Are Stash Tabs Pay To Win ? Science

"

Veruski a écrit :

it's pretty hilariously obvious that you can get equal to or greater efficiency using multiple tabs just by tossing the items into your stash and dealing with them at the end of the session, as opposed to be being forced to deal with them on a constant basis.

You just deal with it when you go back to town .... => exactly taking the same time.
The main difference, is that with more stash, you'll be more tempted to keep more stuff, and you will have to deal with that extra stuff later => takes more time.
Now, that extra stuff may get you more wealth, but it definitely will take you more time, period.

Ohhhh why have I jumped into that ridiculous thread again ?! T_T

"

VictorDoom a écrit :

Honestly this is like trying to argue with baboons, just fuck it. You can point out 10 reasons and give a good explanation as to why they are NOT pay to win like i and others did, they just wont read your post and say that theyre pay to win. Its fucking pointless.

"

Fruz a écrit :

exactly taking the same time.

The sum time of doing X things 1 at a time takes longer than doing X things all at once.

"

Fruz a écrit :

you'll be more tempted to keep more stuff

This fallacy was already debunked.

You can't argue from the perspective of an incompetent person. You have to compare apples to apples.

You can turn any advantage into a disadvantage by being incompetent. It's irrelevant.

"

Veruski a écrit :

"

Fruz a écrit :

exactly taking the same time.

The sum time of doing X things 1 at a time takes longer than doing X things all at once.

/rofl

dealing with 4 separate inventory, or dealing with the equivalent stuff in a tab considering that you had to throw 4 times an inventory in the stash is exactly the same.

"

Veruski a écrit :

"

Fruz a écrit :

you'll be more tempted to keep more stuff

This fallacy was already debunked.

No, sorry.
You have the possibility to hoard more, so the threshold for keeping items is different, and you will have more items close to it, which means that you basically will have more difficult choices about what to keep and what not-to keep ( <=> difficult choice take more time, because there are so many possible combination and so many people asking for different things that you can never exactly know what can be sold really well as much as with only 4 tabs ), assuming that you actually want to use those extra tabs.

easy proof:

100 stash tabs better than 4 stash tabs.

take your hypothetical optimal 4-stash-tab player

now give him 96 extra tabs. have him pretend he still has 4 tabs only, and keep playing that way.

No disadvantage.

now you have 96 extra tabs to extract value from. if you can't figure out a way to extract value from 96 extra tabs, and instead use them as a handicap, then you are simply bad at the game.

no excuses.

you don't have 96 stash tabs to extract value from, you have 96 stash tab.
That's just gonna be more convenient, because you can delay the choices of keeping or not what lies on the ground in your stash, basically.
The rest is in-significant, if it ever does give something worth the time ( and VictorDoom gave good examples that it does absolutely not seem to be the case ).

"

Fruz a écrit :

you don't have 96 stash tabs to extract value from, you have 96 stash tab.

what

you don't think like somebody who has any experience like, making money ;(

the goal is obviously to extract value.

"

Veruski a écrit :

"

mark1030 a écrit :

Positive Proof that having fewer stash tabs means you have more time available to play.

it's actually the opposite.

here's an easy example. lets say you don't own a dishwasher, you wash your dishes by hand.

would you prefer to wash your dishes 1 at a time, wasting water and time, or would you wait for them to build up a bit so you can fill up the sink with water and wash them all at once, saving both time and water?

You made a different analogy than an accurate one so that your point would be valid. We're not talking 1 item at a time. The correct analogy would be the difference between filling up one sink and filling up many sinks. If it takes 10 minutes to do a sink of dishes, it would take 60 minutes to do 6 sinks of dishes. At best, there is no benefit to having more sinks. My argument though is the person who only has 1 sink will spend less time looking through his sink to find the mug he wants to use while the guy with many sinks will either take more time looking through unorganized sinks looking for that mug or he'll spend more time up front putting the mug in the correct sink to start with so he can find it easier later. But even in the correct sink he'll have to find the mug amount many mugs. Again, at best there is no benefit to having more sinks since either way you have to pick the mug out of the sink you know it's in. And if you are a disorganized moron gimping yourself on purpose (am I correctly describing all the people you incorrectly think is the basis of my argument?), you just throw anything into any sink and it takes you longer to find the mug since now you have to search through many sinks before finding the correct one. So worst case, more sinks is a disadvantage.

"

mark1030 a écrit :

If it takes 10 minutes to do a sink of dishes, it would take 60 minutes to do 6 sinks of dishes.

You run your sinks in series?

Also, you could just get a sink with 6x capacity, and it would not take 6x as long.

More tabs isn't more sinks. It's just one larger sink.

"

Veruski a écrit :

"

mark1030 a écrit :

If it takes 10 minutes to do a sink of dishes, it would take 60 minutes to do 6 sinks of dishes.

You run your sinks in series?

Also, you could just get a sink with 6x capacity, and it would not take 6x as long.

More tabs isn't more sinks. It's just one larger sink.

Going back to stashes...say you have 1 tab for completed chaos recipes and i have 100 and say you can fit exactly 4 recipes in a tab. And say we both get the ingredients at the exact same rate. How many trips to the vendor do you need to make 400 chaos orbs? How many do I need? Ignoring the time spent putting ingredients into and removing ingredients from the stash, which one of us gets 400 chaos orbs faster?

"

mark1030 a écrit :

"

Veruski a écrit :

"

mark1030 a écrit :

If it takes 10 minutes to do a sink of dishes, it would take 60 minutes to do 6 sinks of dishes.

You run your sinks in series?

Also, you could just get a sink with 6x capacity, and it would not take 6x as long.

More tabs isn't more sinks. It's just one larger sink.

Going back to stashes...say you have 1 tab for completed chaos recipes and i have 100 and say you can fit exactly 4 recipes in a tab. And say we both get the ingredients at the exact same rate. How many trips to the vendor do you need to make 400 chaos orbs? How many do I need? Ignoring the time spent putting ingredients into and removing ingredients from the stash, which one of us gets 400 chaos orbs faster?

I never brought up recipes.

If you are saying you cannot extract value from 96 additional stash tabs, there is something deeply wrong with your thinking. See the proof I outlined last page.

"

mark1030 a écrit :

How many trips to the vendor do you need to make 400 chaos orbs? How many do I need? Ignoring the time spent putting ingredients into and removing ingredients from the stash, which one of us gets 400 chaos orbs faster?

1) You shouldn't be ignoring any time spent. The person with mmore stash tabs can freely control+click items into the stash, instead of worrying about organization, saving time.

2) Your stash is always closer to the waypoint than a vendor.

3) The distance between the vendor and the stash is closer than the waypoint and the stash (can just go to A1 or A2 where the vendor is right on top of the stash). A2 is an exception, but most people are farming in A3.

4) Because of 2) and 3), the person with more stash tabs would win, because they could just put stuff in the stash tabs instead of vendoring it immediately, and doing all the trips all at once in a1n back and forth which is quicker than running. As opposed to the person on less tabs, who would have to walk more distance to achieve the same outcome.