Talk:Super Training: Difference between revisions

::For what it's worth, I didn't notice how opinionated that table was; I had my blinders on and was looking only at the standard Super Training table, which has no descriptions at all. I agree that toned-down it could be useful, but without mathematical data from the code itself, I'm not sure how to make it suitably neutral. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 15:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, lads. I was not exactly concern with wiki-worthiness when I added them. I meant to set up some sort of a column as a framework or something so others may begin to add. Now that when I am reviewing them, I think the only worthy point to put up is the -9999 points of deduction when hit in the second last regiment. But then, we have no place to put it up there. And walkthrough materials, I am not sure how to achieve a balance. There are certainly some phenomenal observations possible in these regiments, like the scatterbug and spewpa's hits are not damaging but the vivillon's are. I don't think mathematical figures are crucial. Sometimes, unbiased qualitative data are better if quantitativeness cannot be achieved. -[[User:Iosue|Iosue]] ([[User talk:Iosue|talk]]) 04:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)