Warrior General Games

I believe that going from 50-60 in a skill does not equal going from 90-100. I believe that for each skill point you put into a skill helps move it up the "graph". The skills in this game are based off of algorithms. Here is the best graph I could find on the internet and I'll try to explain from here:

http://www.prismmodelchecker.org/manual/uploads/sbml_ex_graph.png
Solid Blue line is the one I'm talking about
~.0002=0 points in a skill
.0002=100 in a skill
~.00085=50 in a skill

For the sake of this graph, I'm going to say that the MAX you can get is 70, which you'd have to go over 100 to obtain. Max=100%.

A Skill at:
10=29%
20=40%
30=50%
40=60%
50= 69%
60= 76%
70=82%
80=87%
90=90%
100=92.5%

This explains why you see very little difference between a WR with 100 speed and 90 speed. Decimals are implemented, they just add to the # that is divided by the max, theoretically decimals count. They just don't mean much.

I've always suggested that the best builds are probably the ones that have 80 in there 3 main categories and I've done this with one of my lineman and I'm working on it with others. You do not gain as much of an advantage the higher you put a skill, which is why it makes sense to stop 3rd capping things and 2nd cap things. You lose "6% by 2nd capping, but you save yourself 18 or so SP's that could help you in other areas.

This is a big reason why I believer there is little point to putting equipment over 100. You are gaining fractions of a .05 every time you put it up one point, where putting it into something that is 2nd capped can gain you .45.


This is all speculation and is based out of 100%.

Sorry for the poor graph, I'm not great with computers and couldn't figure out how to edit it to match better.

Flame away!

so you think 80 is enough?

You lost me at the graph.

Originally posted by Badluck13
so you think 80 is enough?

I'm not saying it's enough, but it gets you close to where you need to be.

IMO 90 is the cap of a skill gaining any noticeable differences.

For this I had to go with 80 as it worked with the graph.

Anyway, Bort has said that attributes don't function like SAs, and there is no diminishing returns effect.

I am sorry but you are wrong. This is true.

Originally posted by Asheme
Anyway, Bort has said that attributes don't function like SAs, and there is no diminishing returns effect.

Originally posted by canes30
I've always suggested that the best builds are probably the ones that have 80 in there 3 main categories and I've done this with one of my lineman and I'm working on it with others. You do not gain as much of an advantage the higher you put a skill, which is why it makes sense to stop 3rd capping things and 2nd cap things.

This is right but not for the reason you have come up with.

Yeah Bort has stated specifically that the progression is linear, as opposed to the convex and concave graphs you posted.

So eventually a kicker will be able to hit 95 yard fieldgoals?

I'm guessing that the way Bort fixed the Kickers was by lowering the median. Or by shifting the middle on the graph to the left.

Originally posted by Asheme
Anyway, Bort has said that attributes don't function like SAs, and there is no diminishing returns effect.

wish bort would just reveal the code to the game, or someone would hack in and get it

Originally posted by tpaterniti
I am sorry but you are wrong. This is true.

Originally posted by Asheme

Anyway, Bort has said that attributes don't function like SAs, and there is no diminishing returns effect.



I'm not into conspiracies and such, but why wouldn't Bort say that? If he told us how it was based, we would have builds that were similar as we'd all try to maximize.

If you made a game, would you tell the players how the coding worked?

He beats around the bush and leaves little "outs" so that he isn't exactly lying, just stretching the truth.

Originally posted by canes30
Originally posted by tpaterniti

I am sorry but you are wrong. This is true.

Originally posted by Asheme


Anyway, Bort has said that attributes don't function like SAs, and there is no diminishing returns effect.



I'm not into conspiracies and such, but why wouldn't Bort say that? If he told us how it was based, we would have builds that were similar as we'd all try to maximize.

If you made a game, would you tell the players how the coding worked?

probably not but I wouldnt lie either

Law of diminishing returns would agree with you.

Think of it this way...

If you have 10 tackling and bring it to 20, that's a 50% increase.

If you have 65 tackling and bring it to 75, that's a 13% increase.

See the difference? Ahthankyou.

Originally posted by sushil33t
Originally posted by Asheme

Anyway, Bort has said that attributes don't function like SAs, and there is no diminishing returns effect.

wish bort would just reveal the code to the game, or someone would hack in and get it

No.

The only people that would want that, are those that can't seem to win on their own.

Originally posted by Nuge20
Originally posted by canes30

Originally posted by tpaterniti


I am sorry but you are wrong. This is true.

Originally posted by Asheme



Anyway, Bort has said that attributes don't function like SAs, and there is no diminishing returns effect.



I'm not into conspiracies and such, but why wouldn't Bort say that? If he told us how it was based, we would have builds that were similar as we'd all try to maximize.

If you made a game, would you tell the players how the coding worked?

probably not but I wouldnt lie either

BINGO!

Bort isn't going to lie, but he isn't going to exactly tell the truth