From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What would be the energy cost of an attack skill with X energy cost when using Expert's Dexterity with Expertise lvl Y? What is the formula, is expertise applied before, after or at the same time when calculating this? LeDeni 07:19, 29 November 2006 (CST)

does anyone have the energy cost for skills with Quickening Zephyr and Expertise? --Ollj 07:57, 30 Aug 2005 (EST)

If you cast energizing then zephyr:
25 -> 13
15 -> 13
10 -> 13
5 -> 7
Zephyr, then energizing:
25 -> 18
15 -> 10
10 -> 13
5 -> 7

Yes, it does appear that 10 -> 13 for the latter case is a bug. I reported it and got two responses. The first was "looks like all the info for a bug report is here," and then like a week later, "the dev team has been notified." That's all so far. --Fyren 11:39, 30 Aug 2005 (EST)

There is no bug because energizing wind does not lower below 10 and quickening zephyr adds 30% But what does this have to do with expertise levels?

Hah, I forgot to paste the table:

   5 10 15 25
3  6 11 17 29
4  6 11 16 28
5  6 10 15 26
6  5  9 14 25
7  5  9 14 24
8  5  9 13 22
9  4  8 12 21
10 4  8 11 20
11 4  7 11 18
12 4  7 10 17
13 3  6  9 16
14 3  6  8 15
15 3  5  8 13
16 3  5  7 12

Expertise down the left, base cost across the top. I didn't test the low end. About the bug, it should get increased to 13 and then decreased back to 10. --Fyren 12:27, 30 Aug 2005 (EST)

does expertise shorten recharge time?

No Skuld 17:22, 18 October 2005 (EST)

Regarding this change (not mine), it may have been taken out because it's largely redundant with the line above it (now that it says "all other non-spell skills from any profession"). Maybe both lines should edited for clarity, but it is pretty clearly redundant with those two lines so close to each other. --JoDiamonds 07:58, 3 November 2005 (EST)

I cut out the list of types and just said non-spells. Seems simpler this way. --Fyren 13:48, 3 November 2005 (EST)

"All non-spell skills"[edit source]

Sdc readded the references to specific types, but I think this is much better off with just "expertise affects all non-spell skills from any profession." --Fyren 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree -- the list is slightly more confusing since it covers almost the same set but not, for example, Warrior's Cunning. Maybe collapse things into something like this:
--Rezyk 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how you can get more explicit and descriptive than "any non-spell." Listing anything will only lead to confusion. --Fyren 17:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Either way (listing none, listing a few with "etc") is fine in my view. --Rezyk 17:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I vote for Rezyk's formulation. The advantage is that you have all the information from the page. If you just write "any non-spell", there is no link, and therefore no quick way to see exactly which skills are affected. --SDC 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
If someone wants to know if a certain skill is affected, they'd search for the skill's article to look it up. If they don't know if it's a spell or not, looking through the 150+ non-spells across several categories won't help. --Fyren 06:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I was unclear, I was thinking about the opposite: when you want to know which skills are affected by Expertise (which is often not obvious, especially for secondary-class skills). The first time I read this page, I was wondering: "which skills are non-spells?". This is why I thought it would be nice to have a list of the affected skills accessible from the Expertise page.
Another possibility might be to add an "Affected Skills" or "Affected Skill Categories" header at the end of the page, and list the corresponding categories there. What do you think? --SDC 07:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts. Let's have a "Skills affected by Expertise" section at the bottom. State that in total they are skills that do not have the spell skill type, and then list them categorized by types (attacks, Signets, ..., typeless). --Karlos 07:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
My issue is you either know what type the skill is, you don't, or you're not wondering about one in particular and I don't think listing the (by my count) 205 non-spells across 15 types is helpful for any case. If you know the type, then even if you don't have a clue about the skill type "hierarchy," it'll either say "spell" in it or not. If you don't know, I don't think presenting a 200+ item list is a good way to impart the info for one skill. Especially if you arrange them by type (since they have to look through 15 lists instead of one). If you list the categories, that's still 15 for them to click through. If they're looking in general, again, there's either a huge list or a lot of clicking. --Fyren 15:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll agree with Fyren here, I think it's clear enough what "any non-spell" skill means, no need to list all the other spell categories which is kinda like saying: "all the following skills don't have spell in there definition, therefore, they are not spells". It's much simpler and clearer to do a negative definition by saying it affect all non spell and link to the spell category list. --theeth 16:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't even understand where this whole "non-spell skills" thing comes from. Not only is it misleading, it's inaccurate. Mending Touch is a spell, but its cost is reduced by Expertise since it has touch range. On the other hand, shouts are not spells, but their costs are NOT reduced by Expertise. Why do people say "non-spell"? Did it once function this way, but has since changed (I notice I'm the first one to comment on this for over two years)?
Mmhmm. The functionality of Expertise was changed long ago...I'll dig up the update. And sign your comments with ~~~~, please. - AdVictoriam1.PNGAd Victoriam 02:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Ok, found it. Expertise was changed in this update.
Ah, thank you. Sorry, I typically do sign my comments. Must have forgotten this time. Axinal 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Pre-searing expertise[edit source]

