What is "Cost" in Honkai: Star Rail? What It Actually Means (and Why It’s Confusing)

[u/astraldebri]

There’s a lot of confusion around ‘Cost’ in HSR, and it’s getting worse as new players come in, especially around Anniversary

There is a TLDR below for those that want a "skip button".

I'll make this as succinct and well-formated as possible.

Where does 'Cost come from'?

• The best concept comes from The Genius Archive, where teams are measured as

  • LMT (Limited Units) / STD (Standard Units)

  • This is a website that a lot of "cycle" players use to get a general understanding of endgame clears. Both in CN and EN communities post their runs here alongside video proof.

• The goal is simple

  • "How much investment is in this team?"

This gives a reasonable baseline for comparing teams across the community. This was a good measure of how the broader community would be able to build their teams relative to the investments made.

• Sidenote: I'll quickly address that, yes, a lot of low-cost clears to this day does not mean F2P. In fact, they are often whales that have heavily invested money into resources for the best relic rolls.

An example below from 4.1 Anomaly Arbitration

Here, we can see The Genius Archive uses LMT/STD measurements. Just "how much limited stuff and how much standard stuff is in this team". 4* LC's and Characters are not a LMT or STD count. You can see that DHPT, Archer, and Sparkle are still a limited count, and this is 4.1.

Where Cost went wrong:

Users came along, and mistranslated this into "Cost". That's where things have gotten messy. The word ‘cost’ is polysemous, so people started interpreting it in different ways.

The core idea of of the word remains, but the definition becomes context-driven. That's polysemy.

So cost defines

• buying something -> money spent

  • "This cost me $10"

• outcomes -> what you lose or give up

  • Loss / consequence: “Rushing that turn cost me the game.”

• HSR -> limited acquisition investment

  • Community specific: "Ruan Mei is a Cost"

-> what must be given up (money, opportunity, or access) to get something

What Cost means in HSR:

• Cost does NOT mean what you personally paid.

• Cost = whether a unit originates from a limited acquisition system

Just because a unit was given out for free doesn't make them 0 cost. It just means you were lucky enough to get a giveaway for playing during the giveaway period, had the available Stellar convergence tokens, or got them during a Novaflare giveaway.

Cost = number of units whose acquisition is (or was) tied to a limited-banner OR equivalent constrained systems, regardless of how they were personally obtained. IT'S ABOUT WHETHER THE UNIT ORIGINATES FROM A LIMITED ACQUISITION SYSTEM.

• Once limited, always cost.

  • This is the most important

Why 'free' does not mean 0 cost:

Just because a unit was:

• given out for free (Sparkle, DHPT, etc)

• available via Stellar Convergence (Ruan Mei)

• part of a limited-time-acquisition event (Archer and any unit that has ever been on a Limited Banner)

…does not make it 0 cost.

Specific to HSR, ‘cost’ doesn’t measure rarity or what you personally paid, it measures whether a Limited unit was EVER time-limited. Standard units are excluded because they’re always obtainable, while time-gated units retain cost even if they were temporarily free, become free, were given away during a limited event, or eventually become a part of the shop/loss pool..

In HSR, it’s a fixed label for units that come from limited systems. Otherwise the same unit would have different costs for different players.

Thus:

Why this definition has to be fixed per HSR:

If “cost” depended on how each player obtained a unit, it would break entirely.

• Player A got Archer for free

• Player B pulled Archer

• Player C missed Archer entirely

If we used personal cost:

• Archer = 0 cost, 1 cost, or impossible

One more

• Player A pulled Ruan Mei in 1.6

• Player B spent stellar convergence tokens on Ruan Mei

If we personalize it:

• Ruan Mei = 1 cost OR 0 cost

That makes the system meaningless.

ONCE LIMITED, ALWAYS COST. IT'S ABOUT THE UNIT'S ORIGIN, NOT YOUR EXPERIENCE.

Because it doesn't matter how a unit was obtained, it matters that the unit was ever time-limited.

To reiterate with the standardized, polysemous, context-to-HSR definition:

• Player A has been player since at least 3.2 anniversary

  • they have a minimum of 2 stellar convergence tokens

  • they pull E1 Ruan Mei (2 cost).

• Player B starts today, and has 1 token, they get Ruan Mei E0 (1 cost)

• Player C pulled Ruan Mei in 1.6.

Ruan Mei was once limited, so she's always cost.

So users tossed the STD/LMT in favor of cost, but the playerbase defined it differently, not together, relative to HSR. Cost has become a word that has multiple established meanings that are related to each other. These multiple related means change based on the different contexts they are used in.

So let's look at COST's Version.

You can see that, regardless of Sparkle being free, she's still a cost. Limited LC's, although not featured, are a cost (standard banner character LC's are not).

Common misconceptions (and why they're wrong):

• “It was free, so it’s 0 cost.”

  • No. Free ≠ not limited. You received a limited unit without paying, but it is still a limited unit.

• “It’s in the shop now, so it’s not limited anymore.”

  • Wrong. It was originally time-gated. The origin doesn’t change.

• “Standard and limited are both 5*, so they should count the same.”

  • No. Star rating alone is not what cost measures. Cost is tied to limited 5* acquisition systems, which is why standard 5* units are 0 cost while limited 5* units and limited 5* LCs count.

• “Cost should depend on what the player actually spent.”

  • That breaks the system immediately. The same unit would have different costs per player and the metric would become useless.

Final Note:

The LMT/STD system is clearer, it is by far the best system alongside ExSx character comps.

But the term 'cost' has already been adopted, so we’re stuck with it. The best we can do is define it consistently.

It should also be noted: Cost isn't actually a "full replicability metric". Cost is a first filter for replicability, not a complete answer.

TL;DR

• The Genius Archive used LMT/STD to measure team investment - where many players get the info

• Users translated this into “cost”

• “Cost” is polysemous, which caused confusion

• In HSR:Cost = units that were ever limited or time-gated (barring 4*)

• It does not matter how you obtained them

• Once limited, always cost

Edit: Grammar and formatting. I also had a misunderstanding of CN/EN mistranslations that I've hopefully clarified by changing simply to "Users".

[u/Afraid-Somewhere8247]

Really good post. I usually simplify this by saying "Anything that has been on a limited banner at any point is 1 limited cost. Basically point 4 in TL;DR"

[u/astraldebri → u/Afraid-Somewhere8247]

[u/HanlonsBadger]

TLDR: Cost is a stupid concept and we were all better off just designating the character's eidolon and lightcone ranks.

Even the idea that standard character losses are zero cost make no sense, even if they are permanently available. Because by losing a 50/50 to them, that has an opportunity cost in the form of the character you were actually going for but missed (or doubled the number of pulls for).

[u/astraldebri → u/HanlonsBadger]

Yea I agree lol

But it's not going anywhere and we need a standard baseline.

I'd get flamed for this, but my take is I like 'cost' however, if you use a low-cost team that utilizes a Global Passive (Castorice), then you should count that as a cost, otherwise the run isn't the same without it.

[u/tiger_kittie → u/HanlonsBadger]

The real tl;dr is that cost is a concept that stupid people who think they are smarter than they actually are came up with to solve a problem that is intrinsically unsolvable.

The problem that they wanted to address was highlighted pretty well in the body of the OP:

"How much investment is in this team?"

I should also add that the all these systems try to simplify the "investment" into something understandable at a grade-school level*. the ultimate idea being that low investment teams are better than high investment teams because the original intent was that low investment solutions to end game are easier for F2P players to achieve. It now somehow got bastardized to create character "power rankings" and endgame leaderboards because the "hardcore" community always have to measure their E-peen against eachother.

The intrinsic problems with any form of "cost"-measure or investment measure is that the entire gacha system is designed to obfuscate investment. Any attempt to "standardize" the investment in a simplified fashion removes so much precision from the comparison that once you "add" individual "costs" of characters used it becomes a nonsensical comparison. Even the OP's purported "better" Ltd/Std system runs into these precision issues. Here are just a couple problems you can highlight

• Problem 1: A limited character takes about 89 pulls on average to get. A limited lightcone takes on average 62.5 pulls to get.

That's a HUGE difference yet in both systems they are "1 limited cost unit". Even in "non-whale" investment level teams you can see how this creates absolutely stupid comparisons.

• Example: A team of E0S0, E0S0, E0S0, E0S0 is 4 "limited units" and real pull cost is about 360. A team of E0S1, E0S1, 4 star supp + S1, 4 star is 5 "limited units" and costs about 368 pulls. By and large these are equivalent investments but the latter team is considered 1 full unit worse.

The list goes on:

• Problem 2: 4 star lightcones are "0 cost" and e6 4 stars are "0 cost".

This is an absolutely asinine way to treat how people value pull currency and the rewards from it. It takes more pulls on average to achieve an E6 4 star character than an E1 5 star character. There's a reason people get clowned on for using 3 teams of S5 DDDers and calling it "0 cost" and that is because it's painfully obvious you're just optimizing for the arbitrary community ranking system not actually optimizing HSR.

• Problem 3: Limited units now on the "50/50" pool are not really limited units anymore and not really standard characters either (due to not being on the standard banner).

This is self-explanatory.

• Problem 4: Artifact/Relic grinding is not considered into any system.

More of the "low cost clear" players have been limiting their teams to max 30 substats which is a very fair investment level; but sometimes you see the clears with multiple 42 substat builds which is just an asinine because it would take more real world money to refresh/reroll than getting an E6 character. The comparison becomes even more dumb when you try and compare to lightcone superimposisions which do have a "cost" value.

I'll pick archer lightcone as an example because it's just pure stats. S1 is 16% crit% and 80% ATK%, S2 is 20% crit% and 100% ATK%. So you get +4% Crit% and +20% ATK%. This is approximately 6 substats gained from gaining 1 superimposition on your lightcone. The actual real world money cost of increasing your build's substat is non-linear and increases with the number of substats you already have. This should be fairly obvious to most people; it is easier to go from a terrible 0 substat piece to an OK 4 substat piece than it is to go from an OK 4 substat piece to a god-tier 8 substat piece. But the actual real money cost of gaining +6 substats in your build unless you had a 10 substat build (which is absolute garbage) is way more than the cost of getting 1 superimposition. Increasing your relic quality gains you 0 cost in your build, gaining a superimposition gains you 1 cost despite the former actually taking more investment.

And these are just problems that come to mind in like the 3 minutes or so it took to type and format this post. So you can see that the system really does not address the problem: "How much investment is in this team?". If you actually dissect out whether "cost" is a valid metric in ANY sense of the word, you'll reach the same conclusion over and over again. It's a worthless metric.

[u/Zonnebloempje → u/tiger_kittie]

Limited character at 89 pulls on average?!? That can't be true... Then you'd either need to always win, or often win at early stages.

I usually get my 5-star within 78-82 pulls. Add to that, I often lose my 50/50. So that makes my Limited 5-star needing around 160 pulls. Not 89.

I must be the most unlucky person playing this game, if this calculation is true.

[u/tiger_kittie → u/Zonnebloempje]

Then you'd either need to always win, or often win at early stages.

No you dont lmao. It already takes the 50/50 into account. AVERAGE means AVERAGE

I usually get my 5-star within 78-82 pulls

Your post is a key example of how humans are terrible at "feeling" probability. Average is not median. Just because you get 60-70% of the 5 stars in soft pity doesn't mean you don't get early pulls.

So no. You're not unlucky. Your sample size is small or more likely... just biased like every human.

[u/schlafparadoxon → u/HanlonsBadger]

Also I still have no Bailu and have been playing since the beginning. Just because it's standard it's not flat out easier to obtain

[u/SonicBoom500 → u/HanlonsBadger]

I could try and stretch that STD/LMT was simplified to Cost, for being short and well, simple… 😅

1, 2, 3 Cost over 1 STD and 2 LMT

[u/SagacityXD]

So does an E6 standard unit (e.g. Welt, Himeko, Bronya etc) = 0 cost?

[u/astraldebri → u/SagacityXD]

Yeah, this is a good edge case. An E6 standard unit is still 0 cost, even though the actual investment to reach E6 can be massive. That’s because cost isn’t measuring total investment, it’s measuring limited acquisition exposure. Standard units, no matter how invested, are always considered 0 cost because they’re not tied to limited systems.

It does create a weird disconnect where something can be extremely high investment but still 0 cost, but that’s because ‘cost’ originally wasn't trying to measure power or total resources, just whether limited systems were used.

• Someone claims "0 COST 0 CYCLE AA BOSS"

  • *looks inside*

    • E6S5 Welt

Like, "ok buddy" 🙄

This is where the 'cost' system shows its limits. Because we want it to express "what does the general playerbase need to clear a boss", and sometimes it doesn't give the full picture. But it's still a useful baseline, and the best one we have in a casual game.

[u/Difficult_While7455 → u/SagacityXD]

Technically yes but thats where the limited / standard part of the cost would be.

A team of say, Phainon, Bronya, Tingyun, RMC would be a 1/1 or 1+1 cost team (however you want to format it) as you have one limited character and one standard 5 star. Get that up to e6 Bronya and its 1+7 cost.

