Talk:Padding
The resistances offered by 620 aren't exactly 'padding'. Also, this page needs some work on its layout. - Andy talk 17:18, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
- Really not sure why it took so long to remove this section. VANKRASN39 (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2015 (CDT)
The padding/weighting numbers are finally accurate. GS4-WYROM (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2016 (CST)
This page says CON/5 but Naijin said CON/6 in March 2020. Shall we change it, or was the value updated since then? GOAT, 20 Mar 2022
Removed Player Research
"GILCHRISTR's research indicates that 1 potential phantom damage is removed for each 4 bonus." This is not correct per GM Estild. VANKRASN39 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2017 (CDT)
WPS merchant service update
Some thoughts on updating the article after the service update: I think it would be clearer to have two tables, one for the point-to-assess-description under a Mechanics section, and one for points-to-services under a Merchant Services section. The article needs to make it very obvious to someone reading about padding/weighting for the first time that the combat mechanics and service points are completely separate things. (It's also a very confusing table at the moment because there's no explanation of what service points are, whether the values are per-step or cumulative, whether it's possible to service items that have a negative rating, and many other questions that have been asked in the official thread.) ZHOUY1 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2017 (CDT)
- Seems fine to me, and pretty logical overall (esp. to have the concern for people newer to looking at the system). GS4-KAIKALA (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2017 (CDT)
- Z- Please feel free to pick apart the WPS smithy page for whatever you need, or let me know what you want me to do. VANKRASN39 (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2017 (CDT)
- Question: For armor accessories, if the base armor and the accessory have exactly the same padding value (say, 10 critical padding) but one of them also has some other enhancement property, is the padding halved? Does it matter which item the other property is on? ZHOUY1 (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2017 (CDT)
- In the process of reviewing. I'm changing some of your terminology to make it consistent with what was used in the release posts and today's IG update ("combat effective point" and "combat effectiveness rating" vs. "padding point") and to stop using points for both ("services" vs. "service points"), because that's really confusing. Using "combat effective" instead of "padding" also allows the sections to be used on the weighting and sighting pages, and I'm going to move it to a template. VANKRASN39 (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2017 (CDT)
- In the ASSESS it is: "a combat effectiveness rating of 7 points of [Critical/Damage] [w/p/s] and a 50.0% chance to have a combat effectiveness rating of 8. It has 10 of 20 services towards the next full rank of combat effectiveness." I shortened the points for ease of reading into "combat effective point" so that we'd have a singular unit in talking about a rating, and noted the interchangeability with "combat effectiveness rating," since we typically refer to an item's total points anyway (and we can also add ranks to that). The overarching idea was to have a consistency where when we talk points, people know we're talking about the combat effectiveness of (from the baseline) 0-50 of an item, and when we talk services we're referring to 0-5000 services on an item, and to be able to use the same terms on all 4 pages. So I would definitely maintain "combat effectiveness rating" and use "points" in some manner to refer to the unit of combat effectiveness, but I'm open to changing "combat effective points" if you feel that is completely incorrect. VANKRASN39 (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2017 (CDT)
- It looks like the official term is combat effectiveness rating (CER) which is measured in points, so we can use CER throughout instead of CER/CEP. (Analogy: "speed" can be measured in MPH, but it would likely be abbreviated "SPD" in a formula rather than "SPDMPH".) ZHOUY1 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2017 (CDT)
- That is correct; however, good luck undoing 20 years of habit of people calling them points. It's not going to happen, people are going to call them points, the problem was calling everything points. The article starts out using CEP bc points are what people are familiar with, then transitions to CER at the merchant services, and the first paragraph of the template spells out again that they are the same thing. If you want to propose an edit, I'm open, because there are always improvements to be made and a vast majority of the time you definitely improve on what I do, but I think how it is now makes it clear what points means (bc people are going to use "points"), also uses the official terminology, uses language that can be put on all 4 pages (the template), and doesn't use points for both CER and services. VANKRASN39 (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2017 (CDT)