Is it possible that Expertise does not work in pre-searing? No matter how many points I spend on it, the mana costs won't lower. Anyone experienced this before?

I just tested and it works fine. Were you perhaps checking against spells? --Fyren 15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I've got three points in Expertise and see no difference in energy costs of skills (power shot, charm animal etc).
Expertise doesn't affect that listed energy cost, so you can't go by that. Instead, you have to actually look at your energy total before and after the skill use. --adeyke 16:30, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
3 words: regeneration Skuld Monk 16:10, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
Heh, took me a while to catch on that "3 words: regeneration" consists of exactly three words -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 16:17, 24 May 2006 (CDT)

Nerf imminent[edit source]

With the huge amount of bitching about touch rangers in all the forums, I expect that a massive nerf of Expertise is on the way. You heard it here first. Prediction: they will make it do exactly what it says, viz. attack skills, preps and traps only. Seventy.twenty.x.x 02:28, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

Aka, a bug will be fixed. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 02:29, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
Oho! But it's a bug in the description, not in the effect. I fear rangers are about to be put on par with eles and assassins in terms of brokenness. Seventy.twenty.x.x 03:46, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
Nah - they will probably nerf the touches. E.g. a recharge of 3-4 would make touch rangers (almost) completely useless while not hindering most other professions to use the skills in a non-spamming manner. Nerfing expertise would be SO BAD for rangers - it would change the profession balance completely - not to mention the fact that nerfing a whole profession because of one build is moronic to say the least. Or they could make the touches into spells - that would eliminate the build as a whole. --Lim-Dul 07:05, 7 July 2006 (CDT)

They wouldn't dare.. that would break rangers. If ppl dont like touchers then use water snares, wither, e-surge, theres LOADS of counters — Skuld Monk 04:15, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

Also remember troll unguent, etc — Skuld Monk 04:16, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
Perhaps change it to Ranger skills? rather than skills in general? --Jamie (Talk Page) 07:14, 7 July 2006 (CDT)
That's probably going to be too restrictive, in the sense that it becomes impossible to combo with. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 07:51, 7 July 2006 (CDT)
They will not mess with the attribute Expertise. That action would nerf more than just the Touch Ranger. Of the top of my head, there are two viable ways to "nerf" the build.
  1. As Lim-Dul put it, they would increase the recharge of the necro vampiric skills. Touch Ranger could still be used, but will be highly less effective.
  2. Change the necro vampiric skills to spells. I haven't seen this kind of action done before, so this one may be far fetched. -Gares 08:15, 7 July 2006 (CDT)
Unless they create a new skill type like (Well spells, Ward spells)... although essentially they are still spells... Touch skill, anyone? --Jamie (Talk Page) 08:18, 7 July 2006 (CDT)
Seconded, thirded, fourthed, fifted and sixted. I'd "seventh" it too, but one out of six of my characters actually IS a touch-ranger. The other five would really like to stop seeing "touches" being treated as Anet's pet-project - think of it; they're unblockable, unavoidable, unaffected by conditions AND get reduced to a sliver of their original cost by Expertise. Maybe this isn't the appropriate page to discuss the nature of touch-skills, but that's just it - they really ought to be "touch-spells" instead so Expertise will no longer effect them. Five out of six Black Arks say "boo!" to touches, the sixth just touches people in ways that makes them both very uncomfortable and very dead. --Black Ark 04:09, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
Increasing recharge would harm Necromancers just as much as it would Rangers, changing the class of Necro touches to Spell would also nerf Necros, as they would lose the ability to use those skills on targets immune to spells. Restricting the attribute to ranger skills would damage every type of R/ combo. This is likely not something the devs will fix soon, though not through lack of trying. GW is very balance oriented, more so than any other MMO out there I can think of. They need to find a fix that doesn't imbalance more than it corrects. -- Sunyavadin 20:37, 12 July 2006 (BST)
NOOOOO!!!! They changed the description. End of story! AAARGH! Guess it's up to me and the rest of my N/Me Blood spiker team to put touch rangers out of business then.... -- Sunyavadin 08:54, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Thank Dwayna...they didn't do anything stupid. Expertise is by far and away my favorite attribute of the game. Restricting it would ruin all primary Rangers. Arshay Duskbrow 04:18, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