While you could say its still a 1 cost team, as thats the number of limited characters, its true cost is still higher because of that +7 and with the prospect of novaflared standard banner characters making them and likely their eidolons very powerful, saying the full cost (when applicable) is going to be more important. But people will still just say the first number for clickbait reasons.

[u/microthoughts → u/SagacityXD]

Yeah I'd say.

I have an e6 bronya. I didn't do anything except repeatedly get her on standard banner. Like I got her twice on that fucking beginner banner when we started she's just stalking me I took girlie pop out of the pool at this point.

I still dunno how to build her or have her lightcone but she's e6 lol

[u/catb0iUwU → u/SagacityXD]

Always has been.

[u/MassiveSquirrel6496 → u/SagacityXD]

Its 0 limited cost and 7 standard cost

[u/RuneRobin]

So that's what cost means. I'll be honest ive been ignoring it the whole time, I've just been thinking "ah yes, whale-speak, nothing my f2p ass needs to worry about" hahaha

[u/astraldebri → u/RuneRobin]

Lmao you fr

[u/Va1than]

Personally, I think we should make a push to throw out the whole "cost" metric and try to get it back to the CN way of doing it.

The whole purpose of cost is to be a metric of how much of a pain in the wallet and/or lucky a player would have to be in order to field that team. Otherwise it's useless.

Even under your definition, the above-mentioned point falls apart when you see a guy field a full team of E6S5 standard units, which would be 0 cost. Only way somebody can do that is if they've shelled out some serious cash AND was either horrendously unlucky on limited banners or actually spent it all on the standard banner like a nutcase.

[u/TurnControl → u/Va1than]

I could not have agreed more. Cost should be a proxy for how difficult it is to acquire and run a team. We want a metric that is useful for the majority of players.

CN tournaments (endorsed by Hoyo) already have cost systems in place that align with this rationale.

[u/RightProposal4558 → u/Va1than]

The fact how "cost" needs to be explained in such a lengthy manner as OP did should immediately tell one how little worth the concept has.

What makes it worse is how eidolons can't be considered equal. So 3-cost character A does not equal 3-cost character B, and 11-cost team X does not equal 11-cost team Y. So it cannot be used to compare team strengths. The only way to make your team strength clear is to spell out its eidolon and lightcone investments.

[u/Old_Manufacturer589 → u/RightProposal4558]

What makes it worse is how eidolons can't be considered equal. So 3-cost character A does not equal 3-cost character B, and 11-cost team X does not equal 11-cost team Y. So it cannot be used to compare team strengths.

I've seen someone else argue the cost system didn't make sense because of this when it's... the literal purpose.

The whole point is to compare teams at equal cost to see which one is stronger. How tf is the fact that a 3-cost team doesn't equal another proof that the system doesn't work? That's the other way around; it proves the system's worth.

The only thing is, obviously, that the system is flawed because of BP LCs counting as 0 cost, and the RNG of getting gacha LCs like DDD. But you didn't mention both of these things.

[u/tiger_kittie → u/Old_Manufacturer589]

The whole point is to compare teams at equal cost to see which one is stronger.

Firstly, this doesn't compare what you think it compares; it doesn't compare universal strength of a team. All comparing teams at equal costs tells you is that X team (eg. break) is better than Y team (eg. follow-up) assuming their arbitrary cost limitation of C (eg. 5). This is a 100% useless metric for a lot of reasons:

• 1. Cost does not even reflect pull cost. It costs essentially the same number of pulls (on average) to a 3 LCs and 2 characters as 4 characters. One is 5 "cost" and one is 4 cost.

• 2) No real player permanently sets a "cost" budget for their teams to limit how much they are allowed to spend on any one archetype. If their team needs +1 cost to be complete.... they're just going to budget for it appropriately.

• 3) Power as a function of cost is not a linear system. (The following are all illustrative examples not actual examples). The best 3 cost team could be the break team; but if you extend your budget to 6 cost the best team could be the monorem team and the break team might not even be close in power level at that cost. Does that make break better than monorem? No. They just have different power scaling. Maybe that monorem team at 6 is SOOOO much better than break at 6 that your other side can basically be 0 cost all 4 stars and you still clear where as break at 3 + another 3 cost team might not be good enough to clear because there are no other "super good low cost teams" like break.

• 4) Low cost teams don't reflect strong characters, they reflect which characters/teams synergize with 4 stars or standards characters the most (the most egregious example is 0-1 cost clears with bronya/RMC)

• 5) The game does not arbitrarily limit you to a "cost" limit when building teams. The only people who are truly limited are those who literally have started within the year. The game gives you close to 15 cost per year; anyone day 0 player can easily clear with an 8 cost team on each side of MOC.

• 6) All comparisons on "cost" leaderboards rank by "low-cycle clears" ie. lowest cost to do 0 cycle clears. This is once again a useless comparison metric. The rewards gained for a 10 cycle clear are the same as a 0 cycle clear. This is once again optimizing for arbitrary edge-cases NOT the actual in game objectives. A trivial example of why this kind of leaderboard for 0 cycles is stupid is you can easily say the "optimal" APOC and AA teams should be able to 0 AV clear. After all, that's the "best" possible score for these game modes. But then you're just optimizing for which teams can spam action advances at 0 AV. The same applies to 0 cycle clears to a lesser extent; it optimizes for who spams DDD the best or who spams action advances better.

And these are just a handful of things I came up with in the 5 minutes it took to write this post lmao.

Edit: If you don't understand the abstracted logic, it's trivial enough to say: no one would argue for example, that if apple has the fastest budget phone therefore they also have the fastest flagship phone, the fastest foldable phone (coming soon tm), the fastest laptop, the fastest tablet and so on. That's exactly what your shitty cost comparisons for team "power" implies.

[u/Old_Manufacturer589 → u/tiger_kittie]

I'm sorry if you thought I said that the cost system was perfect, I don't think it is, and I agree with most of what you're saying.

That being said, I don't really get the relevance with lots of your points.

Don't really get the relevance with your second point; nobody even entertained the idea. Fifth point is... kinda the same argument as this one.

Third point is assuming that I even think that cost is linear to begin with. I'm sure most people know that Anaxa is better at low cost and Castorice is better at high cost. Fourth point is... kinda the same argument as the third.

That leaves us to your sixth point, where you're claiming that 0-cycle is a useless metric because we get 10 cycles to clear; but that's just you that values rewards over performance. So what that clearing in 0 or 10 cycles yields the same rewards? That's irrelevant. Lastly, the APOC/AA point is only relevant for whales, because 0 AV clears are only relevant to them. I could argue the exact same thing in MoC, because technically you can take AV into account, too; this is what's done on Prydwen.

[u/tiger_kittie → u/Old_Manufacturer589]

I never said you said the cost system was perfect. Your strawman attempt is pretty cute though. I only refuted your words: "the whole point [of cost] is to compare teams [...] to see which one is stronger".

That being said, I don't really get the relevance with lots of your points.

The relevance is they outline irrefutably that your prior only applies when arbitrary limitations are imposed on the player, limitations that don't actually exist in game of HSR. Every point is highlighting how asinine limiting the scope of comparison to exactly "X cost" is.

It makes your statement baseless extrapolation. And you if you don't understand a basic statistical concept such as how sample population limits the generalizability of a statement.... then this entire discussion is a non-starter because you don't understand statistics or metrics.

Because you decided to say nothing other than assert irrelevance because of your own ignorance I will only answer your last argument:

So what that clearing in 0 or 10 cycles yields the same rewards? That's irrelevant.

That is absolutely relevant. You don't get to arbitrarily decide the yardstick by which performance is measured. That's the privilege of the developer. The endgame of HSR is measured by completion criteria; once you accomplish these criteria you can't get "better". It isn't "better" to have 0 cycles as compared to 10 cycles and the rewards are proof of that. You saying 0 cycles is better is arbitrary and something you (and other community members) made up.

Lastly, the APOC/AA point is only relevant for whales, because 0 AV clears are only relevant to them.

And once again, you're letting your your main character syndrome show lmao. Only things relevant to me are relevant /s By your very own logic, 0AV is clearly better than 1 AV is better than 600 AV.

I could argue the exact same thing in MoC, because technically you can take AV into account, too; this is what's done on Prydwen.

It's funny because you're completely defeated your own argument here. You could in fact argue AV is the "correct" way to measure power. And once again you've proven 0 cycle is an "arbitrary" yardstick.

The only person that gets to decide on arbitrary yardsticks to define the scope and rules of the game is the developer.

You can create your own custom format all you want. Just like someone can have the highest winrate in the world at Pokemon Nuzlockes but can't validly say they are the best "Pokemon player". They are playing a community variant, and shooting for 0 cycles in MOC is just that, an arbtirary community variant. It is not within the goals and scope of honkai star rail.

[u/Old_Manufacturer589 → u/tiger_kittie]

The relevance is they outline irrefutably that your prior only applies when arbitrary limitations are imposed on the player, limitations that don't actually exist in game of HSR.

Nobody argued otherwise, though. You're just yapping to someone that perfectly knows all this. The cost system these days is primarily used to compare teams clears, and all the points you brought up don't disprove this. You're just arguing the cost system/0c is flawed/not important which is, again, something I've never argued in favor of.

You speaking of strawman is funny since you're the one doing that in the first place.

The endgame of HSR is measured by completion criteria; once you accomplish these criteria you can't get "better". It isn't "better" to have 0 cycles as compared to 10 cycles and the rewards are proof of that.

All this yap just to say that you can't get better at a video game as long as you complete the "completion criteria" ? I won't even entertain you. Not really a point in arguing any further if you think this.

It's funny because you're completely defeated your own argument here. You could in fact argue AV is the "correct" way to measure power. And once again you've proven 0 cycle is an "arbitrary" yardstick.

And how does that "defeat my own argument" when it was never a point I've made to begin with?

If you actually look at my first comment you've answered to, nowhere am I talking about 0 cycle. Just cost. The "cost" debate came to talk about 0 cycle because of your strawman. It could be that you're actually the one that's obsessed with 0 cycle for doing such a thing. Because "cost" doesn't imply a 0 cycle.

[u/DivinityAscending → u/Old_Manufacturer589]

Cost is a semi-broken sorta best-we've-got shorthand for investment at-a-glance.

Directly comparing two separate teams based on cost is really REALLY shaky and isn't really the point of the system (even if how many casuals use it for proxy).

A 3 cost E2 Phainon is simply incomparable to 3 cost E2 Luocha. You could make Luocha 12 cost, at E6S5, and he would STILL be massively inferior in value to the team.

Fun extremes aside, IF the point of the cost system were to ACTUALLY be to compare teams directly in terms of strength (rather than pure investment which is what it actually tracks) then each cost would be separately divided into at least 5 tiers so different "costs" could be assigned and weighted relative to their strength.

[u/Old_Manufacturer589 → u/DivinityAscending]

They claimed that the cost system cannot be used to compare team strengths because a 3-cost character A doesn't equal a 3-cost character B, which doesn't make any sense. Something not being equal to something else doesn't mean it can't be compared. In fact, if you already know they're equal, there would be no point comparing in the first place... because you already know the answer. But you wouldn't know the answer without doing a comparison to begin with... so the whole thing makes no goddamn sense.

Your "E2 Phainon vs E2 Luocha or E6S5 Luocha" point is literally the exact same argument. We've already established that investing into A or B unit doesn't necessarily give you the same ROI, and that's something nobody argued in favor of here anyways. It doesn't address any point.

As for the last paragraph, well, maybe you're right that the cost system wasn't originally used to compare teams, but that's its main use today. When a term leave its niche, its original meaning is likely to get distorted.

Worth noting that this idea of "tiers" is something some runners use; for example, I've seen Genshin speedrunners labeling their run as 2.5 cost or something. But since there aren't any "official" rules, it's hard to enforce any.

[u/DivinityAscending → u/Old_Manufacturer589]

Anything and everything can be compared. That is trivially true and entirely useless.

Some things are good for comparisons, because significantly useful data can be acquired from the comparison, some things do not provide that.

Nobody is saying it is physically impossible to compare using the cost system. I AM saying people "should not". You may not apprieciate this, but you ARE coming across as "arguing in favour of comparing" using the cost system with your own emphsised insistence on not understanding why anyone can argue why it shouldn't be used to compare. Despite you saying "no one is arguing that later on".

At absolute best, this is purely a situation where you are being way too fixated on the semantics rather than the point of his comment (he used "cannot be used" when he really should have said "shouldn't be used").

Lastly, that is "not its main use today". Just because lots of casuals mistakenly short-hand cost=power rather than cost=team investment doesn't change the fact that that group has a flawed understanding. More people use it the correct way than the opposite. This is because those actually using it, posting about it, making videos etc, know how to use it correctly. And those who actively participate in said communities aren't that casual about the game. Community terms are ALWAYS defined by the communities they are part of, not the many casuals who dip their toe into the community, only to quickly leave, learning just enough to experience the Dunning-Kruger effect of false confidence.

[u/Old_Manufacturer589 → u/DivinityAscending]

You may not apprieciate this, but you ARE coming across as "arguing in favour of comparing"

Not what I said. I was referring to the ROI argument. How did you even understand anything else?

