Talk:Stamina: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
How is it future proof? If he makes changes then data has to be changed regardless of whether it is in table format or a line saying it costs 5x. Furthermore, "5x stamina consumption with great" answers it just as well if not more clearly then a chart does (multiply / divide by 5, not hard and there are calculators) and is even better because it leaves no confusion on consumption at the other modes (like poor or exhausted; the chart should at least be amended to say "normal or lower"). All of this does not answer why wrong data on the effects chart is better then redundancy (it isn't). Also what do you mean "it's the faq before the table"? Did you mean to say "it was in the faq"? because if it isn't now then it's not relevant. - mrttao | How is it future proof? If he makes changes then data has to be changed regardless of whether it is in table format or a line saying it costs 5x. Furthermore, "5x stamina consumption with great" answers it just as well if not more clearly then a chart does (multiply / divide by 5, not hard and there are calculators) and is even better because it leaves no confusion on consumption at the other modes (like poor or exhausted; the chart should at least be amended to say "normal or lower"). All of this does not answer why wrong data on the effects chart is better then redundancy (it isn't). Also what do you mean "it's the faq before the table"? Did you mean to say "it was in the faq"? because if it isn't now then it's not relevant. - mrttao | ||
Most of the players only care about the exact stamina drain on each battle mode. -Varst | |||
Revision as of 17:28, 4 July 2012
There is a conflict in the data on random encounter stamina consumption between the "rounds per stamina" and "stamina per round" figures. Which is correct? -mrttao
I had added "Every action takes 5x the stamina." to the effects of great stamina. However this was reverted. I believe this should be included. Maximum Joe, why do you think it should not be? -mrttao
It's redundant. -Maximum_Joe
Then delete the great columns in the chart. It is an effect of great stamina and should be listed in the effects. Excluding it because it can be deduced from information elsewhere in the article means that the information in this specific location is false. Furthermore it's not immediately noticeable from the chart. It doesn't take any more space (fitting in the existing line). The chart also doesn't clarify what happens at lower stamina. It just makes more sense to delete the "great" column on the chart and include this information on the effects on Great status. - mrttao
We've had dozens of users ask "how many rounds can I go with great stamina". Thus the table is far more beneficial. It's also more future-proof if Tenboro makes any adjustments to individual battle modes or to stamina as a whole.
In fact, it's the FAQ before the table was added. -Varst
How is it future proof? If he makes changes then data has to be changed regardless of whether it is in table format or a line saying it costs 5x. Furthermore, "5x stamina consumption with great" answers it just as well if not more clearly then a chart does (multiply / divide by 5, not hard and there are calculators) and is even better because it leaves no confusion on consumption at the other modes (like poor or exhausted; the chart should at least be amended to say "normal or lower"). All of this does not answer why wrong data on the effects chart is better then redundancy (it isn't). Also what do you mean "it's the faq before the table"? Did you mean to say "it was in the faq"? because if it isn't now then it's not relevant. - mrttao
Most of the players only care about the exact stamina drain on each battle mode. -Varst
