Iso Spend Calculator Now w/ 4* Iso Data!

Unknown

=( goes to reading.org

Unknown

Saint Matthew wrote:

=( goes to reading.org

now that you're there, you might find it useful

Unknown

Iso Spent	Iso to Max	% Complete
1 Stars	119,940	30,500	79.73%
2 Stars	429,052	356,928	54.59%
3 Stars	814,009	1,938,149	29.58%
4 Stars	10,435	850,493	1.21%
Total	1,373,436	3,176,070	30.19%

I_am_Zero

I'll play along

Roster      Iso Spent      Iso Needed      Iso % Complete      Covers      Covers Needed      Covers % Complete
1 Stars     150,440        0               100.00%             76          0                  100.00%
2 Stars     422,636        363,344         53.77%              145         5                  96.67%
3 Stars     588,278        1,991,116       22.81%              141         58                 70.85%
4 Stars     14,395         846,533         1.67%               9           17                 34.62%
Total       1,175,749      3,200,993       26.86%              371         80                 82.26%

Those 4 star characters will probably never get to 100%, heh.

Puritas

Iso Spent	Iso to Max	% Complete
1 Stars	62,460	87,980	41.52%
2 Stars	188,605	597,375	24.00%
3 Stars	793,193	1,958,965	28.82%
4 Stars	0	860,928	0.00%
Total	1,044,258	3,505,248	22.95%

wat can I say, I'm a miser

Nonce Equitaur 2

1 Stars     124,020      26,420     82.44%
2 Stars     500,673     285,307     63.70%
3 Stars   2,230,739     521,419     81.05%
4 Stars     146,231     714,697     16.99%
Total     3,001,663   1,547,843     65.98%

Unknown

[rant]
Ok, joking aside, you can be a little more accommodating. I'm new to these forums, and had to dig through the OP's message history in order to find the link to the document. I realize you don't want people to mess with your original spreadsheet, but there are about a dozen ways you could've been less of an asshat about it.

Unless everyone is ok with these forums being an exclusive club for the elite, in which case, congrats.
[/rant]

over_clocked

^ I know, it may seem aggravating, but all the OP wants from people is to read OP's first post attentively, nothing more. I didn't get it 1st time myself and also went to reading.org. The irony wasn't lost on me however.

Unknown

NighteyesGrisu wrote:

entropic01 wrote:

Ben Grimm wrote:

That link goes to "reading.org"

Our first winner.

seems fitting

You're right. I should've read more carefully. Apparently someone already expressed my opinion far more eloquently than me.

And again, I understand the sentiment, but still.

Unknown

idanz wrote:

[rant]
Ok, joking aside, you can be a little more accommodating. I'm new to these forums, and had to dig through the OP's message history in order to find the link to the document. I realize you don't want people to mess with your original spreadsheet, but there are about a dozen ways you could've been less of an asshat about it.

Unless everyone is ok with these forums being an exclusive club for the elite, in which case, congrats.
[/rant]

It took a decent amount of time to build that calculator. I have also spent a decent amount of time keeping up the calculator when formulas break and performing bug fixes. This is all free to you but it takes me time and it's not like I am getting anything out of it

The only reason I did the hidden link was because last time I did a direct link and multiple people screwed it up and caused me to spend even more time fixing it. If I hadn't done it this way, I wouldn't have even bothered building it again at all.

BTW, you're welcome.

kalex716

Clearly, this was a waste of your time.

Unknown

I dont see why there are people complaining about the reading.org link. If you cant spend the 2 minutes to actually READ the post, why are you going to spend the 30 minutes entering your information to properly calculate such a thing that this provides? Its not elitist to ask people to read a 5 line long instruction post before diving head first into things

jojeda654

kermitk50 wrote:

I dont see why there are people complaining about the reading.org link. If you cant spend the 2 minutes to actually READ the post, why are you going to spend the 30 minutes entering your information to properly calculate such a thing that this provides? Its not elitist to ask people to read a 5 line long instruction post before diving head first into things

It could have been done in a more polite way, without having to mislead people and calling them noobs. Like making the first sheet in the workbook a big yellow note with the same instructions in the first post. Or not posting a link at the end of the first post, thus ensuring that everyone dug for the hidden link. Other members that store MPQ data in Google Sheets lock their files, and encourage users to save a local copy.

