BlogNomic

Open to tweaking the formula if people really don’t like this, or we could do so by proposal later.

For the sake of illustration, under current rules, 80 Argev Lane would be worth 1664, while 55 Dade Street would be worth 107.

The worst possible house would be worth 20. The best possible house would be worth a bit more than 100 times more, at 2086.

Rolling up three fake houses, 9/6/9 -> 1192, 2/4/9 -> 621, 7/9/1 -> 179.

There are decreasing marginal returns to condition (ie every extra point of condition is worth a little less) and increasing returns to size (a house that’s 2x the size is worth more than 2x more). If Appeal is essentially a stand-in for location, all this seems fairly intuitive to me, albeit in a maybe cartoonified way (as is appropriate).

I’ll likely red-cross this due to being very maths

It also seems like it’ll be very swingy

i agree with Josh that complicated math formulas should ideally be avoided. gives an even bigger advantage to people who run spreadsheets and the like

A simpler version could just be 10*(c+s)*a, which would yield a min of 10, max of 2000, and the same houses would give 1260, 100, 1350, 540, and 160.

I kind of liked the scaling effects but maybe it’s similar enough that it doesn’t matter. What would you think of this version?

Actually it would be cool if mediawiki had built in support for formulas a la excel.

Is it just me or does this break if bed bath and beyond passes?

[redtara] The wiki here is running ParserFunctions, which supports basic mathematical functions, so we could have a template like {{house|10|6|4|2|2|1}} that generated a table row and a calculated house value.

That we can automate it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, though, if the answer to a casual tactical thought like “should I pay to increase the size of this house by 15%, or add another bathroom?” is too complex for most players to work out in their head.

Oh, nevermind. My math sucks today.

Waiting to get a bit more feedback but if it’s complexity that people are objecting to rather than the basic idea I’ll probably just take out the exponents.

gives an even bigger advantage to people who run spreadsheets and the like

but that’s all I have! make it more complicated!

OK I’ve dropped the exponents which makes things significantly simpler. Now the most complicated operation is multiplying a two digit number by a one digit number.

Gogogo math-uaries!

I preferred the idea that the value of a house could be derived by auctioning it.

v = 10 * (c + s) * a

I will probably have to idle if this gets enacted.

Kevan that’s fair, though I do like the idea that the value and price of a house might diverge.

I don’t think multiplying some numbers together is too much math.

No, people who understand math never think that their language is an accessibility issue, but it is: please believe me when I say that “1.5*b + t + 2f” might as well be Hebrew to me.

per Kevan: I’d like to explore pricing via the natural auction mechanic that’s getting set up.

I’d rather not, I was hoping for this dynasty not to end up something like last one where admins were afraid to enact proposals because of how complicated it was.

@Trapdoorspyder We don’t have to make this something admins do. As written, Appraised Value wouldn’t even be publicly tracked (though this doesn’t preclude us from informally tracking it as a matter of convenience). And even if it were, unless proposals alter the equation or directly change the attributes of houses, enacting proposals would not involve having to recalculate Appraised Values.