I never said expertise should be restricted, on the contrary, it should have a lot of open options for use with other classes, as a primary skill. But using it to spam what is normally a 15 point skill at a cost of 5, a skill with such a ridiculously low cast and recharge, is a bit excessive. Touch skills themselves are what needs modifying, the best option for this being to add a "touch" class separate from skills/spells. I've seen MMORPG classes destroyed completely by nerfs to their core toolset in the past, so I'd never advocate them doing anything to nerf expertise itself, however likewise, I've seen developers who've created a major game imbalance skirt around fixing a problem by changing descriptions to say "it's meant to be like that". It's not fun, for example, to reference my experiences in other games, when the DD prof you've been playing all along gets successive damage nerfs, to the point where it's hardly competitive with other DD profs, and they "fix" the problem by rewriting its description to claim it's a "support" prof. I'm still hoping the clarification of the description is merely phase one, to be followed up with a modification of touch skills themselves. -- Sunyavadin 12:35, 28 July 2006 (BST)
I agree with the idea of creating a "touch" class, although I think it should remain a subcategory of skills and/or attacks. In theory, it would be affected by attack modifying effects - i.e. Blind, Empathy, Faintheartedness, etc. Seeing as how these skills are imitating attacks anyhow, I think it would fit.--Ender A 10:20, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
You guys want to nerf or destroy the touchers? I would just recommend adjusting casting and recharge times, not making a new skill type. If expertise has no effect on touc skills, there will be no touchers anymore. I don't think that completely destroying a build is necessary. (We shouldn't probably be talking about this on the expertise talk page thou as expertise isn't going to change) --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
Think of it. Changing the skill-type into something new, something that isn't covered by Expertise, will allow other builds to keep using Vampiric Touch/Bite in a way that won't completely invalidate the build (or to be sure, the skill itself). Touchers will have to either find other ways to lay on the cheese or face running out of energy, fast. And incidentally, I do think completely destroying a build is necessary for something as cheap as Touchers. I may have one, but that doesn't mean I like it. --Black Ark 10:47, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
i'm pretty sure Anet is well aware of the touchers, and that they see the usage as valid. that's why they changed the skill discription to match the beheviour, rather then changing the expertise code to invalidate touchers. adapt, this discussion does no good. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 11:10, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
Changing the skill type would totally nerf the build, without Expertise touchers don't work very well do they Gem? :P --Xasxas256 17:59, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

"Can't Touch This!" is Anet's answer to touchers. Expertise is fine as is.--Vallen Frostweaver 08:31, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

So do we change the descriptions after the 27th? Anooneemiss 22:53, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

