Difference between revisions of "Research:Judge"

From Discworld MUD Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m ((Still need more data))
Line 149: Line 149:
* extremely
* extremely
* slightly
* slightly
* very

Revision as of 00:16, 12 January 2011

Filing cabinet.gif Old content for this page has been archived, and can be found at the following locations.
Judge/Archive 1Judge/Information thresholdsJudge/Quality

Old content

Since judge changed with this announcement, all the old research data is invalid, and has therefore been consigned to the archives. --Chat 20:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

New judge research

So, new judge research is needed!

Relevant stuff to know:

  • From my initial playing around with the new judge command, it looks like judge is now a lot harder to perform - with my 234 ad.ev.we bonus I was unable to successfull judge any half-decent weapons. Therefore, it's likely you'll need to up your ad.ev.we bonus in order to get any decent results.
  • Apparently the new judge is still being tweaked a bit, so I'd put off doing any judge for a few weeks until it stabilizes.
  • The announcement says judge now factors in your 'skill with the weapon in hand' (so I assume fi.me.*), so that will definitely form part of the research.

Once judge is stable, I suggest:

  • We settle on a common, average, easily obtainable weapon (eg. a long sword).
  • Everyone judges it to death, posts the results here along with the following:
    • Your ad.ev.we bonus.
    • Your fi.me.sw bonus.
    • Your stats (C, D, I, S, W).

And we'll then see if any patterns emerge. If necessary, we may need to split this based on weapon specialties (ie. if only sword-users have a chance in hell of judging swords, then mace users will have to settle on a common mace, etc.). --Chat 20:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Information thresholds

These seem to be based on both weapon skill and ad.ev.we bonus (I get different amounts information based on whether I'm judging sword vs. dagger). They also seem to be consistent, in that you'll get the same amount of info for a successful judge on the same weapon type each time, irrespective of the actual weapon in that class.

I would therefore suggest that whether a given piece of information is displayed or not is dependent purely on the fi.me.* and ad.ev.we bonus.

We've now got two pairs of useful data points:

  • (232, 415) can't see damage, (233, 415) can.
  • (235, 403) can't see damage, (236, 403) can.

Solving for a linear relationship, this gives the boundary line as fi.me.* = 1345 - 4 * ad.ev.we. Taking the perpendicular gives us that ad.ev.we and fi.me.* are in a 4:1 relationship for an information rating.

Therefore, I propose:

Judge info rating = ad.ev.we + floor(fi.me.* / 4)

Putting this into the table gives:

  • You need an info rating of at least somewhere between 219 and 245 to see ease of attack information.
  • You need an info rating of at least somewhere between 290 and 321 to see ease of parry information.
  • You need an info rating of at least 336 (exact) to see damage information.
  • You need an info rating of at least somewhere between 344 and 400 to see speed information.

More data points will allow the ranges of uncertainty above to be narrowed down.

ad.ev.we bonus fi.me.* bonus Judge info rating Can see ease to attack with Can see ease of parrying with Can see maximum damage Can see average damage Can see weapon speed
197 84 313 No No No No No
182 253 367 Yes No No No No
221 207 380 Yes No No No No
238 167 375 Yes No No No No
197 355 399 Yes No No No No
238 207 389 Yes No No No No
221 403 423 Yes Yes No No No
226 403 427 Yes Yes No No No
222 415 426 Yes Yes No No No
229 403 429 Yes Yes No No No
226 415 429 Yes Yes No No No
230 415 431 Yes Yes No No No
233 403 431 Yes Yes No No No
232 415 432 Yes Yes No No No
235 403 432 Yes Yes No No No
236 403 433 Yes Yes Yes Yes No
233 415 433 Yes Yes Yes Yes No
238 403 434 Yes Yes Yes Yes No
243 403 437 Yes Yes Yes Yes No
224 707 465 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Judge strings

Strings for the various parts of judge to be listed here; from worst to best in each case.

Overall assessment

'You think <weapon> is an [string] <type>':

  • atrocious
  • poor
  • quite good
  • good
  • rather good
  • very good
  • extremely good


'It is [ease] to attack with, [ease] to parry with':

  • incredibly hard
  • extremely hard
  • very hard
  • rather hard
  • hard
  • pretty hard
  • quite hard
  •  ?
  • quite easy
  • pretty easy
  • easy
  • rather easy
  • very easy
  • extremely easy
  • incredibly easy


'has a [damage] maximum damage and a [damage] average damage':

  • incredibly low
  • extremely low
  • very low
  • rather low
  • low
  • pretty low
  • quite low
  • reasonable
  • quite high
  • pretty high
  • high
  • rather high
  • very high
  • extremely high
  • incredibly high


'[speed] fast/slow'

  • extremely
  • slightly
  • very