Template talk:Infobox card

Shouldn't influence also apply to conflict cards?

Barrufet80 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes definitely. At least for non neutral conflict cards I want to have that in. The only reason I didn't implement it yet is that I am unsure if the bamboo marker are actually named influence. A bit like the fate value of the stronghold and the fate cost of the cards, are handled by the two parameter fate and cost.
 * However I am unsure if such a split is even necessary since province strength and strength bonus are easily are distinguished by the + sign.
 * Also I wouldn't be sure how to denote the influence value of Blackmail for example as 3 or III but that is another topic.
 * So after talking a bit I think I will simply add the influence cost to the template under the name influence. - Yanderesliver (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay I tested it out with Blackmail. Thoughts? Suggestions? - Yanderesliver (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems that the strokes (pipe) notation doesn't work fine with the template, but using arabic numbers does (see Admit Defeat) - Barrufet80 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I fiddled around with the template a bit. I also think Arabic numerals is probably the way to go. I think it is also much easier to parse. - Yanderesliver (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look good next to the deck, why not put it in stats? Drudenfusz (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I put it next to conflict to make a visual distinction between the influence a stronghold provides you and the influence you are required to pay when you want to include a conflict card which does not belong to your clan in your deck. Other then that there is no visual distinction between the two values since we currently display them both as Arabic numerals. As I mentioned before fate production and cost as well as province strength, military skill, political skill and their respective bonuses are visually distinct due to the + sign.
 * Instead of 3 we could also display III  or even perhaps . But I don't think this is easy to parse so I am a bit hesitant on that solution.
 * This is also the reason why I hesitated so long to implement this. - Yanderesliver (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)