Talk:Stamina - Revision history

Destructorspace: not future-proof, indeed. Cleaning the page for future use.

2012-12-19T04:34:03Z

not future-proof, indeed. Cleaning the page for future use.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:34, 19 December 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~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~~

	~~Which is clearer if the information the 5x figure is included under the effect of great stamina. You personally had to clarify this page to someone mere days ago. -mrttao~~

Mrttao at 02:18, 5 July 2012

2012-07-05T02:18:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:18, 5 July 2012
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Most of the players only care about the exact stamina drain on each battle mode. -Varst		Most of the players only care about the exact stamina drain on each battle mode. -Varst

			Which is clearer if the information the 5x figure is included under the effect of great stamina. You personally had to clarify this page to someone mere days ago. -mrttao

Varst at 17:28, 4 July 2012

2012-07-04T17:28:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 4 July 2012
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

Mrttao at 16:56, 4 July 2012

2012-07-04T16:56:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 4 July 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:
	In fact, it's the FAQ before the table was added. -Varst		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). All of this does not answer why wrong data 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

Mrttao at 16:54, 4 July 2012

2012-07-04T16:54:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 4 July 2012
Line 14:		Line 14:

	In fact, it's the FAQ before the table was added. -Varst		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). All of this does not answer why wrong data 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

Varst at 12:30, 2 July 2012

2012-07-02T12:30:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:30, 2 July 2012
Line 12:		Line 12:

	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.		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

Maximum Joe at 01:54, 2 July 2012

2012-07-02T01:54:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 2 July 2012
Line 10:		Line 10:
	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.		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		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.

Mrttao at 20:27, 1 July 2012

2012-07-01T20:27:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 1 July 2012
Line 6:		Line 6:

	It's redundant. -Maximum_Joe		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

Maximum Joe at 20:02, 30 June 2012

2012-06-30T20:02:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, 30 June 2012
Line 4:		Line 4:
	I had added "Every action takes 5x the stamina." to the effects of great stamina. However this was reverted.		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		I believe this should be included. Maximum Joe, why do you think it should not be? -mrttao

			It's redundant. -Maximum_Joe

Mrttao at 19:54, 30 June 2012

2012-06-30T19:54:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:54, 30 June 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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?		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		-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