Difference between revisions of "Talk:Monster frequency"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(just a comment) |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
::Indeed, saying "frequency: 2/5" or "frequency: 5/5" would be a more exact way of documenting it. --[[User:ZeroOne|ZeroOne]] 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | ::Indeed, saying "frequency: 2/5" or "frequency: 5/5" would be a more exact way of documenting it. --[[User:ZeroOne|ZeroOne]] 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::Wouldn't it then be "frequency: 2/6~7" or "frequency: 5/6~7". That is my understanding from the explanation in the article. [[User:Shmoo|Shmoo]] 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:58, 23 January 2008
I have been using:
| Name | Frequency |
|---|---|
| very rare | 1 |
| rare | 2 |
| uncommon | 3 |
| common | 4 |
| very common | 5 |
when filling in the monster templates, though this probably does not agree with the system others have been using and it should be standardised before we attempt to add anything in. -- SGrunt 01:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- I linked the monster template to this page so curious folk can see what frequency is all about. IMHO, the names add nothing, whereas the number is at least meaningful (frequency 5 really is 5 times more frequent than frequency 1). We don't, for example, use names for experience points granted ("not much", "some", "a bunch", "loads"). --Jayt 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
