Template talk:Scaling
Maybe we should reword this. The wording is kind of weird.--Icon315♕ (☎|♤) 19:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed; I'm not even sure what it's trying to say---you gain moxie in chutzpah? What does that mean? --Fig bucket 23:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- It should just be "You gain 90%-110% Magicalness, capped at 300." It is kind of redundant to state the stat gained.
- No, it shouldn't. The current phrasing doesn't make any sense. Previously, it read "You gain 100%-200% <mainstat> in Strengthliness, capped at 300." As in, you're gaining a percentage of your mainstat as a substat. The stat field was used for a few outlying instances ("You gain 100%-200% Moxie in Chutzpah, capped at 300") where stat gains weren't based off mainstat, like the hidden temple and (maybe) a battlefield. The new phrasing doesn't clearly state either what the percentage is of or being gained as. If it did need a phrasing adjustment, it would be "You gain 100%-200% of your <mainstat>". --TechSmurf 02:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- It should just be "You gain 90%-110% Magicalness, capped at 300." It is kind of redundant to state the stat gained.
I understand what it is supposed to say, but I think the current phrasing is confusing people. Maybe use brackets? So:
- You gain (90%-110% of <mainstat>) in Enchantedness, capped at 300.
Some way to clearly separate the amount from the second part, anyway. --Starwed 15:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
My two cents: It makes a lot more sense to say "You gain 0.9-1.1 times your <mainstat> in <Stat>." And really, it might be better to say "You gain 90%-110% times your <[{un}buffed][mainstat/specific stat]> in <Stat>." If we're really trying to be precise. "You gain 200%-300% times your unbuffed Mysticality in Moxie" for example, makes perfect sense to me, as opposed to "You gain 200%-300% of Mysticality in Moxie" which just sounds funny. --RoyalTonberry 18:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I left (un)buffed out because I can't think of any noncombats that calculate off buffed stats. Blocking off the range (as above) sounds fine to me. --TechSmurf 06:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
