So I need to know what percentage of a monster's 100% effectiveness comes from these categories.

Lifespan, Working Lifespan, Primespan, Attack (str, acc, and withering combined), guts regen, # of total techniques, # of techniques that have to be unlocked.

I'm going to reverse out beginning stats with the training modifiers found in my April 2009 post about the dream (ie work backwards from the total number of a stat by the average prime stat gain), add those to Total lifespan, then take out prime and working life pro rata. The # of techniques will be a negative, as will # of chained techniques.

Also, I need one more stat before I can do my "reversing initial stats" idea. . .

I need the stat gain ranges if a monster is terrible, bad, neutral, good, and the best at drills (IE Monols at Def, or Zillas at Pow) Only need Hard Drills. I could get to it eventually, but I'd like to knock this thing out soon. . . I'd recommend a hare/tiger or hare/naga because they have a terrible, bad, neutral, good and great drill.

Effectiveness at what?

And, mepersoner's stats has some info you are looking for in terms of best at drills.

No, MEperson has stats for some drills, but each monster has a baseline stat gain modifier from 1-5. 1 being terrible, 5 being great. There are, on top of these, random rolls which I think span 5 points (ie if a 5 at a drill, you should hypothetically be from 16-21 or 17-22, but stat gains stop at 20 so this is the cut off). I am trying to get an average of the stat gains for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 during prime and nonprime using only heavy drills. It's too hard to explain, I'll do it myself and come post results when finished . . . I'm basically combining 4 different charts made by various members and adding some more calculations.

You'll have to derive the numbers yourself.

And, I'm not really seeing any usefulness in this, especially since combined monsters start with huge differences from CD monsters.

Well it will show which monsters are the best skill/power monsters (easy for beginners) given lifespan, working life, technique number, power of the techniques. . .Basically it shows which monsters are easiest to train, those hardest to train, those easiest to max out, and which ones SHOULD be the best fighters (barring unknown variables such as Naga's fighting luck bonus or the fact that a golem s-power move is more damaging than a ducken s power move).

Why do you assume that training skill and power is the easiest for a beginner?

People get attached to all sorts of things in monsters they prefer to raise, whether it's looks, attacks, activity on the ranch, sounds or just general preferences. We had one guy who just raised Galis. The only sound advice to beginners is to try raising one of as many main types as you can, just to experience them all.

There's a lot to determining the 'best' fighters, especially since comp control is so different from live tourneys. And, a rancher's choice of form and nature affects the parameters greatly, as seen in the Market single monster type tourneys.

And, the number of techs is almost insignificant, but, if you had studied the online tourneys, you'd know that. It's all about choosing a set of techs for a particular purpose. And, different ranchers have different purposes for their monsters in battle.

The tech values are posted, and it's up to people to decide for themselves if a difference in force points is worth choosing one way or the other -especially since it is not usually the first consideration in choosing techs for an online tourney-level monster.

Essentially, you want to whittle down the list to monsters that please you personally; not something that will be of use to the general public. -And certainly not a good guide for a beginner.

So a monster that has the highest ratio of skill:power:life would not be useful for a person who just wants to get to Master rank and unlock all the monsters . . . Then I suppose the grape wasn't the easiest/cheapest monster in MR1? The list I am in the process of making includes MEperson's statgain breakdown (in more detail), Firefairy's lifespan breakdown, Omni/you/whomever else submitted to guts regen, Kurasu's https://www.gamefaqs.com/console/psx/file/197977/41787, and putting all the monsters in the same order with all these attributes in the row with them.

I suppose compiling all of these lists into one isn't helpful . . . but I'll be able to run functions in excel to find which sub of any main is the best of the main statistically, something I see as useful. I guess no one else could ever possibly have something to contribute to this forum though.

I said "like power and skill" because training either power or intelligence and skill makes for an easy monster with nearly unstoppable potential. Really int and skill would be easier since the heavy drill caters to that, but I said power and skill because tanks are what beginners usually gravitate towards.

