the quality of these, you can really nicely see which curios are worth it at the end. I mean, there is no point in putting in curios in a ranking that you never get or use, like pearls or shocked frogs or strange roots.

True. But I want this spreadsheet to be noob friendly. They can just fill in the Q of the curios that they have access to and leave the rest blank. When they gain access to more curios, they won't have to edit anything except for the Q of those new curios. Everything they ever need to edit is highlighted in yellow.

I think there also should be some sort of "weight" benefiting longer study time (as MagicMan said). But how this weight should look like depends on every single player, so theres no real use for it in a shared doc.

Yeah. I figured a variable for time discounting would require too much user input for too little benefit. Players who are going to be logged off for a long time can always just use the "Real LP" column. That's a decent approximation.

What you take in in the calculation always depends on what limits you: study inventory space, attention limit etc.

Yep. No measurement is truly one-size-fits-all. So I gave the user several options.

[sabinati]

make it read only

[RongoMatane]

For example, let's say that a noobie acquires a Q50 pearl. If he enters that info into the public Google Doc and some unsavory player sees it, then suddenly that noobie will become a target.

Unless the Noobie doesn't leave his name and/or coordinates in the cell he shouldn't become a target of anyone

True. But I want this spreadsheet to be noob friendly. They can just fill in the Q of the curios that they have access to and leave the rest blank. When they gain access to more curios, they won't have to edit anything except for the Q of those new curios. Everything they ever need to edit is highlighted in yellow.

I don't see the advantage of this. I mean, everyone can (or should be able to ) estimate the LP bonus from quality on the fly. If anyone is interested in more precise numbers, then i guess taking only the quality (of one curio) in isn't enough.
My situation is this: I have a list of all Curios that i can get and i only have to edit the quality. If something changes (like straw dolls) i update the quality and can immediatly compare it to the rest of *my* curios. This comparison (which is the thing all calculations are about here ) is impossible in a public spreadsheet. I don't see why anyone should want to use it then. I think the only thing that you can offer is a template that people can use in private.

The argument for sharing newly discovered curios is pointless, sadly.