Nerf Applied[edit source]

and they dont touch the most complained about target at all, lol... seems Expertise no longer affects Shouts and Stances. "Touch Skills" are even in the skill description now. Seems that nerf will never come. (Not that i'm complaining. I hate fighting them but love playing them, and they counter some other builds effectively and can easily be kited)--Midnight08 Assassin 10:00, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Were ritualists affected before by expertise? --Mgrinshpon 18:06, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
Yes, the cost of Binding Rituals were (and still are) reduced with ranks in Expertise.VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 06:33, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
Shouts and stances were the "other use" for expertise to boost secondary skills, like Mesmer stances, Warrior Shouts, etc.-- ···» Life Infusion ··· 10:26, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
It is applied to skills marked as "skill" from other professions <- Can anyone vouch for this line? The example given is a touch skill. 02:50, 30 October 2006 (CST)
Doesn't work with Soul Twisting (skill, not touch ranged). NEW: Now works with Healing Touch, Mending Touch, and Renew Life (touch ranged spells)! Article edited! Dark Luke 17:54, 16 November 2006 (CST)
I guess they made it avoidable with "Can't Touch This!" as a paragon skill.-- 01:33, 29 November 2006 (CST)

ok, they really need to change this back. I was looking forward to a R/P, but now a shouting ranger is a horrible build idea. at least include shouts, chants and stances.--Coloneh RIPColoneh.png 17:18, 24 December 2006 (CST)

I think that was the idea.. lol. Make a para — Skuld 17:20, 24 December 2006 (CST)
I dont want a paragon.there are so many more things i can do with a ranger. i just want my expertise back.--Coloneh RIPColoneh.png 22:34, 24 December 2006 (CST)
I was thinking that too (it's why I have two Rangers - I was gonna make my second ranger basically an Expertise-fueled spearchucker with Apply Poison)... and then I learned from experience that my Paragon doesn't have energy management problems anyway. Using Adrenaline-based shouts and Leadership works much better than the extra pip and Expertise discount could have possibly done. So now I've just got two rangers. No biggie, it's not like I'm missing anything else. Auntmousie 20:06, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Skill Cost Table[edit source]

Added this back in as although the second table gives you the 'break points' for Expertise, being able to quickly see what skills will actually cost at certain levels of Expertise is very useful.GregPalo 15:47, 30 December 2006 (CST)

Am I insane?[edit source]

Recently while doing the Ruins of Morah with my Ranger (who had 9 Expertise at the time), I could have sworn that I saw my energy go down by 3 when I used Lightbringer's Gaze, instead of 5 as it should. I watched it throughout the mission attempt - and since I had forgotten to set my Morgahn to Guard, the attempt was long and brutal and ultimately failed, which means I got to see it a lot. So I immediately came here, made a note of it on the Gaze page, and opened a talk section here to discuss how to note the exception correctly. Then I retried the mission (set a personal best time with henchies) and again watched as Gaze cost five energy every single time. So I reverted my changes to the Gaze page, and now I'm posing the question here ... has this happened to anyone else, or was I just hallucinating? Auntmousie 20:02, 11 February 2007 (CST)

nerfed the nerf...[edit source]

Can't touch this in the preview was a good skill, it make touchers useless and wasn't even THAT common...

But I suppose A-net favours touch rangers, as it became target user only, rather then earshot don't stop enough touches (4 at the max I belive) to shut any toucher down, especialy if there is more then one.

Stances[edit source]

I disagree with it not affecting stances... what do they expect us to do, spam stances? Come on ANet... User:Frvwfr2 frvwfr2 (talk)(contributions) 14:47, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Where to draw the line? It was to get everything standardised, and produced 2 itended effects: stopped rangers using distortion once and for all, and stopped R/P chant spammers (wtf?). — Skuld 17:00, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
Wait. Expertise doesn't affect stances? Does that mean I have to pay all 10 energy for Whirling Defence/Lightning Reflex? Wth? Those skills pratically sum up the normal rangers defence. Come on! Expertise is, well, pretty much terrible now. They pick touch "spells" over shouts, chants, stances, ect. WHICH MAKES MORE SENCE? lol. Anet's finally lost all the logic they ever had. /rant 06:09, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
It still affects Ranger stances, just not stances from other professions. — Hyperion` // talk 11:08, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Oh. My bad. Still, I don't get why Anet loves their touchers so much. 19:16, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Just like with Steady Stance, it allows the use of skill combinations no one would use otherwise. --Kale Ironfist 19:32, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Should still affect shouts, imho.

"For each rank of Expertise, the Energy cost of all Ranger, Assassin, Dervish, Paragon, and Warrior non-spell and non-chant skill are reduced by 4%. Several skills, especially those related to Energy costs and skill recharge times, become more effective with higher Expertise."

