Rules talk:Technique Development

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)