Skyrim talk:Alchemy Effects

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
Archive 1: Nov 2011 - Feb 2012

Magnitude at 100 and #th[edit]

What the hell happened to Alchemy all around the site? First off, the "Magnitude at 100" column. The equation for potion strength asks for Base Magnitude. This is unnecessarily confusing. Either the equation should ask for Magnitude (provided in the list) or, more ideally, the list should list Base Magnitude. As is, anyone trying to calculate for a level other than 100 has to divide the listed magnitude by 6 first.

Then there's this #th stuff. For some reason many of the individual effect pages now list the slot which the effect occupies (first through fourth) rather than the magnitude. The effect's slot is absolutely useless, while the magnitude is VASTLY important (and not listed on the ingredient page, effect page, or this page for many ingredients).

As I don't know the magnitudes myself (hence I found out how messed up Alchemy has become while looking for them), I can't alter this to provide information that's actually helpful.--Liudeius 05:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, after looking around at a few other effect pages, it seems the slot listing (once again, completely unnecessary) is on all of them, and perhaps, while I previously thought it was the magnitude, it has been the slot listing all this time. But that still doesn't explain why there's a variability in effect strength for Damage Health but nothing else...
If this is the case and Damage Health is an exception, I move that slot number should be removed. It is entirely unnecessary (I can not think of a single thing that it would be useful for) and it is not specified anywhere (that I have seen) on the site that the number in parenthesis is a slot listing. It provides no necessary feature, and only causes confusion.--Liudeius 05:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In brief, this article lists "magnitude at 100" because it is the number that seems most likely to be of interest to typical readers, and is the number that is most useful when making comparisons of different alchemy effects. The individual base magnitudes (as well as base durations and costs) are all provided on each of the individual effect pages, in the main effect infobox. Damage Health is the only effect with multiple non-standard potion strengths, so it is the only effect that needs a more complex table for the ingredient details.
And if you would like to go through some 100 effect pages to remove the slot number from all of those pages, you are free to do so. Personally, I'm more interested in spending my time adding missing information to articles than removing valid information from articles.
To provide more details on why I chose to keep "magnitude at 100" when I updated this article. The decision was not made capriciously, and in fact I spent a couple days thinking through what numbers to display on this article.
In other cases on the wiki where we provide base values for Skyrim (damage, armor rating, spell cost, etc.), the base value is the value at 0 skill level -- so it is a value that is comparable to the values seen by players in-game. In the case of alchemy effects, the base magnitude is one quarter of the magnitude at 0 skill. Therefore, I don't think it is a useful reference value for a summary page. The base cost of the effect is even more obscure to the typical reader -- so having the table on the page provide base magnitude, base duration, and base cost would result in a useless table. In particular, you would not be able to sort the table by value in order to identify the most expensive potion combinations -- which is probably the single number of most interest to readers. Having a mix of "at 100" values and base values on the page would truly be confusing.
I think only a very small fraction of this page's readers are interested in using the equations to calculate specific potion strengths. Even myself, 95% of the time when I use the alchemy effects page I have absolutely no interest in base values. Therefore having the general-interest "at 100" values on this page seems far more appropriate. Given that previous editors first added the "magnitude at 100" and other columns to this page, it is not solely my opinion that the "at 100" values are a useful way of summarizing the relative strengths of the different potions.
I also think it would be confusing rather than helpful to add additional columns to the table, for example, to provide base magnitude/duration/cost in addition to the "at 100" columns. It is a very long table, and already it is difficult to remember what each of the columns contains when you've scrolled five pages down. One of the key reasons why I think it's even possible to remember the column contents is because the displayed values are "typical" game values and therefore familiar to readers. Adding any more columns would make it impossible to keep track of which is which.
The equations on the page are based on base magnitude, base duration, and base cost because those are the base values used by the game mechanics to do the calculations. Changing the equations around would be needlessly difficult -- and in fact, impossible in the case of base cost. The "at 100" values are rounded values, so using them as the input values into the equations would result in inaccurate calculations.
As for the individual effect pages, they have always listed the slot number. Nothing has "happened to Alchemy", so how did the effect pages supposedly get "messed up?". You can check, for example, the history of any effect page, to see the original version of the page. Also, for what it's worth, those pages were all created just two weeks after the game came out, before any of the details of alchemy had been worked out. At that point, the assumption was that we needed to document the same values that had been documented for Oblivion's ingredients. Although in the end it turns out that the slot order is less important in Skyrim than in Oblivion, I disagree with your assessment that it's "absolutely useless" and "entirely unnecessary". Most notably, it determines which effects you can discover by testing ingredients -- or how many perks of Experimenter you need to be able to have in order to discover the effect by tasting. It also tells you where on the in-game ingredient screen the effect is displayed, which has prevented me on a few occasions from overlooking whether or not I had discovered an effect. I'm not necessarily saying that it's vital that the information continue to be kept on each of the effect pages (it is available on Ingredients and on each individual ingredient page), but rather trying to point out that there can be some additional points of view about what is or is not useful information.
Again, if you think you can improve any of the articles in order to make them more useful, you are welcome to do so. That's the whole reason this site is a wiki. But I would ask that in doing any edits you take into account some of the factors behind the current article configuration -- and in particular that you consider what is most useful for all of the site's readers, rather than simply what would be most useful for your specific interests. --NepheleTalk 06:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I just edited the page to have base magnitudes. While I can see some validity to having the magnitude at 100, listing the magnitude at 100 is equally useless to listing the base magnitude for the common reader (who doesn't even understand the formulas) because it still doesn't factor in the effect of perks and enchantments. I'm sure many people care most about the magnitude at 100 (including myself). However, since potion's actual magnitude still needs to be found through the equations, I think it would be more beneficial to follow the format of the rest of the site, and list the base magnitude.
As for the effect slot, I realize it also matters what other's find useful, but the current format is confusing (I'm sure I'm not the only one who was confused by it). It's true does have some use, but someone looking for the experimenter perk level necessary to find it could easily just check the ingredient page. On the effect page, I still hold that it is unnecessary and confusing.
I'm going to be editing base duration as well and possibly the slot listing on effect pages, while information that is left out is important, it is equally important that articles present information clearly.--Liudeius 22:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with the general points and choices Nephele makes with respect to value at 100 skill. However, Base_Cost's are necessary to verify the claimed values. I had to look up Base_Cost's for all effects to build my own spreadsheet: those values should have been in the table. I think this is in line with a wiki's general transparency principle. If no one objects, I will add them.Sunsmountain (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2012 (GMT). Done. Sunsmountain (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2012 (GMT)

