|Old content for this page has been archived, and can be found at the following locations.|
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)
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|
Strings for the various parts of judge to be listed here; from worst to best in each case.
'You think <weapon> is an [string] <type>':
- quite 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
- pretty hard
- quite hard
- quite easy
- pretty 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
- pretty low
- quite low
- quite high
- pretty high
- rather high
- very high
- extremely high
- incredibly high