Difference between revisions of "Talk:Unit Naming Guide"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Shoenaemaeh (talk | contribs) m |
House Olik (talk | contribs) m |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | Maybe some changes could be made taking into account that now EQ is divided between armour and weapons... | + | Maybe some changes could be made taking into account that now EQ is divided between armour and weapons... - Gorlack |
Good point, mysterious anonymous person. Would we need several separate sections: 'High Weapon, High Armour', 'High Weapon, Low Armour' [Beserks, anyone?], 'Low Weapon, High Armour' and 'Low Weapon, Low Armour'?--[[User:Egregious|Egregious]] 15:17, 13 July 2006 (CEST) | Good point, mysterious anonymous person. Would we need several separate sections: 'High Weapon, High Armour', 'High Weapon, Low Armour' [Beserks, anyone?], 'Low Weapon, High Armour' and 'Low Weapon, Low Armour'?--[[User:Egregious|Egregious]] 15:17, 13 July 2006 (CEST) | ||
+ | :I agree with this, except it's a lot of work due to the permutations for archers, cavalry, infantry. I'm too lazy now. :P [[User:House Olik|Olik]] 19:55, 23 July 2006 (CEST) | ||
Maybe through: | Maybe through: | ||
Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
Problem is when mixing units (like make a second recruit from a different type: you would have to rewrite the name of the unit...: 2 hours. [[User:Shoenaemaeh|Shoenaemaeh]] 16:36, 13 July 2006 (CEST) | Problem is when mixing units (like make a second recruit from a different type: you would have to rewrite the name of the unit...: 2 hours. [[User:Shoenaemaeh|Shoenaemaeh]] 16:36, 13 July 2006 (CEST) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Yes Egregious, that would be nice. Aniway those names aren't necessarily for units alone, I have used them already for naming Recruitment centers... - Gorlack |
Latest revision as of 19:55, 23 July 2006
Maybe some changes could be made taking into account that now EQ is divided between armour and weapons... - Gorlack
Good point, mysterious anonymous person. Would we need several separate sections: 'High Weapon, High Armour', 'High Weapon, Low Armour' [Beserks, anyone?], 'Low Weapon, High Armour' and 'Low Weapon, Low Armour'?--Egregious 15:17, 13 July 2006 (CEST)
- I agree with this, except it's a lot of work due to the permutations for archers, cavalry, infantry. I'm too lazy now. :P Olik 19:55, 23 July 2006 (CEST)
Maybe through:
- -[HH]- / -[HL]- / -[LH]- and -[LL]-
- Although i would either use something like -[5/4]- which would mean 50% weapon and 40% armour. Of course rounding is allowed; it has to give an aproximate view of the power of the unit.
Problem is when mixing units (like make a second recruit from a different type: you would have to rewrite the name of the unit...: 2 hours. Shoenaemaeh 16:36, 13 July 2006 (CEST)
Yes Egregious, that would be nice. Aniway those names aren't necessarily for units alone, I have used them already for naming Recruitment centers... - Gorlack