Talk:Padding: Difference between revisions

The official GemStone IV encyclopedia.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎WPS merchant service update: consistent terminology)
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)

Revision as of 15:34, 26 September 2017

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)

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)
Saving an update draft here-- ZHOUY1 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2017 (CDT)
Updated main article. ZHOUY1 (talk) 20:49, 23 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)
Please also review the service point conversion table. I interpolated some of the values above 20. 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 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)
For consistency should it simply be "combat effectiveness" for these articles? Official posts have also called it "combat effectiveness ranks". ZHOUY1 (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2017 (CDT)