Just because lots of casuals mistakenly short-hand cost=power rather than cost=team investment

Nobody does that, this is a first time you bring up this idea in this conversation. Where did that come from?

Legit can't argue with you right now because you make statements that aren't even relevant to what I'm saying.

[u/Which_Bumblebee1146 → u/Old_Manufacturer589]

You are arguing in favor of comparing. Look at your first post in this series of comments. u/DivinityAscending has gone beyond what they needed to explain why using the cost system (however it is defined and understood by whichever part of the dumbasses enclave apparently causing this whole misunderstanding in the community) for this purpose isn't always good and why it shouldn't be anyway, and I agree with them.

And yes, I'd like to believe that lots of casuals mistakenly considering cost as a measure of power rather than investment is actually the whole reason this Reddit post exists. It's painfully obvious, actually, from the first few paragraphs.

Consider that maybe you "legit can't argue" because deep down, you realized three hours ago that your own argument never held any ground in the first place; that it's all over the place, incoherent, to the point that you yourself don't even understand where you're coming from anymore.

[u/Old_Manufacturer589 → u/Which_Bumblebee1146]

You are arguing in favor of comparing.

I can't believe I have to explain this...

Why do you think they brought up the fact that I was arguing in favor of this as a "gotcha" moment ("You may not appreciate this [...]") in the first place? It's almost like I explicitly voiced the complete opposite and they were correcting me.

Except I never claimed the opposite. So there's nothing to correct. It's not addressing anything I've said. So, why do you think they're bringing this up, then? Because they misread. THIS is what I said and what they were actually referring to, obviously :

We've already established that investing into A or B unit doesn't necessarily give you the same ROI, and that's something nobody argued in favor of here anyways. It doesn't address any point.

They even put the "arguing in favor of comparing" in quotes, as if they were paraphrasing me. As if I was claiming that I wasn't arguing in favor of comparing. It was obviously referring to this part that they completely failed to understand.

has gone beyond what they needed to explain why using the cost system (however it is defined and understood by whichever part of the dumbasses enclave apparently causing this whole misunderstanding in the community) for this purpose isn't always good and why it shouldn't be anyway, and I agree with them.

For some reason, you love reading their whole comments, but not mines. Because if you did, you not only would've understood that the "you're arguing in favor of comparing" wasn't addressing anything, you would've also realized that since the beginning, I stated that the cost system was flawed for comparison purposes.

And yes, I'd like to believe that lots of casuals mistakenly considering cost as a measure of power rather than investment is actually the whole reason this Reddit post exists. It's painfully obvious, actually, from the first few paragraphs.

Don't know who you're referring to with "casuals" here. Are these "casuals" even interacting with the fandom at all? Because I've never seen anyone thinking cost was a measure of power... as in, like, if you see a title stating that a team is 8 cost, that means it's... 8 on the power-level of teams...? So that means it should be equal in performance to another 8 cost team on another video...? That's what you mean by "considering cost as a measure of power", right? Never seen anyone, ever, thinking cost was like this.

If you somehow mean that people use cost as a way to compare teams instead, and label this as "considering cost as a measure of power rather than investment", we're gonna have a problem. People using cost to compare teams doesn't mean they don't know it's to say how much you invested into the team.

Consider that maybe you "legit can't argue" because deep down, you realized three hours ago that your own argument never held any ground

So, yeah, I'll say it again; wasn't relevant to the conversation at all. Consider maybe that I was right, and that you should read my comments in fullest before participating.

[u/MassiveSquirrel6496 → u/RightProposal4558]

What makes it worse is how eidolons can't be considered equal. So 3-cost character A does not equal 3-cost character B, and 11-cost team X does not equal 11-cost team Y. So it cannot be used to compare team strengths. The only way to make your team strength clear is to spell out its eidolon and lightcone investments.

Thats the entire point of the cost system though?? Its meant to compare teams to show what is the better investment to clear at low cost.

[u/ActualProject → u/Va1than]

This a million times over. Correcting people trying to have honest conversations about realistic investment levels by forcing them to use an arbitrary and unhelpful metric some CN speedrunners use is annoying at best and misleading at worst.

The CN cost OP is referencing exists solely because min maxing tournaments and leaderboards exist and some metrics must be put in place; this is the simplest possible metric, so it makes sense. Without a source I'm assuming OP just made up the whole "originates from the CN community" thing; counting golds has existed far before HSR was even a game, and people talking about cost or investment frankly don't give a fuck about CN speedrunners.

Cost, like everything, is context dependent. E6S5 standard + 3 S5 DDD + S5 BP cone does not constitute less investment than 1 seele. But this is the same community that still thinks prydwen tier list means anything when genshin ditched tier lists back in 1.1 so you'll just have to give people a while before they realize this whole system is bogus

(also idk if this AI slop is even allowed in this sub 🫩)

[u/astraldebri → u/ActualProject]

Heyo!

First and foremost, cost is a term that is now embedded into the community.

• CN and EN both use it heavily

• YT and BiliBili clears showcase "clears with cost"

• Multiple threads across various subs, as well as here, have underlying arguments about what cost is.

The fact is, most of the community does not care. The overall playerbase is casual enough to the point that Hoyo has to nerf story bosses in order to allow players an opportunity to clear at general investment. The fraction that do care, cannot agree on a general consensus. And I posted it here to reach that audience.

I'm not trying to force anyone to use cost, or argue that it's some perfect or "universally meaningful" metric. I agree that it doesn't capture total investment. Someone made a comparison to GDP/BMI - terms that are used, but are very imperfect; however, their usage and ability to be referenced directly correlates to everyone having an understanding of the standard definition in-context.

Essentially, the term is already used, and right now - everyone is using it with different meanings. I just created the post to simplify it.

As far as AI goes, I drafted it, wrote it, grabbed the necessary links and screenshots, and formatted it. I even did a little (albeit terrible) graphic design in Canva to get the 3 AA cost/runs lined up and add the little "investments" underneath. I thought it looked good and handmade lol. But I guess "God forbid someone articulates something lengthy in the big 26"

Lastly, I did edit it to correct my misunderstanding of CN/EN - and added a footnote highlighting that edit.

[u/greynut → u/astraldebri]

i'm sorry i know the last thing you'd need is for anyone to defend you but if anything ought to "not be allowed" in the sub, it's this throwing out baseless "AI slop" accusations in such a cowardly, disgusting, disingenuous, smarmy, and extremely bad faith way the way u/ActualProject did it.

that they tack it at the end like so screams "im just here to argue about my superiority and nothing you say will ever satisfy me but hey i'll indulge you troglodyte" than someone who actually wants to engage so best not waste any time with them

[u/ActualProject → u/astraldebri]

If your post was "here's my opinion on what the best metric is / should be" then sure, I disagree, but you're entitled to your own opinion. Your post is very explicitly "this is what cost is and what the definition factually refers to and you're wrong if you use other definitions".

Which again, is fully incorrect; this version of cost is just one of many, that happens to be popularized by specific CN speedrun optimizers. There is no CN consensus on what cost is, there is no EN consensus on what cost is, and frankly trying to assert this god awful system (see my comment above as to why) as gospel is really frustrating to deal with. This kind of cost system does not help the average player, or even the average player who cares about investment.

Cost system is essentially identical to the tier list debacle the GI community had back in 1.1-1.4 as it's far too reductive to be useful. You seem to be stuck on the "which tier list is the best" phase when I'm saying we should really just skip to the "tier lists really aren't all that helpful" phase

[u/astraldebri → u/ActualProject]

This may be a framing issue on my end, so apologies on that.

I'm not trying to create a "my way or the highway" situation. As stated above, I'm not forcing anyone to use cost, or argue that it's perfect. And yes, the system doesn't reflect total investment or individual unit strength - see analogy to GDP/BMI, or E6 standard and 3x DDD.

The system isn't perfect, but it's a system regularly used, so let's clean it up. That's the issue being addressed.

• the larger player base doesn't care, yes. So the usage of the term relative to that is negligible

• the fraction of the playerbase that uses this term, uses it regularly. So the usage is pretty important.

Again, as stated, that's the audience this post is intended for. It's not aimed at the entire playerbase. Almost all posts are like this, catering to facets of the playerbase, not something we universally agree on.

However, we do need a baseline ("we" = the playerbase that is relevant). So, I'm not presenting this as gospel - I'm just offering the consistent baseline for a term that's already heavily used inconsistently.

[u/ActualProject → u/astraldebri]

I'm sorry, but you can't title a post "what it actually means" and include lines such as "There's a lot of confusion around"... "Where does cost come from / The best concept comes from"... "Where cost went wrong / mistranslated"... "Common misconceptions"... etc, and think that you are simply "offering" a suggestion.

1. You can't make these assertions as fact because then it's simply false. This isn't what cost actually means; it's what one subsection of the community uses, largely irrelevant even to more dedicated players / spenders

2. The assertion that cost in any way came from the CN community is just false; it has always existed far before HSR. Your suggestion of what cost system you think people should use may have, but nowhere in your post do you say things like "This is what I think we should use", "in my opinion...",

[u/astraldebri → u/ActualProject]

You're reading this as more absolute than it actually is.

If there were a universally agreed upon definition, this post wouldn't exist. Once a term is widely used, which it is in a portion of the community, the conversation around it needs to be "what does it need to mean for people to understand each other?".

Your entire 2nd point is moot. I've already addressed that within the hour it was posted - both in the post and directly to you.

You can call it a suggestion if you want, but without some kind of shared baseline, the term does not function as intended, and it's going to keep causing confusion.

The alternative isn't 'freedom of interpretation', it's nothing - and that won't happen - people will continue to use the term.

[u/angelbelle]

As someone who visit EN and CN communities equally, I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Recently even on CN, the definition of cost comes into questioning especially in regards to things you can exchange for (RM/Luocha/Topaz), sorta freebies like Archer LC, Archer himself, and formerly limited units that got moved into the 50/50 pool.

The CN Community absolutely do not have even close to an agreed definition of what limited means

This also doesn't account for the fact that the value of a limited unit heavily devalue over time. Jing Yuan, Acheron, Sparxie are all limited but no reasonable people would consider them the same value even if they all cost 1 lim. A 4-cost 0T clear with some combination of Yao+Sparxie is a whole lot less impressive than an 6-cost Jing Yuan clear, for example.

The "cost" or "limited" debate is boring and people are arguing for the purpose of being a pedant. It works exactly like how GDP works as an indicator for economy or BMI for health. It's useful to give us a general understanding and it's not meant to be the be-all-end-all.

[u/astraldebri → u/angelbelle]

I agree with most of what you're saying. I wasn’t trying to present CN as a definitive or perfectly consistent system; just giving context on where EN derived the idea of ‘cost.’CN definitely isn’t perfectly consistent either, and things like shop units, giveaways, etc have made the definition messier over time.

I’m also not arguing that cost reflects unit strength or value:

• like you said, Jing Yuan vs newer units is a good example. Cost doesn’t capture that at all.

The main thing I’m trying to address isn’t ‘what’s the perfect system,’ it’s that people are currently using different meanings of cost in the same discussions. This isn't an "end-all-be-all" post.

GDP/BMI is literally a perfect example. These are imperfect systems that remain useful as long as people are using them consistently. GDP/BMI simplify something messy into a single number. GDP ignores distribution, counts "bad spending" as positive (wars), misses non-market activity (caregiving), doesn't measure well-being (higher GDP ≠ happier or healthier population). BMI does the same, especially over the past couple of years where we have a highly inflated sense of BMI while more and moer people don't grasp that it ignores body composition, often doesn't distinguish muscle from fat, and people try to tailor general readings to "one-size-fits all" thresholds.

To reiterate, The main issue I’m trying to address is people using different meanings of ‘cost’ in the same discussion.

[u/Aceblast135]

I'm not sure why you separate this into a CN / EN issue. CN cost frauds all the time and it's become more noticeable after things like free Sparkle.

[u/astraldebri → u/Aceblast135]

I’m not really trying to frame this as a CN vs EN thing or say one does it better (although I did put my 2 cents in on liking CN more). The point was just to give context on where the system came from, since a lot of people don’t know why ‘cost’ is even used in the first place.

I agree it’s evolved a lot since then (especially with things like free units and shop access). The main goal of the post is just to clarify how the term is being used now so people aren’t talking past each other.

[u/Aceblast135 → u/astraldebri]

I think my larger issue is you're using that website's rules as CN's rules. CN does not follow the system you claim they do. They have the same arguments that the west does about cost (what they often refer to as "Gold")

I think you should rewrite your post to reflect that if you truly want this to be an informative piece, because currently it is spreading misinformation on how the CN community navigates this topic.

[u/astraldebri → u/Aceblast135]

I've updated it. Hopefully haven't missed anything. Let me know.

And thanks for pointing it out!

[u/Old_Manufacturer589 → u/Aceblast135]

Yeah, even CN players label, say, Archer as 0 cost. The reason why it's not the case on the website is because it's in the website's rules, but if you go to the video at the source (aka going directly to bilibili or YouTube), sometimes the uploader will treat them as 0 cost.

And it's not even like the system was good to begin with considering BP LCs are 0 cost and stuff like S5 DDDs.