Fix'd. 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

0 Energy Necro Touch Skills[edit source]

With the Feb. 6th rebalancing, does Wallow's Bite/Touch of Agony (1 energy now) + 13 or more expertise (52% reduction) = 0 energy? Ad Victoriam 01:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Eww. IDK, i'll check now. --Shadowcrest 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh. My. Gawd. --Shadowcrest 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll assume that's a yes. Free skills FTW! Ad Victoriam 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
FTL!!! --Shadowcrest 01:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

-1 Pyramids[edit source]

The point of the -1 pyramids is that they easily show WHERE you get an actual effect from Expertise, so people can easily set it to what helps them the most instead of wasting points in it. For example, someone uses a lot of 5 energy skills and wants to know what level of Expertise will get the most reduction. He looks at the table and sees that at 13 Expertise the energy cost drops by 1 again, and so sets it there for the best point spread --Gimmethegepgun 21:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we no longer have the "-1" pyramid, but we have a brand spanking new version. Yes/no/otherwise? --JonTheMon 04:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I like the -1's more. Checks kinda blend it all together... ~~ User:Frvwfr2 frvwfr2 (T/C) 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

mendel's new alternate chart[edit source]

Does anyone else think that table is hard to read? Personally I can't stand tables formatted like that, but maybe I'm just crazy. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 18:54, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind it myself (then again, I used to know the breakpoints by heart), but I can see why it can be hard to read.
I personally can't stand a mix of red and black text.. Let's make this header about things you just can't stand! :D --Vipermagi 19:04, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how much my opinion will count, since as an engineer I am used to trying to interpret tables and charts, but I can follow it pretty well. What had me confused for a few minutes was the row labels. Their column should read something like Base Energy Cost or something, otherwise they're just numbers which aren't that helpful to someone who is new to the game. On the flip side, the red text doesn't really stand out that well for me on the white background either. Perhaps making the entire cell red and leaving the text black?→ Qelsi710 Qelsi Qompas sig.png 19:08, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
Then at least use a color that doesn't look awful (GWW's table is nice). --Vipermagi 19:11, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
Initially I didn't even have the row labels - it should be clear from teh table header that the table gives skill costs, and column one is the base cost. If you feel this merits an explanation, I'd rather there's be a line added above the table than to add a header that doesn't explain things as well as text would and is overlong compared to the rest of the column.
I found the "-" signs hard to read, they require more thinking: does the "-" cell have the number on the left or on the right? --M.mendel 19:27, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
I do think some explanation would help the average reader understand the table better. A line above the table would work as well as a label in the column.→ Qelsi710 Qelsi Qompas sig.png 19:46, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
I used the space gained by the colspan to add a <small> column header, and I managed to place the explanation to the right of the table (not sure if that's really needed, but whatever). Better? --M.mendel 20:24, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

no red suggestion[edit source]

▼ means the skill has gone down in cost this level.

Expertise Rank Base Cost 5 Base Cost 10 Base Cost 15 Base Cost 25 Percentage
0 5 10 15 25 0%
1 5 10 14 24 4%
2 5 9 14 23 8%
3 4 9 13 22 12%
4 4 8 13 21 16%

Alternately, the triangle could be used on only one side of the number. Why are 3, 8, 13 and 18 Experience marked in bold? --M.mendel 20:38, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

One chart (unless we have one that provides different information)[edit source]

There's no difference in utility between the alternate chart and the primary chart. I find it confusing to display both. The tables should help players make decisions or glean info useful in making those decisions. The important factors are:

  • GW skills only come in 1/5/10/15/25 pt energy costs.
  • Expertise energy reductions happen at break points rather than using a continuous formula.

Which leads to the important conclusion:

  • When choosing an expertise level, choose the lowest value that provides the best reduction to the most relevant skills in your bar. (i.e. there are probably different best ranks for people with builds that have skills using 5e alone, 10e alone, or a combination of 5e/10e.)
  • The original Expertise vs Base Cost table makes the breakpoints easy to see, but not much else.
  • The alternative, Cost vs Expertise table looks uglier, makes the breakpoints easier to see, and almost helps in choosing the right rank for multiple skills.

