Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wizardry"
m |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:I've found the correct formula and added it. [[User:Patrick2011b|Patrick2011b]] ([[User talk:Patrick2011b|talk]]) 23:54, 26 November 2023 (CET) | :I've found the correct formula and added it. [[User:Patrick2011b|Patrick2011b]] ([[User talk:Patrick2011b|talk]]) 23:54, 26 November 2023 (CET) | ||
| − | ::I'm pretty sure the formula was "essentially" correct for the versions it pertained to. That is, wiz x 1 = x0.75, wiz x 2 = x0.66..., and wiz x 3 = x0.50. Since the cap was x0.50, vehumet was always 2 sources of wizardry. (Of course, the trunk change would make Vehumet's part incorrect.) [[User:Hordes|Hordes]] ([[User talk:Hordes|talk]]) 05:46, 27 November 2023 (CET) | + | ::I'm pretty sure the formula was "essentially" correct for the versions it pertained to. That is, wiz x 1 = x0.75 RFR, wiz x 2 = x0.66... RFR, and wiz x 3 = x0.50 RFR. Since the cap was x0.50, vehumet was always 2 sources of wizardry. (Of course, the trunk change would make Vehumet's part incorrect.) [[User:Hordes|Hordes]] ([[User talk:Hordes|talk]]) 05:46, 27 November 2023 (CET) |
Revision as of 05:47, 27 November 2023
A removal of the wizardry cap was added to trunk today, and this was followed by a discussion on Discord where the wiki was discovered to be wrong on the effectiveness of rings of wizardry. I wasn't able to confirm the correct formula, so I'll just add the CBA for now and make a note in the edit summary in addition to here. Patrick2011b (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2023 (CET)
- I've found the correct formula and added it. Patrick2011b (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2023 (CET)
- I'm pretty sure the formula was "essentially" correct for the versions it pertained to. That is, wiz x 1 = x0.75 RFR, wiz x 2 = x0.66... RFR, and wiz x 3 = x0.50 RFR. Since the cap was x0.50, vehumet was always 2 sources of wizardry. (Of course, the trunk change would make Vehumet's part incorrect.) Hordes (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2023 (CET)