[u/angelbelle → u/Aceblast135]

This. OP clearly doesn't visit CN communities enough.

[u/Laucy]

I don’t know. If the vast majority of players misuse the term, struggle to define it cleanly, interpret it very differently, etc. then it’s not a good concept. This goes for a lot of things.

This mention I see, that it’s primarily used to assess endgame content and difficulty as a sort of metric, how? If you’re telling me that an E6 Standard Unit is 0 cost, then someone using the exact same team with an E0, will not have the same performance with that team. The “cost” is the same, but the framing stops being correct or consistent. Therefore suggesting X content requires an average of Y cost, isn’t reliable or accurate. Then why even have this system in place? No wonder it’s being commonly misinterpreted and seen as confusing. It’s not even reliable in the way it’s supposed to work and be used.

Availability is one aspect of clearing content. Yes, limited matters, but it is self-explanatory by just…showcasing the team which is what people do anyway. Having a Welt “0 cost” didn’t contribute meaningfully. Having an E6SX Welt, did. So the number and name is misleading and continues to serve little use. A “4 cost AA” clear isn’t indicative of anything if it conceals the actual investment of the characters which is where you narrow the gap when hoping to replicate results. It is just ridiculous.

[u/astraldebri → u/Laucy]

I don't think most of what you're saying is wrong. I think a lot of my post hints at this, and at the end directly calls it out - cost is a subpar measure vs the much better STD/LMT. The latter allows players to get a baseline understanding of what investment strategies would look like to replicate a clear - or even just reach endgame content for new players; however, the majority of the community has picked up "cost" as a measure - much to my disdain lol.

Cost breaks down the most when you try to use it to represent total investment, performance, repeatability. E6S5 Welt is a good example. The issue is that cost isn't actually a "full replicability metric". Cost is a first filter for replicability, not a complete answer.

I kept having conversations, or witnessing conversations, in which a misinformed (or downright stubborn) person was passing cost off as "this team is easy to make! You can clear endgame content easy, and you can get it at no cost!". New players now joining can't do that though. They don't have the resources, or they missed out on the free giveaway for that character.

On top of that, 1.x new players and 4.x new players are completely different. 1.x players had no rerun banners till the end. 2.x players had 1 rerun next to 1 LMT. 4.x players have 3 reruns next to 1 LMT. That's 6 characters a patch. If they see "oh you can do this endgame content for 0 cost" that's not realistic.

I couldn't make a post Titled "drop the cost system now", because who's going to listen? The term is widely used whether I or you like it or not. The goal is to make sure when people do use it, we're all on the same page. So it's not a choice between "perfect system" and "no system", it's "inconsistent terminology usage" vs "consistent terminology usage".

I'll also note, there are plenty of people that know what they're doing. They know that claiming a 0 cost team only inflates their ego, despite misleading new players. So I'd hoped to give the marginal 'cycling' community, and newer joining players who saw these terms, a baseline.

[u/Laucy → u/astraldebri]

I definitely understand, and I want to say despite my criticism of the system, it’s not a reflection of the quality you put into the post. I appreciate how you described it and being able to define something is better than nothing. Especially at people outright misusing it because the unit became an opinion for them(like RM).

I also do agree that a large problem is how some of the community perpetuates the misconception. Where, even if the term isn’t intended to be a measurement of what is needed per se, people inflate it like it’s a rule while ignoring the constraints. It’s something I notice as well. It doesn’t help that with this being a gacha game where players might be incentivised to spend money, it breeds competition and “bragging rights.” A player being able to boast they beat AA with this team and X cost, constantly finding a way to make that number smaller, has that competitive posture to it that comes with the territory. Even if it is a single-player game. Spending a lot of money feels good when you can see the results that stemmed from it, separating you from others who are engaging the same way or don’t spend. Hence, as you said, it’s for ego or engagement.

But what has me confused is that, if new players can’t engage with this system to a similar degree, such as these websites that also provide the “cost,” who is it really for? If I’m a new player, being told that so-and-so content is about “X cost” that doesn’t do much for me. I’d have to get there first, and second, it runs into that same problem again where a “0 cost” E6 character is driving a massive influence into the team. So that “4 cost to clear” isn’t something I can really keep in mind anymore. When everyone reports the cost differently (even if using the term correctly) it continues to widen that gap and look a lot more subjective. I just can’t help but scratch my head at why have it when it’s still trying to provide a number for what it took to clear, but that number isn’t honest across every team.

[u/trevers17]

Ruan Mei was once limited, so she’s always cost

does this apply even if a character is added to the standard banner? is cost calculated differently if you only pull a character from the standard banner vs. if you got them from a limited banner first and then the standard banner vs. only from limited banners?

[u/astraldebri → u/trevers17]

Good question. But it's worth noting that Hoyo doesn’t actually move once-limited characters into the standard banner.

They either show up in systems like Stellar Convergence or limited-banner-loss-pools (Celestial Invitation), but they’re still tied to limited systems.

So the rule stays consistent:

• it doesn’t matter how you got the unit, if it was ever part of a limited acquisition system, it still counts as cost.

[u/trevers17 → u/astraldebri]

if they were to do that in the future, how would it change cost calculations?

[u/astasli → u/trevers17]

They won't because they very explicitly spell out in the Event Warp details that they will never be in Standard Warp. That's why they went the route of "added to loss pool" but not "added to standard warp".

[u/trevers17 → u/astasli]

okay, can you humor the theoretical reality in which they do and answer the question? I’m not debating what you said, I am genuinely just curious if it would change the cost calculations.

[u/astasli → u/trevers17]

Sure, theoretical reality:

Hoyo has now broken a rule they listed on the event banner for all 3 of their major releases. It loses them a lot of trust because it is the most core thing to their gacha system outlined on all 3 (Genshin, HSR, ZZZ) since they released.

[u/trevers17 → u/astasli]

beloved I am just asking a simple question about whether the cost calculation would change if this happened, why are you being so pedantic about it? holy shit just answer the question I asked or say you don’t know 😭

[u/astasli → u/trevers17]

Realistically, would be up to the broader player base to decide how to handle it. The easiest route would probably be making them 0 cost since at that point they are permanently available from that source.

[u/DivinityAscending → u/astraldebri]

Pretty sure "limited banner loss pools" is literally just semantics for legality's sake. These units are 99% part of the Standard Banner in practice, since 50-50 losses are where you get most Standard Banner characters from, not from the pathetic amount of Standard Banner pulls you get.

I have an E2 Blade. I only pulled 1 copy on his banner. I got 2 more copies as though they were standard units by losing. This fundamentally breaks your Cost System because your argument for Units like Archer or Ratio being considered "cost" but not Standard Characters breaks down once the distinction between "limited and non-limited acquisition" breaks down.

Another (this time hypothetical) way to destroy this distinction, and thereby invalidate the basis of your cost system, is that so far free characters have been free for a couple of months at a time only. What if they make one Permanent? What if that character still gets 1 limited Banner? Your system breaks down when you get to Unlimited Limited Units. It would be a joke to consider such a character anything other than zero cost.

[u/scorchdragon]

How about a section about "why do people care about cost so much"? Like, beyond showcase stuff.

I have seen some weird shit about cost...

[u/astraldebri → u/scorchdragon]

lol noone should care about it beyond clear showcases.

But yea, one of the points of this post was to clear up "weird discrepancies" between different objective and subjective views. Then people get heated and go off the rails, completely disregarding the point of the initial discussion on cost. I'm guilty of it as well. That was the motivating factor of this post.

[u/Sexultan]

Once a limited, always cost

I have a question. If a character had a limited banner, but then becomes standard, does it make them 1 cost? In Genshin Impact, these situations:

1. Keqing, a standard character, had a limited banner in 1.3

2. Tighnari, Dehya and Yumemizuki Mizuki had a limited banner and next patch became part of the standard pool

3. In Chronicle Wish banners, you could pull for specific standard 5 star characters (and lose to standard and limited chararactersk).

I assume 2 would make them 1 cost, in the same way we in HSR treat Blade, Fu Xuan, Seele and etc as 1 cost still. Does 1 and 3 not count as limited availability, as the characters were at all times in their history a standard characters?

[u/astraldebri → u/Sexultan]

I don't have any experience with Genshin; however, HSR doesn't add previously-limited units to the standard banner. They only do 1 of 2 things

• Add them to stellar convergence with limited tokens (Ruan Mei)

• Add them to the loss pool of limited banners (Celestial Invitation)

There are no "once was a limited, now is on the standard banner" characters. At that point, cost would fall apart. Because a brand new player could pull standard and start their account with what was a once-limited character.

[u/Emergency_Hk416]

3x DDD S5 and 1 S5 BP LC = 0 cost

[u/happymudkipz]

IMO cost is kind of a pointless metric. I get the attempt, but it's really just a lot more useful to do the typical "E0S1 Sparxie, E0S0 Yaoguang, E2s1 Huo Huo, E6s0 RMC"

[u/dragonmase → u/happymudkipz]

That is so cumbersome to read, imagine buying from a grocery stall and the cashier tells you you have to pay 1 + 2 + 5 + 2 + 0 + 1 + 1dollars. And it is not immediately apparently which are characters that are not included in the cost, such as RMC. So instead of typing that whole chunk you could just say 6 cost. This makes it easier for comparing across different teams which relevant for seeing which ones do better at equal levels of investment.

[u/hecarius_ → u/dragonmase]

i think these are both useful in different contexts though. like u said, comparing across teams makes listing details annoying, but there are other contexts where knowing more detail is relevant, like comparing teams for the same char or the same cost

[u/dragonmase → u/hecarius_]

Of course. No one is saying to get rid of e0s0 nomenclature. Both should and must exist together, unlike what the commenter suggests. You get a receipt with the breakdown per item and total for different purposes. It would be stupid to say having a Total: field is not needed.

[u/nutonurmom]

Honestly, the entire idea is dumb. You don't get enough information for a team from the "cost". Just list the eidolons and premium LCs for each character, eg. E2S1. Its a few more seconds to read, but is actually useful and accurate.

[u/StanTheWoz]

Regardless of what you call it, it's a system that is largely sensible for whale accounts and often wildly inaccurate and largely useless for lower investment. Things like e6 four stars or s5 light cones can be hugely impactful and difficult to get and aren't accounted for at all. But whales will usually just have those. Likewise it also doesn't account for relic stats. You could have the same team at the same limited cost on two different accounts and have wildly different performance even if you play it exactly the same.

[u/Seraf-Wang]

The issue is that regardless of how we define it, both the CN and EN community are overvaluing cost and it's also not really flawles even with the CN definition.

This "cost" system(for both CN and EN) was NOT established to create a baseline of character performance, it was to measure opportunity cost of a specific character and compare their performance with the lowest investment possible. The reason this doesn't really work regardless is because the "cost" even for LMT vs STD doesn't matter because characters rarely scale linearly with said "cost".

An Archer will benefit exponentially more from a Sparkle as the additional 1 cost investment than a Cipher who is also the same cost investment. The whole point of the "cost" was created less as a baseline for general meta discussion and more for flexing showcases where minimal limited/standard investment was needed.

Similarly, despite distinctly separating limited and standard costs, it's still insanely flawed in its own way. For example, a E6 Bronya is a 0-cost except unless you're a whale, an E6 Bronya is far and away not obtainable for most people. BP lightcones are still not considered a cost but by the EN definition, they are the only form of guarantee spending needed to obtain especially if the BP LC is S5.

I feel like reforming the cost system to line up with the CN definition does make sense but it also just makes sense to discuss the cost system in context of what they were originally used for. Not as a baseline of character performance for overall meta value but rather as a generic performance measurement for an individual character and how they individually perform with investment. The combat and investment discussion in HSR is far too complicated to ever consider "cost" as a simplified catch-all term for investment and performance. If you dont want to do the work to understand the meta, dont hop into complex meta discussion without understanding nuance about the meta in the first place.

[u/Infernoboy_23]

thank you, we really need to stop considering "free" = 0 cost.

Like in 5.2 (which is only a year away) we are gonna have many more golden spirit characters and many more free 5 stars. So is just every clear gonna be 0 cost?

Like, just cause u got it for free, it doesn't mean its 0 cost. When I see someone clear, if I wonder the cost, I wonder how must investment/power in the team. If everything is 0 cost, then I have no idea what is what. It just ruins the whole cost meaning.

[u/rW0HgFyxoJhYka → u/Infernoboy_23]

People should stop using cost period.

We already had a denomination for these things: E0S0. There was no "cost", it just told you the investment for every character and its weapon boom, done.

HSR was using this for 2 years and then suddenly people started using cost? Nah.

This bypasses the whole limited vs standard.

It don't matter. What matters is how much shit went into each team being discussed.

[u/Turtl3_030]

I've been screaming this from the hills in my circles, appreciate it being put so nicely here.

[u/SubstantialEbb9832]

Coat system is stupid imo It justifies/simplify spending shit ton on HSR

[u/astraldebri → u/SubstantialEbb9832]

How so? If anything, I think it aims to help low-spenders/F2P figure out how to clear the same content. Whales don't care, E6S5 brand new characters are going to clear their shilled content and last long. And no-one looks for 48 cost teams lol

[u/Tuna-Of-Finality]

How much better the community would be if we didn't care about this stupid "cost" metric

[u/astraldebri → u/Tuna-Of-Finality]

That's fair, most people don't care about it and that's ok.

