Talk:Enhancement Diversification
Initial
- cough* *cough*... *tap* *tap* 'Is this thing on?'
DOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!
Thank you. http://dotn.evilgeniuses.org/phpBB2/images/smiles/nerf.gif --StarGeek 00:50, 11 Feb 2006 (CST)
- Yeah, the article needs to be flushed out, but it definitely needs to be there. New players to the game will probably see ED and wonder, "What the hell is ED, and why does everyone hate it so much?"
- Personally, I think it's a good thing. Everyone yelled doom, but I really haven't noticed that much of a difference. I don't like like the idea that with such-and-such enhancements, you're invincible. I think the intention of the developers is basically to tell players: "Sometimes, you've got to die." I remember the days when tanks would herd all the purples in the Dreck mission and the rest of us would just stand there and watch while his auras would eventually cause them to collapse. I remember getting fussed at when I would throw in a total domination and the like.
- I just really hate people who have the mindset that "Sometimes, I'll be defeated" = "This is total and complete crap, and I hate this game," and that's the worst in people that ED brought out.
- Oh well, still, it needs the article. :-) --TonyV 02:41, 11 Feb 2006 (CST)
o,o so.. its been a yr now, anyone still think this was doom/not doom? My main complaint is still that the name is wrong, it should be EA, Enhancement Anti-diversification.--Sleepy Kitty 19:18, 8 April 2007 (PDT)
Enhancements
Needs to be brought inline with Enhancements. But with all the information already presented in the Enhancements article, I wonder if we should combine them . --Konoko 00:00, 13 March 2006 (PST)
Oh, almost forgot.
DOOOOOOOM!
Feh. Now I have more slots and less endurance issues. Doom to the doomsayers!
Classes vs Schedules
I've rounded up access to the Issue 1-6 binder and it states that the various Enhancement types are called "Classes," whereas the Wiki calls them "Schedules." For the sake of consistency with official sources, should the word be changed in the wiki? -GuyPerfect 16:45, 26 November 2006 (PST)
- If you're talking about the Prima guide, then that's not really an official source, and is nearly universally panned for its inaccuracies. Schedule appears to be the official term, as used by CuppaJo and Statesman. User:StarGeek/sig 13:19, 23 February 2007 (PST)
Percentages
Kwsapphire removed a bunch of the percentages, but I think they need to be in there. However in trying to add them back, if we put them back where they came from it does clutter the article. Perhaps a table at the bottom with the enhancement schedules and percentages with the number of SO's --Konoko 13:53, 14 December 2006 (PST)
| # SO's | Increase | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 33.33% | 33.33% |
| 2 | 33.33% | 66.66% |
| 3 | 28.33% | 94.99% |
| 4 | 4.99% | 99.98% |
| 5 | 4.99% | 104.97% |
| 6 | 4.99% | 109.96% |
Soliciting Feedback!
Please comment on the image I've just added to this page. Does it cover enough range? Is it clear? Are there any other common Enhancement combinations I should mark? There is no easy way for others to edit the graphics, and I have the master. Corebreach 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good. I would suggest using a smaller thumbnail version in line, which when clciked on sends the user to the full szied version. Catwhoorg 12:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Very nice image, but a thumbnail would make for slightly better presentation. --Eabrace 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)