Difference between revisions of "Rules talk:Technique Development"
From AltWiki
Snackycakes (Talk | contribs) m |
Snackycakes (Talk | contribs) m (lol typos lol) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::I think it was 60/140, but either one works really. --[[User:Ff0ecaf|Ff0ecaf]] 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | ::I think it was 60/140, but either one works really. --[[User:Ff0ecaf|Ff0ecaf]] 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| − | :::Yeah, the original split was 60/ | + | :::Yeah, the original split was 60/140. I'm not sure how much of a difference that five percent really makes. At lower levels, nothing really, but for a 100 day tech you'd be waiting five more days. Do you guys think that's significant? I'm not really sure which I'd vote for, either way, though I'm leaning towards 60%. A 10% mark-up from halving tech day costs leaves a bias that's still pretty potent, but a 10% mark-down from good doesn't seem all that fantastic. --[[User:Snackycakes|Snackycakes]] 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:24, 1 June 2008
So, if we change Excellent bias, we should also change Dismal bias to reflect it.
Excellent bias at 65% base, Dismal at 135% base, then? Or no? Comments/concerns/outright protests/french revolutions? --Ice 06:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure this was what the previous idea was, lessening both extremes like this. I'm not sure whether it was 65/135 or 60/140 but either set of numbers works for me (I'm kind of tempted to see 65/135, honestly).
- Also, I wish I could edit Rules pages to fix some grammatical/syntactical pet peeves of mine :( Tiryst 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think it was 60/140, but either one works really. --Ff0ecaf 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, the original split was 60/140. I'm not sure how much of a difference that five percent really makes. At lower levels, nothing really, but for a 100 day tech you'd be waiting five more days. Do you guys think that's significant? I'm not really sure which I'd vote for, either way, though I'm leaning towards 60%. A 10% mark-up from halving tech day costs leaves a bias that's still pretty potent, but a 10% mark-down from good doesn't seem all that fantastic. --Snackycakes 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