Table Changed?[edit]

I'm sorry, I'm not that html savvy, but what happened to the little buttons at the top of the table on this page which let you organize the table by price of the potion, alphabetically, etc? I and I'm sure many others used these as a quick and easy way to level alchemy by starting with the most expensive potions and working our way down the list. Anyone who knows how to put these organizational buttons back please do. — Unsigned comment by 24.164.38.81 (talk) at 22:52 on 15 May 2012

The little arrows seem to be the new wiki style for the same thing. The Silencer has spokenTalk 21:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The little arrows are what I meant by the little buttons. They are not displaying for me for some reason, so I assumed they were removed from the table. Looking at the wiki page with the latest version of Firefox, I currently have no way to reorganize the table. It's just stuck on the default alphabetical organization. Are the little arrows still visible to others? If so, I'll assume its a browser display problem and try to find a solution somewhere else. I realize this is not a troubleshooting section.--24.164.38.81 22:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Try refreshing the page. The site has been having a few issues lately. Clearing your cache may help.
If you can see the arrows in the following chart, then it should be a caching error.
Effect Ingredients Description Base Mag Dur Value at 100 skill
Cure Disease
(000AE722)

Mudcrab Chitin
Vampire Dust
Charred Skeever Hide (0.36xValue)
Hawk Feathers (0.36xValue)

Cures all diseases. 5 0 21
Vely►Talk►Email 22:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I tried clearing my cache and that didn't help, but then I compared your example to that section of the article in edit mode and saw that a |- was missing at the end of the table. I inserted it and now it displays fine.--24.164.38.81 22:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

How to use Magnitude and Special Data to Calculate Potion Value (continued)[edit]

(Originally posted here) --Kitkat TalkContribE-mail 14:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I know this saga seem to be complete, but I'm building a tool and I've got some problem caolculating gold values. For single effect potions with duration of 1 sec the formula Gold_cost = floor( Base_Cost * pow(Magnitude, 1.1) * pow(Duration/10, 1.1) ) works perfectly with all level/perks/enchantment combinations I tried. In other cases I had a bit more troubles. Here an example with Alchemy 15 and no perks of a potion using "Falmer Ear" and "Human Heart", tha has a frenzy effect with base value of 107, magnitude 4.6 and fixed duration of 10 seconds: floor( 107 * pow(4.6,1.1) * pow(1,1.1) )=573 - The brewed potion has a total value of 71 (has another damage health effect that should be valued 2.54 septims - there's clearly something I'm missing. --Gara Talk 16:11, 22 May 2012 (GMT)

