Talk:Spell Stacking - Revision history

imported>Widgeon at 01:22, 18 December 2008

2008-12-18T01:22:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 17 December 2008
(No difference)

imported>Widgeon at 01:22, 18 December 2008

2008-12-18T01:22:01Z

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 I experimented a bit with the table for Coordination, and this is what I came up with.  I flipped the rows and columns around and gave a title to each stacking group.  Right aligned the numbers, removed the plus, and gave them a fixed width.  Eliminated the border between the number and the spell.  And I'm using a template for part of the row, to handle most of the formatting.
-{|border=1 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 background=#D0D0D0
+(Edit: Removed two example tables so that I can delete the unused/experimental templates that they used. --[[User:Widgeon|Widgeon]] 19:22, 17 December 2008 (CST))
 This table has too many borders, makes it harder to read:

imported>An Adventurer at 04:16, 24 August 2008

2008-08-24T04:16:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 23 August 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			doesn't really matter what is labeled what. Obviously, you just test to see which cantrips override/stack with other cantrips to determine the category. Since every skill/attrib/etc has min/mod/minor, those would be primary cantrips. secondary could be the the font of jojii/dark monolith/harby crown/jester cards. Not many spells would have higher than secondary, and for those that do, we could just list them based on the order the spells were added (so focusing stone buff would be the 3rd cantrip for focus). --[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 23:16, 23 August 2008 (CDT)
			----

	How do you determine what's secondary, tertiary, quaternary, etc? I think concise stacking relationships should be the primary goal of the chart. --[[User:Tlosk\|Tlosk]] 17:56, 23 August 2008 (CDT)		How do you determine what's secondary, tertiary, quaternary, etc? I think concise stacking relationships should be the primary goal of the chart. --[[User:Tlosk\|Tlosk]] 17:56, 23 August 2008 (CDT)

imported>Tlosk at 22:56, 23 August 2008

2008-08-23T22:56:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:56, 23 August 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			How do you determine what's secondary, tertiary, quaternary, etc? I think concise stacking relationships should be the primary goal of the chart. --[[User:Tlosk\|Tlosk]] 17:56, 23 August 2008 (CDT)

			----

	I think the category names should be something like Standard Buffs/Regular Spells, followed by Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Cantrips. as for the layout, something like this maybe?		I think the category names should be something like Standard Buffs/Regular Spells, followed by Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Cantrips. as for the layout, something like this maybe?

imported>An Adventurer at 23:39, 22 August 2008

2008-08-22T23:39:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:39, 22 August 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			I think the category names should be something like Standard Buffs/Regular Spells, followed by Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Cantrips. as for the layout, something like this maybe?

			{\|border=1 width300
			\|-
			!colspan=2\|Standard Buffs
			\|-
			\|width=250\|Coord 1
			\|width=50\| +10
			\|-
			\|...
			\|...
			\|-
			\| Coord 7
			\| +40
			\|-
			!colspan=2\|Primary Cantrips
			\|-
			\|Minor Coord
			\| +5
			\|-
			\|Moderate Coord<br>Caution
			\| +10<br>+10
			\|-
			\|Major Coord
			\| +15
			\|-
			!colspan=2\|Secondary Cantrips
			\|-
			\|...
			\|...
			\|-
			!colspan=2\|Tertiary Cantrips
			\|-
			\|...
			\|...
			\|-
			\|}

			this is just a quick table I through together, it would be formatted with color and alignment in its final stage. Another option would be to format the types of buffs (standard, cantrip 1, cantrip 2, ...) into 4 individual tables, and place those tables within a larger, invisible table (see: [[Sleeves of Inexhaustibility]])

			--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 18:39, 22 August 2008 (CDT)
			----

	That makes sense. I was assuming there wouldn't be many spell stacking groups, but with 6+ it does become too wide. Perhaps the more common situation is that each group only has 2-4 spells in it... (Hmm, just remembered the +12 attribute spells on the noble armor.) As you say, when we get the new spells we'll have a better idea. --[[User:Widgeon\|Widgeon]] 16:46, 22 August 2008 (CDT)		That makes sense. I was assuming there wouldn't be many spell stacking groups, but with 6+ it does become too wide. Perhaps the more common situation is that each group only has 2-4 spells in it... (Hmm, just remembered the +12 attribute spells on the noble armor.) As you say, when we get the new spells we'll have a better idea. --[[User:Widgeon\|Widgeon]] 16:46, 22 August 2008 (CDT)

imported>Widgeon at 21:46, 22 August 2008

2008-08-22T21:46:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:46, 22 August 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			That makes sense. I was assuming there wouldn't be many spell stacking groups, but with 6+ it does become too wide. Perhaps the more common situation is that each group only has 2-4 spells in it... (Hmm, just remembered the +12 attribute spells on the noble armor.) As you say, when we get the new spells we'll have a better idea. --[[User:Widgeon\|Widgeon]] 16:46, 22 August 2008 (CDT)

