Talk:Padding - Revision history

GOAT at 16:23, 20 March 2022

2022-03-20T16:23:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:23, 20 March 2022
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Really not sure why it took so long to remove this section. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 06:38, 24 June 2015 (CDT)		:Really not sure why it took so long to remove this section. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 06:38, 24 June 2015 (CDT)
	The padding/weighting numbers are finally accurate. [[User:GS4-WYROM\|GS4-WYROM]] ([[User talk:GS4-WYROM\|talk]]) 13:34, 10 February 2016 (CST)		The padding/weighting numbers are finally accurate. [[User:GS4-WYROM\|GS4-WYROM]] ([[User talk:GS4-WYROM\|talk]]) 13:34, 10 February 2016 (CST)

			This page says CON/5 but [https://discord.com/channels/226045346399256576/532373273816858636/692608410356809738 Naijin said CON/6] in March 2020. Shall we change it, or was the value updated since then? [[User:GOAT\|GOAT]], 20 Mar 2022

	==Removed Player Research==		==Removed Player Research==

VANKRASN39: /* WPS merchant service update */ response

2017-09-27T15:00:12Z

WPS merchant service update: response

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:00, 27 September 2017
Line 28:		Line 28:

	:::::::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".) [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 18:12, 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".) [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:00, 27 September 2017 (CDT)

ZHOUY1: terminology discussion

2017-09-26T23:12:58Z

terminology discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:12, 26 September 2017
Line 26:		Line 26:

	::::::In the ASSESS it is: "{{boldmono\|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. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 17:18, 26 September 2017 (CDT)		::::::In the ASSESS it is: "{{boldmono\|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. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk: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".) [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 18:12, 26 September 2017 (CDT)

VANKRASN39: /* WPS merchant service update */ response

2017-09-26T22:18:39Z

WPS merchant service update: response

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 26 September 2017
Line 24:		Line 24:

	:::::For consistency should it simply be "combat effectiveness" for these articles? Official posts have also called it "combat effectiveness ranks". [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 15:34, 26 September 2017 (CDT)		:::::For consistency should it simply be "combat effectiveness" for these articles? Official posts have also called it "combat effectiveness ranks". [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 15:34, 26 September 2017 (CDT)

			::::::In the ASSESS it is: "{{boldmono\|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. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 17:18, 26 September 2017 (CDT)

ZHOUY1: /* WPS merchant service update */ consistent terminology

2017-09-26T20:34:47Z

WPS merchant service update: consistent terminology

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 26 September 2017
Line 22:		Line 22:

	::::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. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:58, 24 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. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:58, 24 September 2017 (CDT)

			:::::For consistency should it simply be "combat effectiveness" for these articles? Official posts have also called it "combat effectiveness ranks". [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 15:34, 26 September 2017 (CDT)

VANKRASN39: /* WPS merchant service update */ update comment

2017-09-24T16:26:58Z

WPS merchant service update: update comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:26, 24 September 2017
Line 21:		Line 21:
	:::Please also review the service point conversion table. I interpolated some of the values above 20. [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 20:52, 23 September 2017 (CDT)		:::Please also review the service point conversion table. I interpolated some of the values above 20. [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 20:52, 23 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 ("combat effective point" 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. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:58, 24 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. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:58, 24 September 2017 (CDT)

VANKRASN39: /* WPS merchant service update */ response

2017-09-24T15:58:23Z

WPS merchant service update: response

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:58, 24 September 2017
Line 20:		Line 20:

	:::Please also review the service point conversion table. I interpolated some of the values above 20. [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 20:52, 23 September 2017 (CDT)		:::Please also review the service point conversion table. I interpolated some of the values above 20. [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 20:52, 23 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 ("combat effective point" 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. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:58, 24 September 2017 (CDT)

ZHOUY1: Request for review.

2017-09-24T01:52:05Z

Request for review.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 23 September 2017
Line 18:		Line 18:

	:::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? [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 15:22, 21 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? [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 15:22, 21 September 2017 (CDT)

			:::Please also review the service point conversion table. I interpolated some of the values above 20. [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 20:52, 23 September 2017 (CDT)

ZHOUY1: Updated main article.

2017-09-24T01:49:05Z

Updated main article.

Show changes

ZHOUY1: Question about accessories

2017-09-21T20:22:13Z

Question about accessories

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 21 September 2017
Line 15:		Line 15:

	:::Saving an update draft here-- [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 17:20, 19 September 2017 (CDT)		:::Saving an update draft here-- [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 17:20, 19 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? [[User:ZHOUY1\|ZHOUY1]] ([[User talk:ZHOUY1\|talk]]) 15:22, 21 September 2017 (CDT)

	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
Line 326:		Line 328:

	It is possible for an item to have both critical and damage padding, and they can be added separately (with a price surcharge). The total number of service points is still capped at 5000.		It is possible for an item to have both critical and damage padding, and they can be added separately (with a price surcharge). The total number of service points is still capped at 5000.

	{{clear}}		{{clear}}
	=== 60 Day Service Window ===		=== 60 Day Service Window ===

	When a W/P/S merchant service is offered, the price of adding service points increases as more service points are added within the same 60-day window. This service window is tracked '''per item''' across all merchants and venues.		When a W/P/S merchant service is offered, the price of adding service points increases as more service points are added within the same 60-day window. This service window is tracked '''per item''' across all merchants and venues. Cost per service point only increases with the number of service points added within this window, not the total number of existing service points on an item.

	A 60 day Service Window is started at the first W/P/S on an item. Every W/P/S service done to that item within that 60 days will increase the Service Count within that window. Items will become more expensive to work on as the Service Count increases. Prices increases happen at Service Counts of 5, 10, and 15, with significant prices increases starting at 20+. On the first service after 60 day Service Window ends, the Service Window and Service Counts are reset.		A 60 day Service Window is started at the first W/P/S on an item. Every W/P/S service done to that item within that 60 days will increase the Service Count within that window. Items will become more expensive to work on as the Service Count increases. Prices increases happen at Service Counts of 5, 10, and 15, with significant prices increases starting at 20+. On the first service after 60 day Service Window ends, the Service Window and Service Counts are reset.