Talk:Skills

New Layout

• User:JustTrio/Sandbox Thought I'd give it a try using existing data for now. This page has been the same since I started coming here and I've only been able to add partial data for store-bought slicer and whip skills. --JustTrio 13:39, 23 January 2008 (CST)
• Already been working on a complete overhaul featuring complete information for every part of every Skill, but haven't had the time or inclination to finish it up. - Miraglyth 16:19, 23 January 2008 (CST)
• Should probably note that this conversation is redundant now - I finished making the new article and Espio switched it in. That also explains why the link in my previous comment is to a deleted article. - Miraglyth 05:43, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Effect terminology

See Official(?) blog post. Knockdown → Wipeout Knockback → Blowaway

• Nice, I was wondering what the actual names were, so I kinda just guessed that one out. I'll fix them sometime later today I hope. --SiegeV 15:02, 1 January 2007 (CST)
• Yeah, the blog's official. Or actually, rather just an 'official' translation of the Japanese dev blog. XP - Tycho 15:55, 2 January 2007 (CST)
• I wonder if they have a better term for flinching, if that's even right --SiegeV 17:55, 2 January 2007 (CST)
• The manual uses "blow away" as well, but uses "blow down" for "knock down" so unless I'm mistaken there are two official names for knocking the enemy to the ground. Also, isn't the ability that sends enemies into the air called "Launch" ? Finally, no official term has been given for causing enemies to flinch, as far as I know. - Miraglyth 21:39, 20 May 2007 (BST)

Tables?

Formulas for determining skill/bullet/tech damage are more than passable, but a lot of people prefer to see flat tables instead of having to work with numbers (there's an irony in there, I know, but that's how they are).

Posting here to discuss the viability of using such a table, using the Twin Dagger skill Renkai Buyou-zan as the example:

Level	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
PP	12
Att.:	136%	137%	138%	139%	140%	141%	142%	143%	144%	145%	146%	147%	148%	149%	150%
Acc.:	59%	60%	61%	62%	63%	64%	65%	66%	67%	68%	74%	75%	76%	77%	78%
Combo:	1										2

Thoughts? - Miraglyth 02:22, 30 October 2006 (PST)

• .. Yeah, agreed. I should have done the same for the exp thing also. It's just that I got kind of lazy, I guess. First things first though, I'm kind of wondering if the data is different on/off. Because um, using certain methods it's pretty easy to get the rest of the data for offline. - Tycho

  By the way, I love the looks of this table. I hereby declare you should also be our table colour chooser guy or something! :p

• Actually, I just stole the table format from wikipedia's class="wikitable" specification. It seems PSUPedia doesn't actually have that, so I had to throw in all the background color and formatting codes manually - a bit of a hassle and no good for size.

  I can't see all 30 levels fitting. Two sets of 15 would be the smallest but for practicality reasons it might be better to see three rows of 10.

  Finally, we could always use a system of unverified and verified by using something like brackets, italics or red on numbers that have been assumed but not explicitly seen. - Miraglyth 08:03, 30 October 2006 (PST)

• About time I looked into this again.

  The assumption of consistency of combo and PP costs at every "stage" of the skill can be used to make the proposed table format more efficient. I'll use an example - again, Renkai Buyou-Zan - to demonstrate this:

Level	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Att.:	136%	137%	138%	139%	140%	141%	142%	143%	144%	145%	PP: 12
Acc.:	59%	60%	61%	62%	63%	64%	65%	66%	67%	68%	Combo: 1
Level	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
Att.:	146%	147%	148%	149%	150%	151%	152%	153%	154%	155%	PP: 12
Acc.:	74%	75%	76%	77%	78%	79%	80%	81%	82%	83%	Combo: 2

The initial example used 5 rows. In this example, 6 are used, whereas 10 would have been necessary had each entry for PP and Combo been given its' own row as with my initial entry. Finally, the PP cost for 11-20 is called into question via the red text.

Alternatives that I can see would include (a) Making the "Level" column span two colums and placing entries for PP and Combo under that like so:

Levels xx-yy		[Data]
PP: x	Att.:	[Data]
Combo: y	Acc.:	[Data]

Or (b) (as I'm unsure of this) if the PP cost is consistent for all Skills/Bullets level 1-30 for all weapons, simply remove the "PP" entry from the table altogether, instead mentioning it elsewhere in the subsection for the Skill/Bullet. Equally, if all Skills have a Combo of 1 from 1-10, a Combo of 2 from 11-20 et. cetera, this can also be omitted from the Skills tables. It goes without saying that it wouldn't be in Bullet or Tech tables to begin with.

Again, thoughts? - Miraglyth 11:21, 10 November 2006 (PST)

• Yeah, I definitely like the second table interface. And yes, the numbers do change over the levels; they do indicate change. I'm totally for this idea (and am able to easily mod PA levels offline >_>). As for the wiki tables, do you have any clue if it would be possible to import anything of the sort? Because well, I think they look pretty clear and awesome. - Tycho

• Jabroga 41+ cost 65 PP for FM, 31+ realy was 78 PP for FM, before some January Updates. Need check.