			----

	The main issue I struggled with is succinctly indicating which spells stack and which override, while still allowing an arbitrary number of either, especially to accommodate new spells when added. I think the top format looks best, but I'm afraid it would be difficult to add more than 3 or 4 layers of stackablility. I suspect the more common usuage will be to determine how to maximize a skill or attribute rather than categorize according to type and An Adventurer was working on additional spell categories like major cantrips etc. Once we have more spells added too we can get a better handle on the range we'll have to contend with (for example focus has six levels of stacking and still some missing I think). --[[User:Tlosk\|Tlosk]] 11:41, 22 August 2008 (CDT)		The main issue I struggled with is succinctly indicating which spells stack and which override, while still allowing an arbitrary number of either, especially to accommodate new spells when added. I think the top format looks best, but I'm afraid it would be difficult to add more than 3 or 4 layers of stackablility. I suspect the more common usuage will be to determine how to maximize a skill or attribute rather than categorize according to type and An Adventurer was working on additional spell categories like major cantrips etc. Once we have more spells added too we can get a better handle on the range we'll have to contend with (for example focus has six levels of stacking and still some missing I think). --[[User:Tlosk\|Tlosk]] 11:41, 22 August 2008 (CDT)

imported>Tlosk at 17:02, 22 August 2008

2008-08-22T17:02:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:02, 22 August 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The main issue I struggled with is succinctly indicating which spells stack and which override, while still allowing an arbitrary number of either, especially to accommodate new spells when added. I think the top format looks best, but I'm afraid it would be difficult to add more than 3 or 4 layers of stackablility. I suspect the more common usuage will be to determine how to maximize a skill or attribute rather than categorize according to type and An Adventurer was working on additional spell categories like major cantrips etc. Once we have more spells added too we can get a better handle on the range we'll have to contend with (for example focus has six levels of stacking and still some missing I think). The reason for seperating the amount added from the spell name was to allow lots of columns where needed so that when rows heighten the numbers are still easy to compare (similar to icons and item names), especially when viewed in a small browser window. --[[User:Tlosk\|Tlosk]] 11:41, 22 August 2008 (CDT)		The main issue I struggled with is succinctly indicating which spells stack and which override, while still allowing an arbitrary number of either, especially to accommodate new spells when added. I think the top format looks best, but I'm afraid it would be difficult to add more than 3 or 4 layers of stackablility. I suspect the more common usuage will be to determine how to maximize a skill or attribute rather than categorize according to type and An Adventurer was working on additional spell categories like major cantrips etc. Once we have more spells added too we can get a better handle on the range we'll have to contend with (for example focus has six levels of stacking and still some missing I think). --[[User:Tlosk\|Tlosk]] 11:41, 22 August 2008 (CDT)

	----		----

imported>Tlosk at 17:01, 22 August 2008

2008-08-22T17:01:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:01, 22 August 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The main issue I struggled with is succinctly indicating which spells stack and which override, while still allowing an arbitrary number of either, especially to accommodate new spells when added. I think the top format looks best, but I'm afraid it would be difficult to add more than 3 or 4 layers of stackablility. I suspect the more common usuage will be to determine how to maximize a skill or attribute rather than categorize according to type and An Adventurer was working on additional spell categories like major cantrips etc. Once we have more spells added too we can get a better handle on the range we'll have to contend with (for example focus has six levels of stacking and still some missing I think). --[[User:Tlosk\|Tlosk]] 11:41, 22 August 2008 (CDT)		The main issue I struggled with is succinctly indicating which spells stack and which override, while still allowing an arbitrary number of either, especially to accommodate new spells when added. I think the top format looks best, but I'm afraid it would be difficult to add more than 3 or 4 layers of stackablility. I suspect the more common usuage will be to determine how to maximize a skill or attribute rather than categorize according to type and An Adventurer was working on additional spell categories like major cantrips etc. Once we have more spells added too we can get a better handle on the range we'll have to contend with (for example focus has six levels of stacking and still some missing I think). The reason for seperating the amount added from the spell name was to allow lots of columns where needed so that when rows heighten the numbers are still easy to compare (similar to icons and item names), especially when viewed in a small browser window. --[[User:Tlosk\|Tlosk]] 11:41, 22 August 2008 (CDT)

	----		----

imported>Tlosk at 16:41, 22 August 2008

2008-08-22T16:41:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:41, 22 August 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			The main issue I struggled with is succinctly indicating which spells stack and which override, while still allowing an arbitrary number of either, especially to accommodate new spells when added. I think the top format looks best, but I'm afraid it would be difficult to add more than 3 or 4 layers of stackablility. I suspect the more common usuage will be to determine how to maximize a skill or attribute rather than categorize according to type and An Adventurer was working on additional spell categories like major cantrips etc. Once we have more spells added too we can get a better handle on the range we'll have to contend with (for example focus has six levels of stacking and still some missing I think). --[[User:Tlosk\|Tlosk]] 11:41, 22 August 2008 (CDT)

			----

	I experimented a bit with the table for Coordination, and this is what I came up with. I flipped the rows and columns around and gave a title to each stacking group. Right aligned the numbers, removed the plus, and gave them a fixed width. Eliminated the border between the number and the spell. And I'm using a template for part of the row, to handle most of the formatting.		I experimented a bit with the table for Coordination, and this is what I came up with. I flipped the rows and columns around and gave a title to each stacking group. Right aligned the numbers, removed the plus, and gave them a fixed width. Eliminated the border between the number and the spell. And I'm using a template for part of the row, to handle most of the formatting.

imported>Widgeon at 18:53, 20 August 2008

2008-08-20T18:53:19Z

Show changes