[1.05b] New Interrupt/Concentration display on character sheet missing separator?

[Achilles]

Screenshots available if you need them (since the forum apparently stopped allowing them at some point today).

 

Looking at the left side of the character sheet, you see the 

 

Portrait

 

Health

Endurance

--------------------

Damage

 

Accuracy

 

Interrupt

--------------------

Concentration

Kludgeymessofdefenseinfo

 

I suspect that there's supposed to be a separator between Accuracy and Interrupt and another between Concentration and Defense?

[Doppelschwert]

Why would there be a separator?

You have Ressources / Offensive / Defensive as categories the way you desribe it. Seems reasonable.

[Achilles]

Health and endurance are grouped together - makes sense.

 

Accuracy and Damage are grouped together...along with Interrupt. Which you would think would be grouped with Concentration...except that's grouped with Defense.

 

I'm happy to be wrong, but it looks like they added new info to that part of the guy and flubbed where the separators went. 

[koski]

Health and endurance are grouped together - makes sense.

 

Accuracy and Damage are grouped together...along with Interrupt. Which you would think would be grouped with Concentration...except that's grouped with Defense.

 

I'm happy to be wrong, but it looks like they added new info to that part of the guy and flubbed where the separators went. 

 

Well, health and endurance are linked. Accuracy, damage and interrupt are linked since interrupts are based on attacks and damage (and weapon used).

 

Concentration defends against interrupts... it is a defence and thus grouped with other defences?

 

Currently they are grouped as:

 

Endurance

-----------------

Offence

-----------------

Defence

 

Seems to make perfect sense.

Edited May 4, 2015 by koski

[Achilles]

It looks kludgey. If you disagree that's fine.

 

I've already posed the question, so no point in trying to "debate" this. Either the devs will address it or they won't.

[koski]

It looks kludgey. If you disagree that's fine.

 

I've already posed the question, so no point in trying to "debate" this. Either the devs will address it or they won't.

 

I was pointing out why they were grouped like they were and how it made perfect sense. Stating the obvious is not debating.

[Derek M]

Hey guys, 

 

I've went ahead and passed word along about this, but can't say if it will be changed. It seems fine to me, but I can see how it could be changed.

 

Thanks for your feedback.