Talk:Roundtime

Topic Change

Okay, something else to discuss: Granted, a combined ability bonus of higher than +75 isn't possible for any base race, but with the aid of enhancive items, we could actually get an increase of +40 more (+20 to each, agility and dexterity). Given this fact, we could see a bonus of as high as +115. Don't you think that we'll see higher RT reductions at, say, +83 and +98? Even possibly +113? We'll likely see roundtime reductions of -6, -7, and -8 at these points, don't you think? -Andy ^talk 11:18, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Old topic

You know, I really dislike this "AGIDEX" term that popped up all of a sudden. It seems... you know, pointless. We all know that roundtime reduction is the result of the sum of agility and dexterity bonuses. There are a lot of things that are based off the sum of two or more ability scores, yet we don't make terms to denote that, such as with the INFSTR article (which is clearly poking fun at the AGIDEX article via reductio ad absurdum). Please don't tell me we're going to have to make pages involving other factors such as STRCON (for encumbrance calculations), STRDEX (which is used to calculate DS with Parry defense and Shield defense, and also determines the maximum AS possible from the off-hand when using Two Weapon Combat), AGIINT (for DS calculations involving the Dodging skill), and LOGINT (for the maximum experience pool size). That's just silly, if you ask me. -Andy ^talk 18:59, 17 August 2006 (EDT)

I don't much care either way, but the term AGIDEX has been used for as long as I can remember. I've never heard any of those other acronyms before. -- April

I have, personally, never heard of this "AGIDEX" term before, and I also doubt the usefulness of such a term. The acronyms above are just examples of other systems that work in a very similar manner to this "AGIDEX" term, being a sum of the two numbers that produce some useful effect... that must be further modified. Though, an exception to this is encumbrance, I believe. I admit that I'm not entirely sure how constitution affects encumbrance, but I'm pretty sure it has a more minor effect than strength. Anyway, given that I don't see the term having much use in an encyclopedia-type environment such as this (where it is better to spell out "the sum of agility and dexterity" rather than say "AGIDEX"), I do not want to popularize its use by putting it in any high-traffic articles, but seeing as people seem to actually use this term, I suppose I won't recommend the corrisponding article for deletion. -Andy ^talk 19:43, 17 August 2006 (EDT)

How about deleting AGIDEX, making it a redirect to Roundtime, and putting a little comment in there about AGIDEX? -- April

Nah, we can just leave it the way it is. It's fine that way. -Andy ^talk 20:22, 17 August 2006 (EDT)

I vote please. For the love of god, please. Let's delete AGIDEX, redirect it to RT, but then (here's where things get exciting) not mention AGIDEX. To me this seems like the second silliest thing you could make a KP page (for #1, see here). The fact that an editor went to the trouble of then taking this page with absolutely 0 un-duplicated or useful content, made it into a template, and then put that template into this page just blows my mind. Like, it really causes my head to hurt when I think about why someone would have been motivated to do that. Why would you take a table of values that is set in stone and should only only only ever appear once and move it to a template page? I'm beginning to think this whole AGIDEX thing is some elaborate hoax to make me sad. justin ^talk 22:45, 17 August 2006 (EDT)

Well, I figure that if the Martians love AGIDEX, then we should too. -- April

I think you underestimate the degree to which this AGIDEX topic distresses me. justin ^talk 01:01, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Sounds like somebody needs a booster probing.  ;) -- April

I don't see why the existance of any article on KP should frustrate or distress anyone. It's just another piece of information. The term AGIDEX has been used for as long as I can remember there ever being discussion about reduction of combat roundtime, which has been years at this point. I do have to admit that I'm a bit curious as to why a template was made for the table as well, as I doubt it'll ever be included on any other page. - Oliver ^Talk 14:10, 18 August 2006 (EDT)