@Taze and @Ekaterina,
It admittedly may not be “normal,” but it IS intentional on my part.
I spent a lot of time working on converting the “old” relationship variables to the “new” ones for Part 2.
Why did I do it? The biggest issue, and one I did not appreciate while I was writing Part 1, is that when you use numeric variables for things like relationships, you have to make all interactions VERY VERY balanced between all the characters, or the variables starts to look VERY odd, and neither the writer nor the reader has any context as to what they mean in the big scheme of things.
Example: DG had more available interactions than anyone else in part 1, which means her max numeric variable score is much higher than anyone else’s. Basically, a 25 for DG might be “meh” or mid-range, while a 25 for someone like Tress might be high, and a 25 for someone like Nil is impossible. I hope I’m making my point clear. Basically, the scores mean nothing unless you know the available range, which varies widely for each character.
(Another example, a 10 for Stunner at the end of Part 1 is actually pretty good. But you can’t possibly know that because you don’t know the highest/lowest range for him…only I knew that)
So for Part 2, I converted them all to fairmath…you either get a 25, 50, or 75 percent stating score, which is based on where your Part 1 score fell on each individual character range. I crunched the numbers myself. It may not be perfect, but it’s a MUCH better system. And I would advise any writer to use a similar system from the get-go.
A 10% drop from 75 should drop it down to about 68%.