Difference between revisions of "Talk:Combat rating"

From Wurmpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(How much of this is made-up numbers?)
 
Line 9: Line 9:
 
The underdog bonus on wild have two levels, each giving +1 CR
 
The underdog bonus on wild have two levels, each giving +1 CR
  
These are the only confirmed numbers. Height advantage, weapon ql, armour ql, gank bonus, footing, focus level, religion bonus, priest bonus, kingdom leader bonus, kingdom killer bonus... All play part for sure, but I have heard of no actual numbers being mentioned outside of speculation. Wouldn't it be a bit too uninformative to post speculated figures on a page like this?
+
These are the only confirmed numbers. Height advantage, weapon ql, armour ql, gank bonus, footing, focus level, religion bonus, priest bonus, kingdom leader bonus, kingdom killer bonus... All play part for sure, but I have heard of no actual numbers being mentioned outside of speculation. Wouldn't it be a bit too uninformative to post speculated figures on a page like this?  
 +
 
 +
[[User:Miggy|Miggy]] 09:34, 24 September 2008 (CDT) Miggy

Revision as of 07:34, 24 September 2008

How much of this is made-up numbers?

There's several mentions in the text as to what different factors do into combat rating (for instance, +10ql to a weapon is +1CR), how much of that is dev confirmed, how much is test-confirmed, and how much of that is just speculation?

The actual system of Combat rating is dev-confirmed by Rolf (despite your comments that it's not), but AFAIK, very few numbers were released:

When fighting PvP, every 5 fight skill give +1 CR. When fighting PvE, every 10 fight skill give +1 CR. The underdog bonus on wild have two levels, each giving +1 CR

These are the only confirmed numbers. Height advantage, weapon ql, armour ql, gank bonus, footing, focus level, religion bonus, priest bonus, kingdom leader bonus, kingdom killer bonus... All play part for sure, but I have heard of no actual numbers being mentioned outside of speculation. Wouldn't it be a bit too uninformative to post speculated figures on a page like this?

Miggy 09:34, 24 September 2008 (CDT) Miggy