The base cost of Frenzy is 15, not 107, and you need to use the displayed magnitude, i.e. the rounded-down value (4 instead of 4.6). --NepheleTalk 14:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand my mistake, I didn't see that the table values where referred to Alchemy skill 100. Also I started with damage health effect, and for that in the table the base value is stated. Could it be useful if I edit the table to add a column for the base costs? --Gara Talk 17:25, 22 May 2012 (GMT)
I've run some tests to prove everything is right in my app, and I encountered some strange results. I'm far from testing all possible cases, but here is a list of what I'm fairly sure about. If you can confirm them I'll update the wiki page
-Giant's Toe in a Fortify Health potion doesn't multiply the gold by 5.9, it simply set duration to 300 seconds, and the value grows accordingly
-Fear effect magnitude is not affected by Poisoner Perk
-Resist Poison effect magnitude is not affected by Benefactor Perk
--Gara 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I've completed my tool and found out a bit of things that should be changed in the wiki page. I tested my tool with a very large test case and it never missed of single septim, nor magnitude or duration. I'm using slightly different algorithms, but I tested all meaningful combinations and then a lot of random one, so I'm fairly certain that they are correct. You can find it here if you want to test it yourself. Here is what I've found:
-To calculate magnitude or duration I used this function: Base_Mag_Or_Dur * ((Alchemy_Skill/5*0.1)+4) | I found this formula in some previous discussion, but I can't find it anymore. Anyway with this the results are correct. Also the resulting magnitude r duration is the result of a generic round, not floor
-To calculate gold value I used this function: floor( Base_Cost * (Magnitude^1.1) * ((Duration/10)^1.1) )
-There's no gold multiplier, for every ingredient there's a different base mag or duration. For example Charred Skeever Hide + Hawk Feathers has a mag multiplier of 0.4, Ectoplasm + Nirnroot has a duration multiplier of 10. There's no other visible effect in game, but without this magnitude and value can't be precise

--Gara 11:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Added Dawnguard ingredients[edit]

I did not, however, indicate that they are from Dawnguard. Some enterprising individual can do that as I am not sure how. 98.247.98.143 18:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You would add {{DG}} right after the name to get something like FlowerDG. Vely►t►e 18:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Base Magnitude and Base Duration[edit]

What is the definition of those numbers? For Slow they are 50 and 30 here, and 50 and 5 on Skyrim:Slow. For individual ingredients, I see in the CK some like Large Antlers (5, 30) and others like Salt Pile (50, 5). The assumption that the documented numbers are some "common" case for ingredients (the numbers are not found in the CK at the magic effect) and exceptions are marked works for most effects listed here, but not for slow. But it is hard to determine if numbers are wrong, if they are not properly defined. --Alfwyn (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2012 (GMT)

How about this definition: Base Cost, Magnitude and Duration are defined as the number that most ingredients (relative majority) listed next to the effect share. In essence, the table would need to be even more finegrained to specify base cost, magnitude and duration per effect and per ingredient as it is in the files. For the purpose of calculating the most common value an effect would produce, I find this table already useful.Sunsmountain (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2012 (GMT)
The definition sounds good to me and will be useful for the vast majority of effects. And we probably want to document magnitude and duration on a per ingredient base if they differ from the base case - either here or at the individual ingredient pages. Salmon Roe added by Hearthfire is a real oddball here, with several numbers differeing from the base values. Apart from the monetary value, the increased duration of the water breathing effect should be of interest independently too. --Alfwyn (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2012 (GMT)

Comparisons[edit]

I'm wondering if there is, or if there isn't if there should be, a section or column that shows the maximum magnitude and duration that can be achieved for each effect with a note if one excludes the other, e.g - if you can't get both max duration and max magnitude with certain ingredients). Also, an additional section or column might be useful that compares the effect achievable through a potion against the effect achievable by other means.