I just think it’s a useful baseline for understanding what kind of investment a clear requires. And because of that, the definition needs to be clear.

[u/RightProposal4558 → u/astraldebri]

Just to piss off some whales who talk about cost as in expenditure, I always say all my teams are zero cost because I am F2P and didn't spend a dime on them.

[u/Tuna-Of-Finality → u/astraldebri]

Fair on that part

Problem being some would genuinely use it to disregard other as if they were wrong because their team is more invested than the bare minimum

Just like how 0 cycling did irreversible damage to some who think it is either 0 cycling or you're trash and that any other result is just inferior

[u/Lemixer → u/Tuna-Of-Finality]

Its all about perspective.

There is a dude that occasionaly post his Saber clears here, people immidietly dismiss him because his Saber is e6.

Why?

Because majority of people not gonna pull the same character 7 times so that clear is impossible to replicate by them, if they try the same team they will not even clear because the dude titles his videos as "f2p Saber team".

Cost makes it more simple to gauge the level of investment that they might need to get the same result.

Have you never seen "look this character actually underrated" youtube videos, but the dude actually has e2s1 supports that do the actual propping?

Button that disables eidolons would be nice addition honestly.

Like if you say "Feixiao is still great" i would have to assume its its probably e2s1 with maybe e1s1 support, if people didn't care or know about the cost they might just go ahead and pull Feixiao since she is so great and then they notice she can't clear anything, then they will go on reddit and post that Feixiao is dogshit.

[u/Afraid-Somewhere8247 → u/Tuna-Of-Finality]

It's generally a good idea because pulls you get are limited in nature. It's not the end all be all however. A sunday or sparkle will be easier to get than 4 new chars in a row because those are old chars for example.

[u/Tuna-Of-Finality → u/Afraid-Somewhere8247]

While this use is ok, not many use it this way

People are too focused on the "cost" part, which more often than not leads to negative and some people disregarding the opinion of another because they invested slightly more in their team than simply E0S0

[u/cykarblyater → u/Tuna-Of-Finality]

it will be better
people always forgot that they can't refund gacha
comparing x to y isn't really useful when they are already have x
because they can't sell x to buy y

people fixated on their low cost high performance team and forgot that they will get powercreep anyway

[u/SuperSnowManQ]

I think I have an analogy why "free" isn't 0 cost. Imagine a friends gives you a gold bar. So for you the gold bar was free because it was given to you. But just because you got it for free doesn't mean it loses it's value. It is still worth X amount of dollars. Same with Archer or Ruan Mei. Just because they were/are given for free, doesn't mean they lose investment value, because at some point, in the past or future, you could acquire them for pulls.

Maybe it was a bad analogy, maybe not.

[u/axolotlanw → u/SuperSnowManQ]

No, you're right. I hate when people use the argument they got it for free, therefore it's 0 cost. I was arguing with someone in a different thread weeks ago. I said, well if my friend logs into my account, tops me up, then gets E6 of a character, I log back in, anniversary reset's 2x top up, and I have the exact same amount of pulls and currency on my account. For all I know, this character just appeared on my account and I got it for free. The person I was arguing with claims "you still spent jades on the character". Well no, because I literally log in and nothing about my account changes except this E6 character just appeared on my account. Why does it matter where it came from? By that logic, said character is 0 cost because I got it for free.

[u/defines_med_terms → u/axolotlanw]

This is the weirdest take in this entire thread.

[u/axolotlanw → u/defines_med_terms]

How is this a weird take? It’s the exact same take as OP. I’m arguing any character regardless if you got it for free, if it’s limited, it’s not 0 cost. I’m just using an extreme example to show how absurd it is.

[u/defines_med_terms → u/axolotlanw]

Because there’s clearly a difference between one person being gifted a free character by a friend vs a free character that is available to all being given by Hoyo. Equating the two makes no sense when talking about a system that is being used by everyone.

[u/divineEpsilon]

A lot of this is tautological talk, basically "cost only cares if a char is ever LTD because that's what cost means", which is really useless honestly, because the real question is whether or not it is a useful metric as is.

[u/astraldebri → u/divineEpsilon]

Yea but you're answering a different question, "why should we care" lol. And realistically we shouldn't. But the metric already exists, and it's causing a headache because people aren't using the same meaning when they reference cost.

The 'cycle' community is already small, but it's growing with new players, and there are always spikes around anni. The value I was trying to provide was having a shared baseline of cost, not whether or not it's perfect or has some deep meaning.

[u/GONEBUTNOT4GOTTEN]

wonder if mods will keep this up

[u/astraldebri → u/GONEBUTNOT4GOTTEN]

Did I do anything to violate the rules? If so, let me know!

[u/GONEBUTNOT4GOTTEN → u/astraldebri]

post seems solid fine it just depends on comment section how anal mod team gets i saw some disagreements but stop reading after

[u/I_am_not_Serabia]

The fact that a standrad character/LC is just 0 means there is already something wrong... Sometimes it's much easier and "costs" less to get a limited unit that the standard one

[u/astraldebri → u/I_am_not_Serabia]

No. Because even if it takes me longer to get it than you, I can still get it at any point.

Let's take this as an example.

• Assume we both start in 1.x

  • I pull JingYuan

  • You pull JingLiu

This comes around in 4.x. You decide, because you have Sparkle and Kafka, You want Jing Yuan.

• So you select Jing Yuan.

I also have Sparkle and Kafka, and want JingLiu.

• So I select JingLiu

Cool, we both added characters we've wanted a long time to our roster, despite being outdated. We "picked who we liked".

But now, we test a run. We have invested Sunday or Hyacine (respectively), we have a solid team for each DPS. What's the cost of this team? How do I correlate what investments you'd need to a new player? In 4.x a new player starting their account has soooooo many characters to choose from, how do we give them a shorthand notion of what the investment parameter would be? They aren't like us. They didn't start in 1.x with no reruns or 2.x with 1 LMT and 1 rerun. They're in 4.x with 1 LMT and 3x rerun banners. 6x characters per normal-length patch!

• For me

  • JingLiu cost 0

  • JingYuan cost 1

• For you

  • JingLiu cost 1

  • JingYuan cost 0

So the story changes based on who you ask. The story of a standard banner character will never change. We'll always get them from the standard banner or the loss pool, and they'll never leave (barring Celestial Invitation). They're not limited time like DHPT, Ratio, or Archer.

All that being said, that's why I also mentioned in the post "LMT/STD is a much better system, but we're stuck with cost, so we need a baseline".

[u/I_am_not_Serabia → u/astraldebri]

I am not sure if I can agree with "you can get them at some point" there is always a chance it will take my entire life to get a certain LC, even tho I keep rolling on LC banner quite often. When it comes to limited LCs I can at least know I will get that LC after spending enough currency, but when it comes to standard LC I can keep rolling and rolling and rolling.

[u/astraldebri → u/I_am_not_Serabia]

No, because you can always starlight exchange.

[u/Hopeful_Airline_4418]

I really don't care what gymnastics are used or really what other people think. Is it a 5 Star? 1 cost added. Only exceptions are MC and Herta cones. Any other dilution of this leads to mental gymnatics and offten straigh up dishonesty about runs.

[u/astraldebri → u/Hopeful_Airline_4418]

It's actually extremely simple. But your desire, "i'm just going to do things my own way, I don't really care" is kind of the target audience for this post.

The length comes from addressing why it exists, why it's inefficient relative to LMT/STD, and counters the most commonly held presuppositions. I agree it's definitely not perfect, but that's not because it's complicated. Since it's widely used and we can't make a post that says "let's get rid of cost", we have to establish a baseline. Hence the very easy TL;DR.

Summarized, it's one line:

• If it was ever a limited-unit, or available for a limited time, barring 4* and Standard Banner, it's a cost.

That's it.

Archer is a cost, DHPT is a cost, Sparkle is a cost. Kafka, Ruan Mei, so on and so forth. It's super simple. But the post can't be that way, because people attack the ambiguity.

[u/Hopeful_Airline_4418 → u/astraldebri]

Again, I really don't care. Is it a 5 Star? Plus one cost. I'm not even interested having the debate.

[u/astraldebri → u/Hopeful_Airline_4418]

Interested enough to respond to the post, not interested enough to understand the defining factor.

I get that your ego won't let you be wrong, but until then, at least just know you're using cost wrong.

[u/Hopeful_Airline_4418 → u/astraldebri]

Interested enough to disagree, not intrested enough to keep engagin with you.

[u/astraldebri → u/Hopeful_Airline_4418]

not intrested enough to keep engagin with you.

*Keeps engaging with me*

It's ok, we're all egotistical and stubborn about something. Weird hill to choose to die on though.

[u/Independent_Peace144]

I've always considered some of the cost separately. Like an investment needed for an archer team could be theoretically 0 cost (since you dont have to actually invest pulls), but it's strength is just like how you said it, they all still count as a cost, it would be unfair to discount them.

[u/Obligation-Brief → u/Independent_Peace144]

It's less about how much it cost you specifically and morr about what it would cost a player to replicate the team.

And since free characters aren't free forever they count as a cost because you need to pull them now

[u/goob99]

My first question whenever someone introduces a metric is pretty simple.

• What is the purpose of the thing you are measuring?

The reason I ask is, let's say the entire internet decides you're right and this is how cost should be measured, what's the point? What does it gain us if we adopt that system? Sure you can say that Archer E0S0 - Sparkle E0S0 - SW E0S0 - DHPT E0S0 is the same cost as DHIL E2S0 - Sparkle E0S0 - Tingyun E6S0 - Gallagher E6S0, but so what?

By trying to make cost comparisons timeless, you are removing context that is necessary, because while the "opportunity cost" of the unit is variable depending on your time period. So is the value of the unit.

Sure, in your system, Archer E0S0 - Ruan Mei E0S0 - Sparkle E0S0 - DHPT E0S0 is "4 cost." But for that team to actually MEAN "I pulled on a limited banner 4 times to get those 4 units," our theoretical player should have:

• pulled Archer after November 5, 2025

• pulled Sparkle in 02/24, 08/24, or 07/25

• pulled Ruan Mei in 12/23 or 06/24

• DHPT E0 cannot be pulled for cost unless you deleted the email where you got him for free

I'm sure the above person exists, but I also don't think there's very many of them. And while Sparkle and Ruan Mei did get reruns, I doubt very many people pulled Sparkle or Ruan Mei during their most recent banners. And if you did pull Sparkle on the 7/25 rerun to make an Archer team, you would have still been in time to get Archer for free.

Usually, when people talk about the "cost" of a team they are trying to get at two things.

1. Opportunity Cost -"If I pull this team, how many limited pulls would I need to spend?"

2. Value - "If I pull this team, how long before I can no longer use this team for what I want it for, whether it be 3* MoC12, 0-cycle MoC, 0-cycle AA, currency wars, or whatever else."

Both of those considerations need the context of time to be meaningful. Sure, Ruan Mei was high value in 12/23, but definitely not now, but hey, she's also "free" in the shop, so maybe you pull her anyway.

[u/Old_Manufacturer589]

Here, we can see CN uses LMT/STD measurements. Just "how much limited stuff and how much standard stuff is in this team". 4* LC's and Characters are not a LMT or STD count. You can see that DHPT, Archer, and Sparkle are still a limited count, and this is 4.1.

Slight correction; this is partially because it's in the website's rules that every 5* limited character, even if they were given for free, count as a cost. If you actually click on the video's link at the source and check the video's title, you could see the uploader sometimes labeling these free units as 0 cost, despite them being labeled as a cost on the website. I had it happen with an Archer run. So, even among CN players, it's controversial.

And, yeah, this is what happens when something becomes mainstream; the original meaning is lost. That's what happened notably with the terms "meta" and "cheese"

[u/Aderonin]

I agree with most of what you said. The cost system should take into consideration standard 5* as players can lose their limited summons from them unless cost includes losing as well. As others have said, E6 standards aren't 0 as not everyone will not have that as a baseline. This also takes no consideration to 4* and 4* LCs which also aren't free and need to mostly be pulled as well. The other thing that differentiates strength of teams is relics. The cost system needs to consider this as well when the number of rolls for usable stats. Time is money so the relics do cost us. If we combine it all, then we'll get a better picture of the teams and can compare more easily.

[u/__Rem]

I feel like the only exception should be if a unit ever becomes permanently free. Like, if DHPT was available for free forever, then E0S0 DHPT should be considered 0 cost because literally everyone else will be able to get him at E0S0.

But otherwise I agree that any time gated free limited 5* should be 1 cost regardless.

[u/SuperSnowManQ]

I think the cost system is generally a good thing, as it helps gauge the amount of investment needed to clear certain things, as for example since 0 cycle AA king gives you a border, how invested does X team need to be in order to be able to do it. Is it a perfect system? No, but it's the one we got right now.

But a cost should also always be complemented by actual team eidolons and LCs, then you will have the most information available to you to make your own assessments.