I suppose a less hostile way to put it would be: is a monsters lifespan pertinent information? Yes. Prime life? Yes. Working life? Yes. Stat gain pattern? Yes. Beginning stats of shrined monsters? Yes. Guts regen? Yes.

Would it make sense to put all of a monsters information into one place as opposed to 4? I think so, so I did. My addition was to take out the beginning stats by dividing them by the average stat gain in hard drills. This gives a # of weeks to add to the lifespan. I would take these weeks, multiply them by the workinglife/total life and prime/total life. This would give how many weeks would be added to each of these. Then add to total life.

In summary, these new stats would show exactly how much life a monster was "worth" and to what levels its stats could be raised 1st gen theoretically, all variables held constant. What I said about # of techs and technique chains was for my personal benefit I suppose, but errantries cost lifespan and the higher # of techs, the more errantries. More tech chains, more battles must be fought to use a move 30 or 50 times. Which is why they were included.

So I repose my original question. GIVEN the data mentioned (working life, prime life, total life, stat gains, tech #, guts regen, tech chain #). What percentages would you put on the value of each of these in a monster's 100% total worth. An example (my idea of correct) would be around .25, .15, .1, .3, .05, .1, .05 respectively.

I think the concern is more about your statement about this being "easy for beginners" while a Beginner is not going to be very concerned about advanced play details unless they are advanced players already (in which case they are not beginners, and will skip straight to the advanced methods in the FAQs). Beginners aren't concerned with all the number crunching, they want something to help them begin the game with tangible gameplay. Basic tips for basic ranching and game familiarization.

I believe the other concern is the duplication of existing data.
It seems you are simply offering to republish existing information without proving or disproving anything new and coming up with a different way to display that existing data?

There are already beginner FAQs and advanced play FAQs. When a Beginner has played enough beginner style of play and is ready for more advanced techniques and the number crunching of squeezing everything they can (or very specific things they want) out of a monster, they may proceed to the advanced FAQs for the more finer points of ranching.

" What percentages would you put on the value of each of these in a monster's 100% total worth. An example (my idea of correct) would be around .25, .15, .1, .3, .05, .1, .05 respectively."

If you ask 100 players, you will get 100 different answers because everyone values various things differently. Everyone sees 'worth' differently.

Even in tourneys where everyone was forced to raise the exact same monster, EVERYONE chose different techs and different raising methods. And, these were very high-level players who knew what they were doing.

Even in MR1, where we debunked the "Grape is most powerful" myth a long time ago, there's no magic formula for the best monster. (and the fact that you repeat it as fact is just another indication of how little you understand about the game)

But, we've seen players who just enjoy watching Pixies fly, or get a kick out of Hoppers jumping around, etc. People get to raise whatever they like in this game. No matter how skilled a player is, they have no place telling someone else what monsters to raise. None of our best ranchers would presume to do so.

It is a common assumption on the part of beginners that if they just get the right type, the game will be easy to 'beat.'

So, once again, this chart serves you and you alone because no one has the same ideas of 'worth'. (and, I'd be willing to bet that none of the winningest tourney types wind up in your top ten)

Lifespan varies dramatically from the given chart for monsters off CD, and each CD gives a different result, so, for CD monsters, much of your values would be incorrect.

Everything changes for second generation monsters who start out gifted with extra techs. Maybe all the techs a player wants!

Your project violates our site policy of keeping data in small-ish, easy to print files of specific interest -so people don't waste paper/ink printing out things they do not need. And, keeping topics separate prevents other sites from copying everything we have, which was attempted on several occasions.

And, of course, it violates our general policy of being non-judgmental and encouraging people to play every monster because there is no best monster to raise!

You would be much better off researching information we do not have yet for the site than navel-gazing and trying to create artificial meaning by reshuffling data in a prejudiced manner.