For example, is an Invisibility potion created by high level Alchemy perks better than the casting an Invisibility spell as with high level Illusion perks? What about a potion boosting magicka compared to enchanting one or more items? Obviously the temporary and one-off nature of potions/poisons makes them different, but are they more powerful? It might be nice to have a section discussing this with plenty of examples or a table to summarise. Again for example, for the budding thief or assassin, what is better, Illusion magic or Alchemy? I know some of this may spill over into the may Alchemy article, but I don't currently see much discussion about it; I could be wrong though, so please do point me in the right direction if I've missed a section somewhere! -- Haravikk (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2012 (GMT)

New or Missing Information[edit]

I am not sure if the information for the Hawk's Egg and the Salmon Roe were intentionally left out because they were from Hearthfire, or because the links to their information pages is in the Skyrim: section, or for whatever reason. I went ahead and inserted them where appropriate, based on the current information. 173.55.225.124 11:22, 3 February 2013 (GMT)

Ingredient Priority[edit]

Does anyone know for certain how the ingredient priority is determined? It looks like it's the effect cost, but that's not stated anywhere on the page. Robin Hood  (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2013 (GMT)

It does not look like it is based on the effect cost, if that was the case Crimson Nirnroot (3x magnitude) should come before River Betty (2.5x magnitude) for Damage Health, and Thistle Branch (0.75x magnitude) should come before Beehive Husk (0.5x magnitude) for Resist Poison. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to ingredient priority that I can see. It's not alphabetical; it's not in order by magnitude, duration, or cost; it's not in order by ID; the position of the effect (1-4 on each ingredient) doesn't seem to have any affect on priority; and the same ingredients are not in the same priority for different effects. — Unsigned comment by 204.155.60.10 (talk) at 17:50 on 9 September 2013‎
I believe you misunderstood the question, effect cost does not equal magnitude. If you open up the creation kit and look under the ingredients portion of the object window, you can see a list of all the ingredients in the game. When you double click on one, the ingredient window pops up. Under the effects section, you can see each of the effects, along with the effect magnitude, area, duration, and finally cost. It appears that the cost of the effect in this window is what determines priority. It fits with both the Damage Health and Resist Poison effects you mentioned. I believe this is indeed what determines priority and it might be a good idea to add this information to the page. Aaa9 (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2013 (GMT)
If you want to take a stab at it, go ahead. If not, I'll try to get to it later today. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2013 (GMT)

Inaccurate Multipliers for Magnitude and Gold Cost[edit]

The non-standard ingredients got a multiplier for either their magnitude or cost. I experimented with the Damage Health effect of Nirnroot. Various pages say that this modifier is 12.6. This would lead to a Potion of Damage Health made with Nirnroot to be worth floor(Base_Cost * Cost_Mult) = floor(3 * 12.6) = floor(37.5) = 37 (Alchemy Skill 100, no perks, no Fortify Gear).

The problem now is that this factor is not accurate. The potion is worth 46 gold in game. On the Damage Health page it says that the difference in gold comes from Nirnroot having a Base_Cost of 10, instead of 1. If we insert this into the magnitude and cost formulas, it spits out the correct gold value: cost = floor( Base_Cost * (Magnitude^1.1) * 0.0794328 * (Duration^1.1) ) = floor( 3 * 12^1.1 * 0.0794328 * 10^1.1 ) ~ floor(46.1551851) = 46.

Due to the down-rounding of the gold value, there can't really be a simple gold value multiplier. In my opinion this should at least be mentioned on those pages.

Here is some data to play with. I recorded this with my PC version 1.9.32.0.8, having Alchemy Skill 100, Perks Active/Inactive and Fortify Alchemy Gear On/Off.

3 * 12^1.1 * 0.0794328 * Base_Dur^1.1 =  46 => Base_Dur ~ 9.96943; Base_Cost =  3 => Cost_Mult ~ 15,333333333
3 * 26^1.1 * 0.0794328 * Base_Dur^1.1 = 108 => Base_Dur ~ 9.99648; Base_Cost =  8 => Cost_Mult ~ 13,5
3 * 30^1.1 * 0.0794328 * Base_Dur^1.1 = 126 => Base_Dur ~ 9.9669;  Base_Cost = 10 => Cost_Mult ~ 12,6
3 * 39^1.1 * 0.0794328 * Base_Dur^1.1 = 168 => Base_Dur ~ 9.95858; Base_Cost = 13 => Cost_Mult ~ 12,923076923
3 * 65^1.1 * 0.0794328 * Base_Dur^1.1 = 296 => Base_Dur ~ 9.99929; Base_Cost = 23 => Cost_Mult ~ 12,869565217
    ^                                   ^                                      ^
    Magnitude ingame                    Potion value ingame (N + FE)*          Potion value ingame (FE + Ec)* 

* Ingredients: N = Nirnroot, FE = Falmer Ear, Ec = Ectoplasm 84.189.156.194 17:51, 19 August 2013 (GMT)