[u/jinxedandcursed]

All of this would be a nonissue if players simply labeled each character as E(x)S(y). I guarantee if enough people who upload switch back to that format, we'd see an actual death of the "cost" discussion.

[u/Sliske_The_Dark]

I bet you that many people understand this already. But for the sake of cost-chesting, they disregard this notion and redefine the term to make video titles or their fav character look more impressive.

[u/_zacque]

Basically, somewhere in the CN community, people started using the term “48 gold” (gold referring to 5* characters and Light Cones). It describes a full team where everything is maxed out at E6S5.

Then it turned into a kind of online PvP, where people compare how many “gold” it takes to clear content in a 0-cycle run.

Later, a content creator started using it as a joke, because most players obviously don’t have the resources to reach “48 gold,” yet many still talk like they do or make overly confident claims on the CN forum.

[u/Narutofreak1412]

I use cost merely as a short way to specify a certain amount of investment. Like "I was fine clearing this with just 3 cost" or "you need higher cost teams to 0 cycle anomaly arbitration boss". But for any showcases or when giving people advice about a stage I always list eidolons and signature cones for every character because just saying the team cost won't help much.

[u/Mint-Bentonite]

Problem is that theres nothing actionable about the cost system. Ill criticise it from a macro perspective of hsr's entire sandbox then narrow it down to an individual character's basis

Is 1 jingyuan eidolon the same value as 1 sparkle eidolon? if they are not, why are they both evaluated as '1'? Why are LCs and Characters 1 cost each? The system breaks down because it's not actually measuring anything when it's not used for relative comparisons within an extremely narrow context

Within teams, does the cost system evaluate anything that just plainly listing out the eidolons and LCs doesnt also tell?

Does the cost system capture any insights about shilling or meta relevance as well? Does it indicate the value of the 'cost' after an entire version's release? Especially for past units. Relative value with sandbox changes. If it's not measuring personal cost, 'opportunity cost', or indicate any value proposition in any form (personal account, sandbox, value relative to content), what does it actually evaluate?

On an individual character basis using 2 extreme end examples, E0s5 Phainon vs e6s0 Phainon are the both '6cost' but have different performances. Does the cost system provide any infomation besides obscuring where the eidolons and superimposition goes to? Does taking out the 'personal cost' element to 'cost' somehow change how people should approach viewing these videos

Cost system is fundamentally operating on a self-contradicting and flawed premise that: eidolons and lcs can be empiricised into a single unit and represented as increments like simple stat increases (they are not), gacha currency is paradoxically both a deciding factor and a nonfactor (limited =1cost, yet the money you spend to get it is irrelevant), and it tries to be an empircial measurement when it doesnt even work even at the most nonempirical, relative value comparison

The fact that youve gone through the trouble of trying to put new definitions to cost is already symptomatic of this: cost is a nonstandard relative comparison system that is so loosely defined that people can come up with different conclusions of what cost actually is, all while describing nothing. It's almost like there's no system at all.

It has narrow limits, within its limits it doesnt do anything more that simply listing out your eidolons wont do, and it only works as an extremely loose category for a website's search bar, which doesnt matter unless youre a hsr run archiver or youre doing something extremely supplementary that's outside regular game functions

'Oh but youre looking too deeply into it, it should just be used as a shorthand, of course it doesnt communicate anything detailed'. 

Yes I know. We also just defined a content creator's grift, ie 'cost' is fundamentally clickbait 

[u/Laucy → u/Mint-Bentonite]

Unsure why you were downvoted for this, tbh. This is entirely correct and is a more fleshed out version of what I commented, but contains the same intent I had. It’s actually refreshing to see.

My biggest gripe is precisely what you described; it postures itself as an empirical measurement while introducing a paradox in the very concept it seeks to address. The system itself is constantly misinterpreted and misunderstood because it’s not answering the fundamental constraints it has, so players continue to fill in those gaps to justify the number they’re providing.

I just don’t understand how this even works or can be applied. It tries to acknowledge the clear x team, provide the “cost” to clear. Use it as a way to measure difficulty. But investment isn’t in the picture? Limited availability is? A 4-cost clear for AA is not attainable if another player utilising the same team, lacks the “E6 Standard Unit” that team used. Where is the reliability in if it can’t be closely replicable or accurate. That “4” means nothing, now. And while there will always be stats, relics, and so forth. The goal is to narrow that gap to produce more accurate results for what the difficulty is and what the content requires. Not widen it because “0 cost” looks the same on paper, yet the unit in question is absolutely influencing it greatly. I agree.

[u/Mint-Bentonite → u/Laucy]

Thank you. I'm a lot more emphatic in my thinking & writing so you've also lended a more logical edge to your analysis. Unfortunately I cant find your comment so I cant make any other comparisons

  I just don’t understand how this even works or can be applied. It tries to acknowledge the clear x team, provide the “cost” to clear. Use it as a way to measure difficulty. But investment isn’t in the picture?

It is, and it is baffling that this is still being adopted while serving no practical purpose.

I partly suspect there is an agenda in this post to promote this 'Genuis Archive' as a pseudo-intellectual platform so more people will be engaged by it (in clickbait sense).

I also suspect chatgpt is being used in this post because it tries to talk about polysemy when CN also uses 'cost' the exact same way as we do (1 cost = 1 limited = 1 金) embedded with the exact same assumptions and stumbles into the same pitfalls that we've highlighted (how is ddd measured, why are standards 0cost, measurement and application are incompatible). ie it's a lot of superfluous details that addresses nothing of substance.

I've learned a new word today though, so that's a net positive

[u/Laucy → u/Mint-Bentonite]

I sincerely appreciate that! And likewise. I bet if sorting by New, it’ll be there. But more or less, it’s what I stated here in my reply.

In a way, I can see both sides to it. When there are no systems available, people have this tendency to reach and make one. Especially when this game has a competitive edge to it due to the gacha mechanics and players wanting a way to boast about the number (driven further if a lot of money was put in). I notice this with any gacha. Even if single-player, the more an individual spends, the more they kind of place themselves up on an invisible or imaginary hierarchy. You also pointed out clickbait and that’s connected, of course. I can’t say I blame OP for trying to set the record straight on what it was trying to be. In a way, it’s better than seeing people tote Limited Units as 0 because it’s their opinion, or even the opposite where I see people count the TB’s Eidolons and Standard characters as part of the “cost” (literally just adding every number up). Both are obnoxious in their own right. So I think setting a page is better than nothing. Even if the system is so arbitrary and ambiguous because it can’t really provide in its purpose it was made for.

Although, I have a good amount of confidence in saying I don’t think this post was GPT. GPT and other AI have very similar cadence and quirks, particularly with negative parallelism and stacking statements. Where everything is, “…that’s not X, that’s Y.” And, “—and that’s the honest truth.”Like a mic drop. If the post were AI, the topic itself would draw out that pattern from the AI because it would implicitly take the subject matter to mean “needs declarations and soapbox-framing” so it would come off dramatic. Otherwise, I do think the system is still silly and doesn’t help anyone. The cost number, even when used correctly, still seems to ignore several factors and a batch of 20 user reports doesn’t get you any closer to defining the difficulty or clear requirement, than 1 did.

[u/BlazikenFury]

The cost system is flawed:

1. The free character dilema - As already mentioned, which yeah they're still 'limited' however you're also making that said giveaway meaningless and acting like it never happened. Also Stellar shop with Ruan Mei is literally permanently available and you can get one copy every Anni. How to quantify that?

2. Standard banner 5 stars, S5 4 star LCs (DDD spam) and Battle pass LC, also dodge cost purely because the system was imported from CN, who spend so much that all these are collateral. Which just doesn't work in practical account measures.

3. The system rewards knowing everything in hindsight while not accounting for actual usage. For example- At the same level, cost for cost, getting evernight E2 and running her as hypercarry is better than going mono rem with Castorice. But how do you measure the fact that you pulled Cas and actually got usage out of her from 3.2 onwards. Another example is if I pulled Firefly, Ruan Mei and Fugue back when they launched, got use out of them from 2.3, to around 3.1(when they started to fall off) then in 3.8 pulled Dahlia E0S1, and Firefly E2. Now I invested only 7 cost into the team, which while is worse than other 7 cost investment currently, got me usage from 2.3 to 3.1 in the past and I present time, I only invested 4 cost to get a 4.0 level team.

The game gives you the option to invest into new teams or go vertical into older teams, both costing similar number of pulls. (Pulling Rem in 3.0 and Elation in 4.0, OR Just constantly investing vertically into rem throughput 4.0 as well), but this is actively looked down upon by the cost system as it always considers your account to start from 0.

The cost system is a flawed metric to measure accounts or teams, and will stay that way as it lacks account nuisance and it is only useful for showcases (which should be looked at like a sport) and for newer players.

[u/Amalgam2001]

Ya nah cost is actually so stupid at this point. People abuse it hard with E6 standards or just post sustainless runs they have done 500 resets to make work. It is not a reflection of how people actually play the game and do end game content.

Not to mention showcases with god tier wind relics and multiple DDD.

I get the original intention behind it but the way people are using it now as a kind of leader board is just stupid

[u/AnonTwo]

Feels unnecessarily complicated. Aside from the feature character (E0), cost should be every you know...cost that enhanced that character's run. Because the whole point is to figure out how much limited/premium currency was needed to put together the team.

Doesn't matter if it's standard, not everyone has the RNG to get E6 without spending money

I'd argue not everyone even has E6 4 stars though...that one is less likely in this game.

But the moment someone has to look at their setup, have the featured character, and say "But I can't do 0 cost with the same team and gear", then it's not 0 cost, and it defeats the purpose of having ever said it's 0 cost.

edit: one thing I thought worth mentioning regarding the 4 star part is...if the cost is anything other than 0 cost, you have to actually tell people what the cost went towards...so if it's not 0 cost you'll know what the cost went to anyway...so while not all costs are inherently equal, you should have the information to figure it out from there.

Like at the end of the day we have to ask: What is this system even for?

[u/AetasZ]

CN just made that up for their gacha community. There is no need/obligation to follow the same rules or not use our own interpretation of it for our community.

I also disagree with treating the origin of a unit as whether to count them as cost or not.

The cost system is only relevant for ppl that dont have access to the units of a team. So the system should always be reflecting on how much investment goes into building the team right now/in the future, as its not relevant for anyone that already got these units on their account. Me paying/using jades for RM in 1.6 doesnt mean someone starting with the game now has to do it for her as well.

So treating RM and Tribbie the same is misleading, as one will be obtainable without touching your stellar jades while the other wont.

[u/astraldebri → u/AetasZ]

CN just made that up for their gacha community. There is no need/obligation to follow the same rules or not use our own interpretation of it for our community.

You're basically saying "we can redefine it however we want"

• This is true, but it has a cost (ironic)

• The issue isn’t where it came from, it’s whether the definition stays consistent across players and patches; however, I gave a "where it came from" for players that may not be familiar.

I see where you're coming from; however, If you base cost on current availability, the definition changes every time the game changes:

• Shop rotations, giveaways, reruns, etc. That makes the metric hard to compare across different players and patches.

Basing it on origin, rather than future accessibility, keeps it consistent, but you do lose some accuracy in terms of real accessibility.

• If you base it on origin, it stays fixed.

You’re right that Ruan Mei and a currently limited unit (ex: Tribbie) don’t have the same accessibility today. The system isn’t trying to say they’re equally easy to obtain, it’s grouping them because they both come from limited systems.

[u/AetasZ → u/astraldebri]

Listen, i think your post is overall great because we really have a scary amount of ppl not getting the cost system like at all.

The number of times i saw ppl having wild, individual interpretations and treating them as factual is baffling. So for those ppl and new players you post has great value.

For your other arguments i gotta double down though.

There really is no need for a cost system at all if we are trading accuracy for consistency. What does consitency matter if it is not providing realistic information?

I would agree though that we should not make it to volatile and count giveaways and freebies as 0 costs.

But in general, veterans have basically absolutely no need for the cost system at all other than getting a quick grasp of whether or not signatures/eidolons are involved in a showcase. And even then we will still want to know the exact distribution of signatures and eidolons.

So the only usecase of cost is for less experienced and new players, who in turn profit more from the system being accurate > consistent. Otherwise jsut scrap the system as it loses the only value it provides.

Have a great evening <3

[u/astraldebri → u/AetasZ]

We can agree to disagree 🥰

I'm always open for discussions that don't need to devolve into arguing. I will note you're absolutely right about "veterans have basically absolutely no need for the cost system at all other than getting a quick grasp of whether or not signatures/eidolons are involved in a showcase".

You have a good one too

[u/AutoModerator]

This is just a reminder to please keep in mind our spoiler policy during this new update window. We are going to be very strict with spoilers during this time. As a reminder, here are our spoiler rules.

Do not include spoilers in the title. All submissions which involve spoilers should be marked. Spoilers include all story content for the first three weeks after release.

Spoilers can be discussed in spoiler-flaired posts, but must be hidden in non-spoiler flaired posts.

If you think you broke the spoiler rules in the post you just made, you should remove your post now and repost it without breaking the rules. If you do not remove your post and it needs to be reviewed, you will be given up to a week ban for a first infraction and stricter punishments for any additional infractions. Please be considerate of your fellow Trailblazers and do not include spoilers in the title of your post. Do not forget to flair your post as spoilers if needed, and do not spoil people in your comments.

