You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After a quick test, it produces different results than the Upgrade Score formula which is in use now.
For example, for my current Moon progress, the given recommendation order would be as follows:
All Profit 9 (754.591 trillion upgrade score)
Oxygen Bar (731.265 trillion)
Amusement Park Profit 3 (703.621 trillion)
Cheese Mine (693.737 trillion)
These 4 would have a different order using the "effiency" calculations:
Oxygen Bar (1,367,569 efficiency)
Amusement Park Profit 3 (1,421,220)
Cheese Mine (1,441,468)
All Profits 9 (1,501,916)
The efficiency method recommends purchasing investments in spite of longer waiting periods (Upgrade Score would make me wait almost 2 weeks for the next recommendation) and it would be cool if we had the option to switch between methods/algorithms.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I suggest giving the option of using an alternative way, other than Upgrade Score, to calculate a preference order of upgrades to be purchased.
The suggestion I have in mind is the "efficiency" calculation implemented in the Cookie Clicker add-on Frozen Cookies.
The formula is as follows (lower = better):
After a quick test, it produces different results than the Upgrade Score formula which is in use now.
For example, for my current Moon progress, the given recommendation order would be as follows:
These 4 would have a different order using the "effiency" calculations:
The efficiency method recommends purchasing investments in spite of longer waiting periods (Upgrade Score would make me wait almost 2 weeks for the next recommendation) and it would be cool if we had the option to switch between methods/algorithms.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: