Talk:Glorious Conquest: Difference between revisions
data indicates... |
WinterRose (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
tor, wer (+10%) > bhy (+6%) > qxl (+5%) > kra (+4%) > ath (+0%) > shz (-2%) > tul (-5%?) '''Assuming a base of 5%''' | tor, wer (+10%) > bhy (+6%) > qxl (+5%) > kra (+4%) > ath (+0%) > shz (-2%) > tul (-5%?) '''Assuming a base of 5%''' | ||
--[[User:Shadowtop|Shadowtop]] 16:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT) | --[[User:Shadowtop|Shadowtop]] 16:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT) | ||
More ath values would be great, hm, but hard to get these. Having Tor and Werredan both at +10% makes this spell actually not that Werredan-centric at all. -- [[User:WinterRose|WinterRose]] 03:36, 7 June 2013 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 07:36, 7 June 2013
Seem to have enough data to start drawing some conclusions:
dwf (+5%) > cen (+1%) > dgn, drw, elf, gno, liz, spr, trl (+0%)
tor, wer (+10%) > bhy (+6%) > qxl (+5%) > kra (+4%) > ath (+0%) > shz (-2%) > tul (-5%?) Assuming a base of 5%
--Shadowtop 16:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
More ath values would be great, hm, but hard to get these. Having Tor and Werredan both at +10% makes this spell actually not that Werredan-centric at all. -- WinterRose 03:36, 7 June 2013 (EDT)