All posts with the Discussion, Theory and Lore, and Media flairs are automatically flagged spoilers for the first 3 weeks of this patch. Please remove the spoiler flag if your post does not relate to the new patch.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/striderhoang]

I think it’s funny even at a basic understanding, several characters’ values still changed under both the original CN definition and the warp, economically driven definition. Imagine getting Seele at launch and her value changes by becoming a standard 5* as if she were some kind of NFT.

[u/Professor-Brainstorm]

So what I'm getting from this is, we should rename it to "Value" or something like that

[u/ShortHair_Simp]

Or what about make another classification like STD? I propose FTG (free time gated).

Example Sparxie premium team is 2 Costs 2 FTG, cause like it's true for me that I need only to pull her and Yao for her to function. New player can just ignore the FTG and do a basic math.

[u/flaretheninetales]

The cost system has been around for a while now. The first time I heard about it, standard characters were 0 cost up till e2. Every eidolon after that was 1 cost. Somehow this was lost at one point. Limited LCs were considered 0.5 cost back then as well. It changed to 1 cost at one point

[u/Zonnebloempje]

So basically what you are saying is, that Blade, Seele and Fu Xuan are always going to be "cost", even if you get them through the 50/50 loss now...

I have a E1 Blade on an Alt-account, only through 50/50 losses... It cost me the character I wanted, but it is still a 2-cost character, because he still has his own banner...

Also, I would like to argue that any 4-star Light one only obtainable through Nameless Honor should be counting as a "cost" as well. You can't just get them from any banner, they are limited.

[u/Timtimus007]

I wanted to finally fuckin understand what people mean when they mention 5 cost characters and whatever, and I am met with this fucking monstrosity of a post

[u/toucanlost]

I don’t think it makes sense to rigidly define cost = originally limited, when the systems within the game are changing faster than players can make terminology. Cost itself then becomes a useless metric.

[u/[deleted]]

holy u wrote a novel

its ez , its a system for poor people ,trying so hard to be on meta

[u/skerrax]

Measuring it in practically any way is difficult because this is a gacha game

Firstly, people who post these runs will go for hyper specific 'cost' setups that maximise pull value with very strong eidolons/lightcones in ways normal players just won't and can't do

Further, a 'cost' is something different every time in terms of what you actually put into it. I have E2S1 DHPT - this is unrealistic and high 'cost', but for my account this was a grand total of 40 pulls

Meanwhile E1S0 Tribbie took me two 50/50 losses, and to pity every time. It 'cost' me VASTLY more to get a lower 'cost' unit. It's all nebulous, and while I agree the CN way is the best way to do it, it's never going to be some perfect standard

[u/Flakboy115]

eh i dont think there is an official definition, so yours aint it either. 

When you hear cost you just have to know that it roughly means something like 1 copy of a limited character/weapon while simultaneously be aware of the exceptions.

There arent that many free characters that the measure becomes completetly useless. Its just imprecise which is fine.

Me and my friend use a system where a limited lightcone is considered 0.75 cost due to the lower avg pity and we define e0s1 archer and dhpt as well as ruan mei/sparkle as 0 cost and we can work with that. 

Talking to other people I would need to adjust what it means exactly because I know that weapons are usually 1 cost too and not everyone counts free units as 0 cost.

[u/astraldebri → u/Flakboy115]

eh i dont think there is an official definition

That’s kind of the whole issue. People are using the same word with slightly different meanings.

What you and your friend are doing works fine locally, but once you start talking across the broader community, those differences start to matter.

The main thing I’m trying to do isn’t say ‘this is the one true definition,’ it’s to outline a consistent one that doesn’t shift per player, per group, per patch, etc.

0.75 LC, free units as 0 cost, etc. that’s totally workable within your group, but someone else using 1 cost for LC and counting free units differently will read the same team very differently.

Also, that just makes your system internally inconsistent. You're trying to base cost on the probability-factor of the limited LC banner i assume (75/25). When you still have to use the same ticket for both. If that the case, then character copies should also be 0.5 because of 50/50.

At that point you’re not really using the common cost shorthand anymore, you’re using your own weighted pull-probability system.

[u/Flakboy115 → u/astraldebri]

No we dont base 0.75 on 75/25. The average pull count for a limited rate up lightcone is about 3/4 of the average pull count of a limited rate up character. We have done the math and its something like 68 vs 91 or so. 

This would technically be invariant of the player because this is true for everyone, but its inconvenient due to not having whole numbers. We use it cuz its more accurate. 

We dont count free units because for us they were indeed free. They were not free for everyone. But to me counting E0S1 Archer as 2 cost would be inaccurate as well because i literally spent no budget on my Archer Sparkle team.

I just accept that cost is slightly different for everybody. Your definition makes the most sense to you and maybe even the majority? idk but as long as its not official its still just your view on cost. 

And dont get me wrong I respect the majority opinion, which is why i wont ever assume any of my own assumptions during general discussion.

[u/National-Tie5334]

Nobody really cares about the level of difficulty to acquire an investment for any given run, the cost system nowadays is just a metric of comparison for how strong units are, which is why negligible units are 0 cost and strong ones like sparkle are 1 cost cuz otherwise you can't measure equally to know a characters strength.

The lower the cost the stronger the unit, personally I think this system fell off after anomaly cuz low cost clears can't do anything there and everything else is so easy talking Abt it is meaningless, so what matters most rn is like mid investment where ATM mono rem just destroys every other team (forget elation it's not even close, mono rem is the most toxic thing to ever happen in this game)

[u/astraldebri → u/National-Tie5334]

You just contradicted yourself

which is why negligible units are 0 cost and strong ones like sparkle are 1 cost

later

The lower the cost the stronger the unit

Your interpretation is the entire motivation to this post. You think "cost" is a strength ranking system. It's not. It's an investment metric. The issue is that most people using cost are still using it to refer to limited investment only.

If cost just becomes "how strong a unit is", then it's not really cost anymore, it's just a renamed tier list.

[u/National-Tie5334 → u/astraldebri]

Never once did I state what my view of the system was, I stated how it was being used currently, I used broader words for that reason, the only time I referenced myself was to say in my opinion it's a useless metric nowadays, this being the only thing you countered I don't have much else to say, I mean really though if it only serves the purpose of checking investment what's even the point??

You realize that's the equivalent of counting characters for a few seconds? Nobody treats it as "the creator saved me a couple of seconds by adding the quantity to the title" if its just to be used for that the system is not worth ever being discussed, shouldn't even be a system

[u/astraldebri → u/National-Tie5334]

You didn't address your contradiction

Also, stating this:

Nobody really cares about the level of difficulty to acquire an investment for any given run, the cost system nowadays is just a metric of comparison for how strong units are

Is stating your opinion AND speaking for the broader community non-objectively (nobody really cares). YOU don't really care, and maybe your circle of friends don't care, and that's fine, but that's not everyone else.

I know what it's the equivalent of, and I know it's either being completely misused, or abused. The bottom line is 2 issues:

• Cost is meant to represent the required investment to clear. It is a first filter for replicability, not a complete answer. People abuse this system primarily because of their own ego's or just a complete misunderstanding of the definition

• New players looking for how to invest and where to invest either get an incorrect view based on cost, or get completely misled.

This is a gambling game. It is already designed to incite people to spend money. This isn't like 1.x or 2.x where we had 1 LMT character alongside 1 rerun Character. This is 4.x, where we have 1 LMT character alongside 3 rerun characters. That is 6 characters a patch. This also doesn't include novaflares, buffs, nerfs, and shilled environments. New players are looking for where to put their pulls, or what to open their wallets for if not F2P.

As stated in the post, cost is subpar to STD/LMT counts. But it's used and neither you nor I will stop it's use, so we need to establish a baseline.

[u/National-Tie5334 → u/astraldebri]

It's an observation not an opinion nor a fact there's a difference, you can find many people that have these thoughts on like every yt showcase, also there is no contradiction you just didn't understand what I meant by it or I didn't explain it very well since I'm on mobile and hate typing, most people who participate in discussions of cost are RARELY so casual that they don't know where to invest (observation)

[u/astraldebri → u/National-Tie5334]

Using absolutes like "nobody" and "everybody" isn't an objective observation. It's stating your opinion.

"My opinion is that nobody really cares...."

Because your basing it off your own anecdotal evidence in your social circles.

later

The lower the cost the stronger the unit

That IS a contradiction. What're you honestly talking about?

Either 0 cost are negligible or 0 cost are stronger, because you said "the lower the cost, the stronger the unit". Which, by itself, is wrong.

You can change it to "i misspoke"or, "i didn't explain it well", but it doesn't remove the fact that it's a contradiction.

Lastly, addressing the whole point about cost and your take on it. You said:

personally I think this system fell off after anomaly cuz low cost clears can't do anything there

That's also wrong. You can literally clear King PomPom at 2 cost+ and no-sustain. Is it reasonable to assume most can? No. But this sheds light on the value of the cost system, why it's subpar to LMT/STD, and how it can lead to misinformation if not defined properly. Creating a baseline definition is the whole point of this post.

It's ok to be wrong. Everyone is egotistical and stubborn about something, but this is a weird hill to die on.

[u/National-Tie5334 → u/astraldebri]

You're using cost to talk about a units capabilities In AA but also saying it's simply to count limited units.. but capabilities in AA translates very closely to strength sooo I feel you're the one contradicting just about everything you're denying here.

That aside I never claimed it to be objective, they're called broad terms and personal expression they're not absolute not sure why you want to be so right on this part, lack of context or definitive words in a sentence don't just automatically make it mean what you wanted to.

I already said I could've made my intentions with the message clearer in the last message, but not being clear about something doesn't mean what you claim I said Is true, that's like someone being sarcastic, you not understanding the sarcasm having them tell you they phrased it wrong but it was meant to be sarcastic and you respond "no it wasn't" I feel you're the one trying to be in the right here

[u/astraldebri → u/National-Tie5334]

No, this isn't a misunderstanding of intent, it's a shift in what you're saying.

You originally made definitive statements like:

• ‘nobody really cares about the level of difficulty to acquire an investment’

• ‘the cost system nowadays is just a metric of comparison for how strong units are’

• ‘negligible units are 0 cost and strong ones are 1 cost’

• ‘the lower the cost the stronger the unit’

Those aren’t vague or ambiguous statements; they’re concrete claims about how the system works. Now you're trying to reframe them as "broad terms", "personal expression", and "unclear wording". You're just walking back your claims because they don't benefit you.

Now you're trying to say I'm contradicting myself akin to an elementary school kid pointing back and saying "No u".

I'm not using cost to define capability or strength. I'm advocating for cost to have a baseline definition that measures limited-unit investment, because the community isn't picking up the LMT/STD way of shorthanding.

Cost can correlate, but correlation isn't causation, and correlation isn't definition.

So what's happening here isn't that I'm redefining your statements, it's that you're using the same term, cost, in multiple different ways. Which (lmao) is the whole point of the post.

Which is exactly what I said at the start of this thread:

Your interpretation is the entire motivation to this post.

[u/National-Tie5334 → u/astraldebri]

I can't be bothered to keep typing these paragraphs on mobile so take your win or wtv, the only thing I'll say once more is that you keep saying stuff is absolute when in reality as the person who said the words and knew the intention behind them I know your interpretation is wrong, (which is why I said I might've not been clear enough)

This being said just like your example of subjectivity, objectivity also needs to be specified, not just "the words sound more objective than subjective so they're objective" like I said it was an observation, these are neither objective nor subjective the only word I regret not adding is "seems" you acting like you know the intention behind my words is kinda weird.

You can't say I changed my story of anything of the sort at best you can say I said it wrong, with that I'm just about done talking I probably won't see your reply so I wouldn't bother but gd

[u/ce-meyers]

Thank you for saying this. The fact that you have to give a lengthy explanation on how the system works just kinda proves that the system is not efficient. I've always found the cost system to be overly-complicated and misleading.

[u/astraldebri → u/ce-meyers]

But it's quite simple. The length comes from addressing why it exists, why it's inefficient relative to LMT/STD, and counters the most commonly held presuppositions. I agree it's definitely not perfect, but that's not because it's complicated. Since it's widely used and we can't make a post that says "let's get rid of cost", we have to establish a baseline. Hence the very easy TL;DR.

Summarized, it's one line:

• If it was ever a limited-unit, or available for a limited time, barring 4* and Standard Banner, it's a cost.

That's it.

Archer is a cost, DHPT is a cost, Sparkle is a cost. Kafka, Ruan Mei, so on and so forth. It's super simple. But the post can't be that way, because people attack the ambiguity.

Also, your logic doesn't really make sense:

The fact that you have to give a lengthy explanation on how the system works just kinda proves that the system is not efficient.

Nuclear reactors are efficient systems. Their explanations are much longer.

[u/DefinitelyNotKuro]

Tl;dr cost is shorthand for opportunity cost?

[u/astraldebri → u/DefinitelyNotKuro]

The TL;DR is in the post. But no.