Let's drop one of those two charts (and pretty it up or not) and consider a different kind of table that would make it simple to choose the appropriate rank for a given skillbar. Tennessee Ernie Ford 00:21, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

GW skills only come in 5/10/15/25 pt energy costs.
Actually, there are a number of Necromancer skills that only cost 1 Energy, and Touch of Agony/Wallow's Bite is a touch skill, thus whatever table we use should be updated to include a base cost of 1 Energy. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 02:38, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
True (does Expertise have any impact on 1pt costs?).  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:11, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out a non-ugly way to include this in the table. So I left a note. GWW goes up to 20. Do we need a Expertise+Quickening Zephyr table? --M.mendel 06:58, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
re: 1-pt skills: I think the note is better; there are only some odd situation in which it's going to affect how many points someone puts into expertise.
re: another another table: I rephrase my earlier point: if there's more than one table, the nth one(s) need(s) to make decision making easier (if they don't, they confuse rather than inform). An alternative way to display information would be in a graph, with one colored line for 5/10/15/etc; that would show the step-function that rank applies and offer a visual way to identify the useful breakpoints. (I took a butcher's at a chart; it's not obvious where the breakpoints are.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:26, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
I think if you want to make things simple, you just have to simplify to a point where finesse is sacrificed; i.e. say something like Consider getting 3, 8, 13 or 18 Expertise; 4, 9, or 14 are also good for some skill sets. --M.mendel 08:23, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
erm, useful != simplify. The goal of table #1 is supposedly to do the math for each base cost and rank. We have such a table; we can make it prettier or not. If there's going to be a second table, then it should do something other than table #1. If the second table accomplishes both tasks (math + tbd), then there's no more need for table #1.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:19, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Do we need the percentages? --M.mendel 16:37, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Do the percentages help people understand the attribute or decide how many points to assign? I wouldn't think so: people aren't generally looking to save 15% vs 18%; they are deciding between e.g. 8 ranks or 9 and wondering whether it matters at all.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:04, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Note that % are more helpful for FC because: (a) it's a continuous (not step) function; every point has an impact; (b) rounded off % are easier to read in a table than the more detailed decimal numbers. In Expertise, it's the opposite: the actual energy used (or saved) is easier to read (and use), whereas the % are harder to read and less useful.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:08, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
For the percentage fans, I computed the relative effiencies vs. AP spent, and the rounding bonus/malus you get, here. --◄mendel► 23:38, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
I know I don't like the red text in the top table. I think the second table is very information dense, but the spacing leaves a little to be desired. --JonTheMon 02:12, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Do you like the design with the triangles? What do you desire of the spacing (screenshot?)?
We could always keep the upper taboe and show/hide it to save space. --◄mendel► 07:37, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the triangles. I suppose if I had to pick something for that kind of table, I'd like a background color change. And the 50em table is fine, just maybe make the lines a tad darker/wider. --JonTheMon 13:20, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
The triangles are bad, waaaay too heavy visually. Viper mentioned above that GWW has a nice table, and I agree. Why do we have to have this colspanning stuff? —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 13:53, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
I made the colspans because I find it easier to visually decode them than the full grid. The wide cells concisely illustrate the range for which the cost is equal. I would add thin grey lines for those grid lines that are missing, if I didn't fear that the resulting table code would by quite a mess. Below, there's another UTF suggestion for "no red". --◄mendel► 14:39, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

another no red suggestion[edit source]

○ means the skill has gone down in cost this level.

Expertise Rank Base Cost 5 Base Cost 10 Base Cost 15 Base Cost 25 Percentage
0 5 10 15 25 0%
1 5 10 14 24 4%
2 5 9 14 23 8%
3 4 9 13 22 12%
4 4 8 13 21 16%

Again, the ○ could be used on only one side of the number. --◄mendel► 14:34, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Four more alternatives,
Expertise Rank Base Cost 5 Base Cost 10 Base Cost 15 Base Cost 25 formatting comments
0 5 10 15 25
1 5 10 14 24 background check
2 5 9 14 23 background check w/o bold
3 4 9 13 22 background + bold first cell
4 4 8 13 21 background + italics
I prefer shading over multiple ○ emphases ○. (I left the % off the table; 4% reduction is misleading if the skill cost remains the same.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:11, July 17, 2010 (UTC)