安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
Psychology
ArrestPeacefullyChance * opinionFactor (0 to 1, linear with opinion from -100 to 100 of arrester by arrested) * sameFactionFactor (50% higher for same faction, normal otherwise) * mentalStateFactor (1/5 chance if arrestee is having a mental break)
ArrestPeacefullyChance is base 0.02, increases by social 5% per level, affected by talking (90% weight)
This is not a bad approach, in my opinion. I think the base chance is a bit low, but it's a good list of factors combined in a reasonable way.
Vanilla (1.3)
ArrestSuccessChance is base 0.6, plus 7.5% per level of social, affected by manipulation (90% weight, 5% allowance before effect, 100% max).
I'm not aware of whether or not this figure is modified in the game's computations, as above with the factors. I suspect it is a simple check against a uniform variate, with opinion, faction, and mental state all ignored.
From the differences, I gather Psychology conceives of arrest as involving talking the person into coming quietly, while vanilla's implementation is partly about talking to them and partly physically subduing them. Not that my opinion really matters here, but I like Psychology's approach better. Would you consider suppressing the vanilla stat from showing up in-game? Or perhaps adapting the vanilla one to use Psychology's formula?