|
|
Post by drspendlove on Jul 4, 2018 7:43:58 GMT -5
I'm not sure how this happened, maybe an unknown trait?  |
|
|
|
Post by fallen on Jul 4, 2018 10:03:50 GMT -5
Definitely possible that a Trait reduced Wisdom and caused an overflow.
|
|
|
|
Post by drspendlove on Jul 4, 2018 15:38:22 GMT -5
Oh, neat! No changes needed then.
|
|
|
|
Post by daveal on Jul 4, 2018 17:08:12 GMT -5
I'd still think that if wisdom is decreased, there should be a check to reset morale to 100%. There is a similar problem with influence, which is listed 0..100 but frequently <0. No big deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Aurelius on Jul 4, 2018 21:21:30 GMT -5
I'd still think that if wisdom is decreased, there should be a check to reset morale to 100%. There is a similar problem with influence, which is listed 0..100 but frequently <0. No big deal. Negative influence is an intended feature. -10 is the lowest, 100 is the highest. -10 means that contact is going to get murdered/forcibly retired/irrelevant soon, unless hasDestiny = True |
|
|
|
Post by fallen on Jul 4, 2018 21:36:56 GMT -5
Confirming @brutusauerlius's statement, -10 is intentionally the lowest.
|
|
|
|
Post by daveal on Jul 4, 2018 23:25:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fallen on Jul 5, 2018 0:02:08 GMT -5
daveal - no, I don't think the save would be helpful. Those are contacts pushed outside of the expected bounds (-10 to 100) by circumstances of the simulation, conflicts, player action, rumors and friendly/aggressive contacts acting on them. We have looked at this and do not consider it a bug.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Jul 6, 2018 9:30:44 GMT -5
Nope that is not a bug.
To be clear, none of the data showing the screenshots is erroneous, buggy or defective from the design and function of the game in any way.
Hope that helps!
|
|
|
|
Post by daveal on Jul 6, 2018 9:52:56 GMT -5
OK, thanks. Then there should be no documentation that says the intended range is -10...100.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Jul 6, 2018 10:11:00 GMT -5
Ok I'll try to find it anywhere I see it an stick in the word "approximately" because the information / scale is valuable there are just some flex.
Anyway, we could hide it I guess to avoid talking about it again
|
|
|
|
Post by drspendlove on Jul 6, 2018 10:27:23 GMT -5
Ok I'll try to find it anywhere I see it an stick in the word "approximately" because the information / scale is valuable there are just some flex. Anyway, we could hide it I guess to avoid talking about it again Why on earth would you remove data? Has this been a recurring situation for players? If you must change it to avoid this discussion, just remove the max value (the denominator) so it just reads 117 influence or -10 influence or 100 influence or whatever. You could even put a qualifier for a few ranges like: -10 to -1: In danger 0 to 20: Inconsequential 21 to 40: Moderately Influential 41 to 60: Highly Influential 61 to 80: Powerfully Influential 81 to 100: Masterfully Influential 101+: Supremely Influential In parenthesis somewhere, but don't remove data please. I'd rather it stayed the same than be removed. |
|
|
|
Post by daveal on Jul 6, 2018 10:47:52 GMT -5
If you must change it to avoid this discussion, just remove the max value (the denominator) so it just reads 117 influence or -10 influence or 100 influence or whatever. You could even put a qualifier for a few ranges like:... That would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Jul 6, 2018 10:53:31 GMT -5
Ok I'll try to find it anywhere I see it an stick in the word "approximately" because the information / scale is valuable there are just some flex. Anyway, we could hide it I guess to avoid talking about it again Why on earth would you remove data? Has this been a recurring situation for players? No, very low occurrence rate.  |
|