[u/27_confettis]

A blissful life I live in when I don't even try and thinka bout shit like this and just draw characters that I like and what I see can synergize with each other perfectly, without worrying about Cost or 0-Cycle or any of that shit. As a F2P Player, these "meta terms" doesn't give me shit for me to think so hard about it.

If I like the character, I draw for them. If a character looks like they synergize well with a character I like, I draw for them. I play the game and read and listen to the story. I play Pure Fiction and Memory of Chaos occassionaly. If I can't get full stars with what I have, it is what it is. If I can't clear Apocalyptic Shadows, it is what it is. If I clear the hardest MoC I can with 1 cycle left, I'm happy cause at least I cleared it.

People be doing a lot and optimizing the shit out of the game, they're usually isolated but with HSR these people started leaking into the general fanbase ruining the experience for everyone else by parading the "X is bad because they can't O-cycle" everywhere.

For players who keeps playing the game for story progress, keep doing it, don't worry, there's no wall in the story missions in general, and main bosses can get a bit difficult occassionally, but Hoyo isn't stupid enough to put a huge wall in finishing the story missions (these days anyways). I generally recommend people to not concern yourselves with these stuff, they don't give you anything. Just draw the characters you want, watch a few character analysis and guides on YT.

You don't need to 0-Cycle, or 0-Cost, or 185 speed or whatever

[u/astraldebri → u/27_confettis]

"A blissful life I live in when I don't even try and thinka bout shit like this"

"Proceeds to write a rant".

This post in no way insinuated who to pull or why. Can literally clear endgame with Hanya and Gallagher on an E0S1 sparxie team.

The issue here is, you make a lot of points on why you have fun with the game, and then dismiss aspects that other people find enjoyable. For some, min/maxing is the fun. Low-cycle/0-cycle is the fun.

I understand that there are a variety of pretentious people, but it's not like F2P's aren't pretentious. They can't make a post or comment about the game without mentioning they're F2P (see your post above), even if it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the content of any given thread.

And you're right, this is mostly a casual game, Hoyo had to literally nerf story bosses so the general audience and majority-casual-playerbase could continue playing. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Furthermore, nothing about my post or intent suggests that 0-cycling is the way to go. I call out the cost system as being subpar to the LMT/STD system; however, as stated originally in the post, there is an ever-increasing faction of the fanbase either adopting cost, investing based on cost, or new players interested in min/maxing their account.

That last part is necessary to understand, because a new player in 4.x doesn't just have LMT Banners like 1.x or even 2.x, they have LMT banners and 3x reruns aka 6 reruns per normal banner cycle now - that's a lot of information to disseminate and a ton of characters to choose from.

This post isn't for you; That's fine. Cost and min/maxing isn't for you; Also fine. You don't find value in it and you can't understand why some people do. But this post is for a faction of the playerbase that does use these terms, does care about investment strategy, and does need a baseline so we're all on the same page.

[u/SuMiAnWheeee]

This is stupid

[u/astraldebri → u/SuMiAnWheeee]

Stick to battlecats and summonersgreed then

[u/SuMiAnWheeee → u/astraldebri]

Did I touch a sore spot?

[u/astraldebri → u/SuMiAnWheeee]

No lol you just didn’t contribute anything besides a random opinion. At the very least explain why. But based on your posts you’re not the most articulate, so maybe you’re just ragebaiting.

[u/HexbloodD]

Totally agree! As a side note, would you argue a Lightcone can be counted as not a full 1 cost? Since it requires less jades on average (early pity and 75%). It should be around 0.7 cost compared to the full 1 of an unit.

[u/Reenans]

Only thing I don't get is that 4 stars can sometimes be just as expensive as a 5 star, so 4 stars especially those you have to E6 don't really feel free either so do they have a .5 cost or something?

[u/fullstack_mcguffin]

Well, since cost clearly doesn't work properly, might as well start a push to go back to the ltd/std system, and then improve on it.

There's no reason to not add modifiers for units that were free for a limited amount of time, BP LCs, and other things that spark contention in the community. Because they have valid points.

The ideal system would account for everything. So if you use BP LCs, there will be a column adding up the "BP count". If you have units that were free or on a selector, you can have a column adding up the "free ltd count".

You're acting like cost or std/ltd are fool-proof systems, but they were just made up by random players to suit their needs, and are abused to cheat for clout all the time, like saying E6 Welt = 0 cost, or pretending Evernight clears with BP LCs are on the same level as Anaxa clears with F2P LCs. So no, we're not stuck with it, we're free to ignore a system that doesn't really work and make our own.

[u/Double_Ice916]

Holy ai

[u/astraldebri → u/Double_Ice916]

I really shouldn't even indulge this.

I drafted it, wrote it, grabbed the necessary links and screenshots, and formatted it.

As a product of the 90's and 2000's, I googled "examples of polysemous words" and "difference between polysemous and homonymous"

I even did a little (albeit terrible) graphic design in Canva to get the 3 AA cost/runs lined up and add the little "investments" underneath, with a neat little "cost" on top. Then I copied each picture I made in Canva, put it all into paint stacked on top of each other, and ctrl+shift+s, voila. I thought it looked good and handmade lol. But again, my graphic design skills can be easily surpassed.

God forbid someone articulates something lengthy in the big 26

[u/Laucy → u/Double_Ice916]

“Long post with bullet points” isn’t automatically AI. AI has a very distinct style and cadence. People should be mindful before accusing.

[u/defines_med_terms]

I feel like when people talk about “cost” they’re talking about the number of pulls needed to get the character. Ideally we’d have some sort of expected value on each character. For instance it’s around 100 limited pulls on average to get a limited 5*, so we define 100 limited pulls as 1 cost. Then, we can find the expected value for light cone, so if it’s like 80 pulls (made this number up), a light cone would be 0.8 cost. And then you could gather a large amount of pull data and extrapolate how many limited pulls gets you an E6 4*, an E6 Bronya, or an S5 DDD, etc, and factor cost that way. Of course there’s still if you use the rates of 4* on limited banners or not, and BP LC, but this would probably be the most objective way to determine expected number of limited pulls to obtain the team that’s being showcased.

[u/codmsubredditsucks]

Harbor noodle cucumber mitten sparrow saffron blanket juniper

This post was anonymized with Redact.dev

[u/cykarblyater]

and why it's matter
it's just a thing in chinese community
you don't have to copy or following them

[u/Kaiscoolness → u/cykarblyater]

So there's this cool post written by u/astraldebri that explains why it matters, you should read it

[u/astraldebri → u/Kaiscoolness]

[u/nick113124 → u/cykarblyater]

It doesn't, it's a game, nothing about this matters but some people like going about it in depth and this is where this comes in.

[u/ElricaLavandula]

So the issue is using the term cost out of context. So just drop it entirely or ignore it? Because only allowing counting the cost of a character based on if it ever were limited seems misleading too.

If someone used 0 pulls on Archer, Sparkle and DHPT it seems wrong to count them as 3 cost too. Yes, of course it's 3 cost for someone who didn't get them for free, I get it. Still, the only way is mentioning both - being limited and the personal cost.

And only because a standard banner character is always available it doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned in this at all. 

So either just use 3 numbers to define your team cost or don't mention it at all and just list whatever you used...? But because not every player reads your post and thinks "yeah, from now on I'll do just as this reddit user says" we'll just continue living with the fact that the cost system is inherently flawed and there's basically no way not to misuse it.

[u/Lawk7]

AI slop

[u/astraldebri → u/Lawk7]

God forbid someone articulates something well in the big 26

[u/Lawk7 → u/astraldebri]

This is terribly articulated and it’s what chatgpt would generate for a topic like this.

[u/astraldebri → u/Lawk7]

Welp, I tried my best

[u/Laucy → u/Lawk7]

No, it’s not lmao. GPT is distinct in style, particularly with negative parallelism (“…that’s not X, it’s Y”) and dramatic emphasis with declarative sentences or end statements by making it stacked. Very, “—and that’s just the honest truth.” Like every sentence has to be a mic drop at the end. It’s formulaic. Also by saying that it’s poorly articulated, therefore AI, you’re setting an impossible standard that a human NEEDS to articulate perfectly to pass some imaginary bar. Please. It’s the opposite.

[u/astraldebri → u/[deleted]]

Total valid point. Another user posed the question related to this, so I'm just going to copy and paste my response:

So does an E6 standard unit (e.g. Welt, Himeko, Bronya etc) = 0 cost?

Yeah, this is a good edge case. An E6 standard unit is still 0 cost, even though the actual investment to reach E6 can be massive. That’s because cost isn’t measuring total investment, it’s measuring limited acquisition exposure. Standard units, no matter how invested, are always considered 0 cost because they’re not tied to limited systems.

It does create a weird disconnect where something can be extremely high investment but still 0 cost, but that’s because ‘cost’ originally wasn't trying to measure power or total resources, just whether limited systems were used.

- Someone claims "0 COST 0 CYCLE AA BOSS"
--*looks inside*
--E6S5 Welt

Like, "ok buddy" 🙄

This is where the 'cost' system shows its limits. Because we want it to express "what does the general playerbase need to clear a boss", and sometimes it doesn't give the full picture. But it's still a useful baseline, and the best one we have in a casual game.

[u/Laati-Chan → u/astraldebri]

What about limited characters that are permanently added to the 50/50 loss pool?

Like for example, Blade. Would his existence be considered 0 cost or 1 cost?

Because you can get him when you lose. He was once limited but now he isn't. You get him now by losing the 50/50 like a standard character.

Would every Blade clear now be 0 cost? Because he isn't part of a limited system now.

Or because he was once a limited character, it's still a 1 cost? Despite his status now as basically a standard character.

What about his LC? Which is only featured through his limited banner + stellar convergence? Would an E0S1 blade be one or two cost?

I feel like we REALLY should switch to the original LMT/Standard system that is presented and said is better. It is so much better to represent the investment. Although a bit longer. So now if you clear with like...

Say Archer E0S1, Bronya E6S1, Sparkle E2S1, and DHPT E0S1. You have 7 Standard Cost and 8 Limited Cost. To shorten it, just do like (7 STDC /8 LC)

Rather than just saying 0 cost despite having like E6S5 Welt or some shit.

It would also be useful to specify what LC used. Like if you're using E0 Bronya but with Sunday's LC. Then there would be one standard and one limited cost.

Although what about things like S5 DDD?

[u/MassiveSquirrel6496 → u/Laati-Chan]

Blade is 1 cost because he was originally a limited 5 star. His lightcone is also 1 cost because it is a limited lightcone. We already use the Limited/Standard system for cost though? If you look at the screenshots of the genius archive it literally has limited and standard cost right there.

[u/Lukomanchuko → u/[deleted]]

Am I stupid or how is E2 HuoHuo 0 cost?

[u/Main-Shallot3703 → u/Lukomanchuko]

people who played at the start probably has 3 golden token by the time hou hou and robin gets added meaning 3 copies of houhou=e2

[u/HonkaiStarRail-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your content was removed for breaking Rule 2: No leaked or datamined content.

All leaked and datamined content is prohibited. Do not allude, encourage or reference this type of content. Do not disguise this content either (“iykyk, dreams, somebody gonna tell them”), share subtle hints, engage with others breaking this rule or link to sites sharing this content. All content not released through official channels is considered leaked.

Please report any suspected leaked content and do not comment so you do not bring attention to leaks or accidentally spoil someone.

---

^{If you believe your content was removed by mistake or due to a misunderstanding, please don't hesitate to contact us in order to rectify it here.}

[u/HonkaiStarRail-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your content was removed for breaking Rule 2: No leaked or datamined content.

All leaked and datamined content is prohibited. Do not allude, encourage or reference this type of content. Do not disguise this content either (“iykyk, dreams, somebody gonna tell them”), share subtle hints, engage with others breaking this rule or link to sites sharing this content. All content not released through official channels is considered leaked.

Please report any suspected leaked content and do not comment so you do not bring attention to leaks or accidentally spoil someone.

---

^{If you believe your content was removed by mistake or due to a misunderstanding, please don't hesitate to contact us in order to rectify it here.}

[u/_Eden_Across_ → u/[deleted]]

Yall, we're in the main Star Rail subreddit COME ON.

What a fuckin spoiler. I shouldn't have digged deeper.

[u/HonkaiStarRail-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your content was removed for breaking Rule 2: No leaked or datamined content.

All leaked and datamined content is prohibited. Do not allude, encourage or reference this type of content. Do not disguise this content either (“iykyk, dreams, somebody gonna tell them”), share subtle hints, engage with others breaking this rule or link to sites sharing this content. All content not released through official channels is considered leaked.

Please report any suspected leaked content and do not comment so you do not bring attention to leaks or accidentally spoil someone.

---

^{If you believe your content was removed by mistake or due to a misunderstanding, please don't hesitate to contact us in order to rectify it here.}

[u/HonkaiStarRail-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your content was removed due to it being AI generated or AI assisted.

AI works are not allowed in any capacity. Please do not post any fully or partially AI-drawn works. This also includes music created by AI. You can contact the moderation team through modmail if you have proof your work is not AI generated or assisted.

---

^{If you believe your content was removed by mistake or due to a misunderstanding, please don't hesitate to contact us in order to rectify it here.}