Difference between revisions of "Talk:Skills"
From PSU Cyril Wiki
(→Tables?) |
(→Tables?: Proposals for more efficient table formats.) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
* Actually, I just stole the table format from wikipedia's '''class="wikitable"''' specification. It seems PSUPedia doesn't actually have that, so I had to throw in all the background color and formatting codes manually - a bit of a hassle and no good for size. | * Actually, I just stole the table format from wikipedia's '''class="wikitable"''' specification. It seems PSUPedia doesn't actually have that, so I had to throw in all the background color and formatting codes manually - a bit of a hassle and no good for size. | ||
| + | *: I can't see all 30 levels fitting. Two sets of 15 would be the smallest but for practicality reasons it might be better to see three rows of 10. | ||
| + | *: Finally, we could always use a system of unverified and verified by using something like brackets, italics or <font color="#ff0000">red</font> on numbers that have been assumed but not explicitly seen. - [[User:Miraglyth|Miraglyth]] 08:03, 30 October 2006 (PST) | ||
| − | * | + | * About time I looked into this again. |
| + | *:The assumption of consistency of combo and PP costs at every "stage" of the skill can be used to make the proposed table format more efficient. I'll use an example - again, Renkai Buyou-Zan - to demonstrate this: | ||
| − | + | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="2" style="text-align:center; background:#aeaeae" | |
| + | |- style="background:#f2f2f2" | ||
| + | ! Level || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 || 6 || 7 || 8 || 9 || 10 | ||
| + | |- style="background:#f9f9f9" | ||
| + | ! bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|Att.: | ||
| + | | 136% || 137% || 138% || 139% || 140% || 141% || 142% || 143% || 144% || 145% | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|'''PP:''' 12 | ||
| + | |- style="background:#f9f9f9" | ||
| + | ! bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|Acc.: | ||
| + | | 59% || 60% || 61% || 62% || 63% || 64% || 65% || 66% || 67% || 68% | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|'''Combo:''' 1 | ||
| + | |- style="background:#f2f2f2" | ||
| + | ! Level || 11 || 12 || 13 || 14 || 15 || 16 || 17 || 18 || 19 || 20 | ||
| + | |- style="background:#f9f9f9" | ||
| + | ! bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|Att.: | ||
| + | | 146% || 147% || 148% || 149% || 150% || 151% || 152% || 153% || 154% || 155% | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|'''PP:''' <font color="#ff0000">12</font> | ||
| + | |- style="background:#f9f9f9" | ||
| + | ! bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|Acc.: | ||
| + | | 74% || 75% || 76% || 77% || 78% || 79% || 80% || 81% || 82% || 83% | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|'''Combo:''' 2 | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::The initial example used 5 rows. In this example, 6 are used, whereas 10 would have been necessary had each entry for PP and Combo been given its' own row as with my initial entry. Finally, the PP cost for 11-20 is called into question via the red text. | ||
| + | ::Alternatives that I can see would include (a) Making the "Level" column span two colums and placing entries for PP and Combo under that like so: | ||
| + | |||
| + | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="2" style="text-align:center; background:#aeaeae" | ||
| + | |- style="background:#f2f2f2" | ||
| + | ! colspan="2"|Levels xx-yy || [Data] | ||
| + | |- style="background:#f9f9f9" | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|'''PP:''' x | ||
| + | ! bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|Att.: | ||
| + | | [Data] | ||
| + | |- style="background:#f9f9f9" | ||
| + | | bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|'''Combo:''' y | ||
| + | ! bgcolor="#f2f2f2"|Acc.: | ||
| + | | [Data] | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Or (b) (as I'm unsure of this) if the PP cost is consistent for all Skills/Bullets level 1-30 for all weapons, simply remove the "PP" entry from the table altogether, instead mentioning it elsewhere in the subsection for the Skill/Bullet. Equally, if all Skills have a Combo of 1 from 1-10, a Combo of 2 from 11-20 et. cetera, this can also be omitted from the Skills tables. It goes without saying that it wouldn't be in Bullet or Tech tables to begin with. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Again, thoughts? - [[User:Miraglyth|Miraglyth]] 11:21, 10 November 2006 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 19:21, 10 November 2006
Tables?
Formulas for determining skill/bullet/tech damage are more than passable, but a lot of people prefer to see flat tables instead of having to work with numbers (there's an irony in there, I know, but that's how they are).
Posting here to discuss the viability of using such a table, using the Twin Dagger skill Renkai Buyou-zan as the example:
| Level | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP | 12 | ||||||||||||||
| Att.: | 136% | 137% | 138% | 139% | 140% | 141% | 142% | 143% | 144% | 145% | 146% | 147% | 148% | 149% | 150% |
| Acc.: | 59% | 60% | 61% | 62% | 63% | 64% | 65% | 66% | 67% | 68% | 74% | 75% | 76% | 77% | 78% |
| Combo: | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||
Thoughts? - Miraglyth 02:22, 30 October 2006 (PST)
- .. Yeah, agreed. I should have done the same for the exp thing also. It's just that I got kind of lazy, I guess. First things first though, I'm kind of wondering if the data is different on/off. Because um, using certain methods it's pretty easy to get the rest of the data for offline. - Tycho
- By the way, I love the looks of this table. I hereby declare you should also be our table colour chooser guy or something! :p
- Actually, I just stole the table format from wikipedia's class="wikitable" specification. It seems PSUPedia doesn't actually have that, so I had to throw in all the background color and formatting codes manually - a bit of a hassle and no good for size.
- I can't see all 30 levels fitting. Two sets of 15 would be the smallest but for practicality reasons it might be better to see three rows of 10.
- Finally, we could always use a system of unverified and verified by using something like brackets, italics or red on numbers that have been assumed but not explicitly seen. - Miraglyth 08:03, 30 October 2006 (PST)
- About time I looked into this again.
- The assumption of consistency of combo and PP costs at every "stage" of the skill can be used to make the proposed table format more efficient. I'll use an example - again, Renkai Buyou-Zan - to demonstrate this:
| Level | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Att.: | 136% | 137% | 138% | 139% | 140% | 141% | 142% | 143% | 144% | 145% | PP: 12 |
| Acc.: | 59% | 60% | 61% | 62% | 63% | 64% | 65% | 66% | 67% | 68% | Combo: 1 |
| Level | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | |
| Att.: | 146% | 147% | 148% | 149% | 150% | 151% | 152% | 153% | 154% | 155% | PP: 12 |
| Acc.: | 74% | 75% | 76% | 77% | 78% | 79% | 80% | 81% | 82% | 83% | Combo: 2 |
- The initial example used 5 rows. In this example, 6 are used, whereas 10 would have been necessary had each entry for PP and Combo been given its' own row as with my initial entry. Finally, the PP cost for 11-20 is called into question via the red text.
- Alternatives that I can see would include (a) Making the "Level" column span two colums and placing entries for PP and Combo under that like so:
| Levels xx-yy | [Data] | |
|---|---|---|
| PP: x | Att.: | [Data] |
| Combo: y | Acc.: | [Data] |
- Or (b) (as I'm unsure of this) if the PP cost is consistent for all Skills/Bullets level 1-30 for all weapons, simply remove the "PP" entry from the table altogether, instead mentioning it elsewhere in the subsection for the Skill/Bullet. Equally, if all Skills have a Combo of 1 from 1-10, a Combo of 2 from 11-20 et. cetera, this can also be omitted from the Skills tables. It goes without saying that it wouldn't be in Bullet or Tech tables to begin with.
- Again, thoughts? - Miraglyth 11:21, 10 November 2006 (PST)