Alternatively one could use the non-rounded gold cost. The cost of the standard Damage Health effect is then ~3.667. Using the accurate Cost_Mult = Base_Dur_Nirnroot^1.1 / Base_Dur^1.1 = 10^1.1 / 1^1.1 = 10^1.1 ~ 12.589 would result in a Potion of Damage Health using Nirnroot to cost = 3.667 * 12.589 ~ 46.164. For the final cost that is displayed in game, this has to be rounded down to 46. Using the Base_Cost ~ 23.514 (5th case from above) would result in cost = 23.514 * 12.589 ~ 296.018, which is still accurate even though I used values that have been rounded to 3 decimal places. 84.189.156.194 18:02, 19 August 2013 (GMT)
I think you've misunderstood something. Either that or I'm misunderstanding the point of your post. As I understand it, the multipliers listed for various ingredients are the multipliers compared to a version of the potion made with standard ingredients. Using Ectoplasm and Nirnroot, for example, which have the same Base Cost and the same Magnitude, the math becomes easy. All other factors except Duration being equal, they all factor out when compared to one another, so you're left with 10 ^ 1.1 / 1 ^ 1.1 = 12.5892541 ≅ 12.6. Doing the full calculation, just for clarity (and rounding everything to 7 decimal places, since that's what the 0.0794328 appears to be calculated to):
Base Cost = 3
Magnitude = 2
Ectoplasm Duration = 1
Nirnroot  Duration = 0 (= 10)
Therefore,
Ectoplasm Gold Cost = 3 * 2 ^ 1.1 * 0.0794328 *  1 ^ 1.1 = 3 * 2.1435469 * 0.0794328 *  1         = 0.5108038
Nirnroot  Gold Cost = 3 * 2 ^ 1.1 * 0.0794328 * 10 ^ 1.1 = 3 * 2.1435469 * 0.0794328 * 12.5892541 = 6.4306389
So, comparing Nirnroot's price to Ectoplasm's price, it's 6.4306389 / 0.5108038 ≅ 12.6. That's where the 12.6 multiplier is coming from. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2013 (GMT)

The Magnitude formula might not be precise[edit]

After a lot of testing I doubt that the magnitude formula is correct.

Magnitude =   Base_Mag *
               4 *                         (Game setting fAlchemyIngredientInitMult)
              (1.5^(Alchemy_Skill/100))*   (1.5 is the game setting fAlchemySkillFactor)

This part of the formula seems to be incorrect.

Proof:

Test environment:

vanilla Skyrim game | no perks | no equipment | alchemy skill level = 15 | Ingredients used: Blue Mountain Flower, Butterfly Wing | Effect used: Restore Health | inherent base_magnitude = 5

Example 1 - Restore Health with 5 Base_Mag:

Magnitude = 5 * 4 * (1.5 ^ (15 / 100)) = 21,25414722

In-game result: Restore Health 22 points

Are magnitudes always rounded up? No!

Example 2 - changed variable: alchemy skill level 15 -> 14

Magnitude = 5 * 4 * (1.5 ^ (14 / 100)) = 21,16814355

In-game result: Restore Health 21 points

It is not possible to use a rounding function to get these values.

The following formula seems to be precise:

magnitude = base magnitude * (floor(Alchemy_Skill / 5) / 10 + 4)

Reusing the examples from above we get:

Example 1 = 21,5 -> 22 Example 2 = 21,4 -> 21

More tests like this can be done for other specific values.

Can someone prove that the formula currently on the UESP page is correct and can prove that the other formula I mentioned is wrong? Tascani 78.55.224.165 19:14, 1 January 2015 (GMT)

Potion Strength / Base_Mag confusion[edit]

Hi mates, I find it pretty confusing that the article says that the table at the end displays “the magnitude of a potion crafted at alchemy skill 100 etc...“ while the provided values in that table are called “Base_Mag“ which is also a variable used in the formula for the magnitude of a created potion while it should be already the end result of that formula according to the info in the first column. If I apply the same situation (alchemy 100 no perks, etc) in the formula I get 6xtimes Base_Mag while it says at the same time that Base_Mag is already the strength of a potion crafted under the given conditions.

I think the table shouldnt contain Base_Mag but Magnitude or potion Str or whatever and have the values increased by the factor of 6 or the formulation in the first column should be changed to something like “table represents the Base Magnitude used for the calculation of the strength of a potion crafted at Alchemy 100 etc...“ so it is clear how the formula is supposed to be used. At the moment it suggests to divide the Base_Mag by 6 before entering it in the formula which I think is not correct after some ingame tests.

Harkon's Demise (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yellow Mountain Flower x1.25[edit]

The article on the yellow mountain flowers says it has a stronger magnitude for its Fortify Restoration effect. Shouldn't this also be included here? 118.92.224.189 23:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)