Talk:Cook Apprentice Recipe Index

From Lotro-Wiki.com
Jump to: navigation, search

Cost Column

The Cost column in each table shows the cost of storebought components for the recipe plus all required component recipes.

I didn't a lot of testing, but i never found displayed costs that were only approximately correct. The cost column should be correct – or removed. BTW: I cannot see any reason why costs should be displayed for cook receipes but not for any other profession. --QNo (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Which costs were incorrect? Not sure why they have only been calculated for cook recipes; but IIRC the majority of cook recipes require vendor-supplied ingredients, while only some recipes for the other professions do (e.g., Tier 7+ tailor recipes don't require thread or cloth). The costs of vendor-supplied ingredients can really add up when leveling a cook. Not a problem if one already has plenty of gold, but for others, perhaps this info is useful. -Laineth (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I haven't done "cook leveling" for quite some time now, but I know that at one time, especially at the lower levels, 80-100% of the ingredients for a Cook were required to be purchased. There was a change made some years ago where the Cook recipes required most ingredients to be acquired from a Farmer (or gathered) instead of purchased from a supplier. Basically inverting the "cost" equation. I believe that today, most cook recipes only require one or two of three to five ingredients be purchased from a grocer or supplier. And, I'm not positive, but I believe that there are no Grocers beyond Enedwaith, having been replaced entirely by suppliers.
I would assume that there is a mix of both kinds of recipes around today.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 16:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Effects

Not everything is listed in the index about effects. I attempted to give a basic knowledge of what the cooked food does, but if you want all the details please click on the link to see the item page. This cuts down on "clutter" and makes it more effective for everyone to read the page. Thanks for your patience with our updates.

  • I'm not a fan of the way some of these tables are structured. I think we've sacrificed one type of readability for another by splitting some fields out so that they're now in columns instead of rows. I prefer to keep things as simple as possible. I think for some tables like the ones for "Cooked Food" where there's a lot of information to show and it really gets crammed up, it makes sense to move some of the field up to the top of the table. However, many of these tables didn't have space concerns (everything fit just fine) but now have fields moved to the top unnecessarily making them more complex to read. Also I don't think it makes sense to split out information that is different for each row onto separate columns such as under "Cooked Food". Take a look at my suggestions at User:Gaerlin/Sandbox/Sample_Cook_Recipe_Table for alternate ways we can resolve the space concerns but still have the data be readable.
    • My original goal for changing the layout is uniformity. It was suggested to me a long while back by another member, that we change the old look of the indexes for this newer look (not necessarily with the cook but mostly with whats shown with the metalsmith). My concern is again, uniformity, I believe that the indexes should be the same (respectively) and will fight tooth and nail for this to happen. Why? Because when I was just starting out there were some indexes and not others and every one of them that did exist were completely different, messy, missing information and just plain yuck and confusing. So I began to uniform the indexes (creating and adding as I went). With the new suggestion came relunctance and eventually I saw the point and began changing (still in that very long process). Every time I tried to do Cook I stopped and moved on to other places)... I am still not sure how to make it the same yet fit how cook works.. with most other professions ingredients are the same for "sets" of things.. weapon types armour times etc.. but not food.. every food has different ingredients and soo much information crammed in one space. I'll try my best to make it work yet be "uniform" with the rest. I'll keep trying. Rogue 06:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree 100% that consistency is a good thing, when not taken to the extreme. Consistency taken to the extreme becomes a straight-jacket. I think you hit on it exactly when you said that the format you came up with works well for "sets" of items that all have the same materials, such as armour sets. However, that same format becomes awkward when working on items that all have different materials and properties, such as food. I am a firm believer that form should follow function, meaning that the structure and form of the tables should be dictated by the data being represented in them. The goal should be the to provide the simplest, clearest, and most accurate presentation of the information, while staying consistent with established formats when it makes sense to (i.e. when it doesn't make it less simple, clear, or accurate). I think that my proposed new table formats do just that for the cook recipes. --Gaerlin 13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh by the way I think it was a great idea to distill the cooked food effects down to something small and manageable --Gaerlin 16:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)