Quote:
Originally Posted by Agema
Firstly, many thanks for the analysis, it's very interesting.
It could be developed further. The sums for each number offer the percentage usefulness of searching a particular terrain type with a certain magic type; this could be further adapted with the basic terrain modifier. Admittedly, this could be putting into numbers what an experienced player may already roughly know by experience to an extent, but still worth knowing.
However, is it accurate to say you get far more gems from forests? I'm guessing the totals you have added up in the main body represent *sites*, not available gems, as the magic path subtotals don't add up to the gem totals at the end. On this assumption, caves have fewer possible different site types, but not necessarily fewer sites or gems. Continuing my subtotals = sites assumption, If you divide gems by the sites, all terrain types are between 1.85 and 1.90, which would mean your income per site is effectively the same in any terrain: the big modifier will be the likelihood of a site being in a province.
Finally, it might be nice to see the number of gems of each type per site path. For instance, 20 nature sites in forests might provide 18N, 2F, 6A, etc. That's a lot of database searching and number crunching so I certainly don't mean to put any onus on anyone. But it could be a useful step to optimising where you search for certain types of gems, assuming limited means.
|
cleve: As the title says its all non-rare sites. I did not thoroughly check for uniques, but cursorily I believe I eliminated those as well.
agema: No, these
are gem figures being produced.
agema2: As for distribution of gems, by population type, I've already got that data as well, just thought it was a little much for people to digest.
Whoever said it should be normalized to the number of sites - is absolutely correct. However, there was a limit to the number of hours I was willing to spend last night. I'll do more later.