Regardless, I do want to thank the OP for the time taken to create the sheet, and for trying to ensure it remains in good condition. Good work!

Unknown

jojeda654 wrote:

It could have been done in a more polite way, without having to mislead people and calling them noobs. Like making the first sheet in the workbook a big yellow note with the same instructions in the first post.

Ironically, that WAS in the original ISO calculator and it was ignored still unfortunately. I may come off as bitter (which I admittedly am to an extent) but it just annoys me when people complain about something when they don't do anything to better the situation.

I originally liked to keep it as a shared sheet because it was kind of cool being able to browse through other people's rosters to see how you stack up against some of the big hitters.

Also, you are welcome, it's pretty interesting to see how much you've spent because its really hard to tell in a vacuum. Like I didn't realize it took more to get a 3* from 100 --> 141 than 15 --> 100 until I started playing around with this.

morgh

Day 80 of playing this game

Iso Spent	Iso to Max	% Complete
1 Stars	96,380	54,060	64.07%
2 Stars	441,022	344,958	56.11%
3 Stars	465,045	2,287,113	16.90%
4 Stars	1,696	859,232	0.20%
Total	1,004,143	3,545,363	22.07%

so far behind :<

Unknown

entropic01 wrote:

It took a decent amount of time to build that calculator. I have also spent a decent amount of time keeping up the calculator when formulas break and performing bug fixes. This is all free to you but it takes me time and it's not like I am getting anything out of it

The only reason I did the hidden link was because last time I did a direct link and multiple people screwed it up and caused me to spend even more time fixing it. If I hadn't done it this way, I wouldn't have even bothered building it again at all.

BTW, you're welcome.

ok, so, yeah, I was kinda **** myself there. You do deserve the appreciation and thank you for the work you did. But if there's something that gets me more ticked-off than noob-unfriendliness, it's the whole encouraging-people-to-point-and-laugh bit. I do believe that this is a horrible behavior for a community.

Take what you will from that. I'm sorry for coming on too offensive, but I do believe you should've simply protected the original document (maybe encouraging individuals to request editing access for it). For my part, I apologize and thank you for your work.

Unknown

idanz wrote:

entropic01 wrote:

It took a decent amount of time to build that calculator. I have also spent a decent amount of time keeping up the calculator when formulas break and performing bug fixes. This is all free to you but it takes me time and it's not like I am getting anything out of it

The only reason I did the hidden link was because last time I did a direct link and multiple people screwed it up and caused me to spend even more time fixing it. If I hadn't done it this way, I wouldn't have even bothered building it again at all.

BTW, you're welcome.

ok, so, yeah, I was kinda **** myself there. You do deserve the appreciation and thank you for the work you did. But if there's something that gets me more ticked-off than noob-unfriendliness, it's the whole encouraging-people-to-point-and-laugh bit. I do believe that this is a horrible behavior for a community.

Take what you will from that. I'm sorry for coming on too offensive, but I do believe you should've simply protected the original document (maybe encouraging individuals to request editing access for it). For my part, I apologize and thank you for your work.

My only issue with your argument is you are acting like all the regulars on the forum had an inside track to not get tricked. Nobody did, it's just simply read and comprehend. But either way, this isn't really worth arguing about so let's just move on and get back to the ridiculous iso grind.

Jathro

Incredible work here - thanks for your efforts.

My results - a total of 1,261,760 iso spent (27.73% complete)

I dig it, especially the "iso to max" section

Unknown

Not sure if someone pointed this out already, but I think it's hilarious that it costs more iso to max the only two 4* characters, than it does to max the entire 2* roster!

Unknown

Very cool, entropic! Thanks for creating/maintaining.

Here's my data:

            Iso Spent       Iso to Max      % Complete
            ---------       ----------      ----------  
1 Stars       105,400          45,040       70.06%
2 Stars       197,602         588,378       25.14%
3 Stars       824,651       1,927,507       29.96%
Total       1,127,507       3,421,853       24.79%

Long way to go I have.