Talk:Investments/@comment-44960327-20200411201333/@comment-44960327-20200414164515

Lostone, some of your comments confuse me.

You say the incoming update has no impact on the page, but this page is *already* significantly out of date, because of missing investments from many updates ago. (From the Erosian War investments in later Chapter 4 where there's no information on their returns in this page, to the Succubus Bar investment from early Chapter 5, to the several new Thernour and Zirantia and Feroholm investments)

My thoughts on reorganizing the page in order of playability first originated with asking myself "Do I add the new Stineford & Feroholm investments in the existing Stineford & Feroholm table, or should we put the new investments in a new table".

With the changes rejected, the answer is that we ought put all the new investments in the old table. Okay, fine, that's a valid choice, and I can do that *first* and regardless of any future hypothetical redesign, but one way or another this page needs be updated. It's *out-of-date*.

Nor do I understand how putting profitable and non-profitable investments in different tables actually helps you, more than a "-" cell in a unified table would. As I said there are non "Non-profitable" investments like the Lustlord Statues which are prerequisites for the "Profitable" investment of the Lustlord Temples. But okay for the time being I won't make such a change either.

I'm likewise confused about your argument about a "consistent structure around the page, tbh", since what *I* am suggesting is the one which has a consistent structure, and the current one is the one that does not.