Utility: Relative Research Costs DB V1.2

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by VedalkenBear

Personally, I think that an approach that includes non-100% picks should be included.

You can do this in a few ways. The most straightforward analysis would be to use Expected values.

If by expected values, you mean long term averages, I was about to suggest the same.

So if a mage has 4 paths and a 10% pick, just call him 4.1 in the listing. I would have thought it worthwhile to just drop that, until you used the Mystic as an example. They should average 1.5 random paths, and that is a massive difference in the "baseline" research level that you should get out of them.

Otherwise, awesome idea, this is a cool tool. 8 )