|Posted by Bronzebreak on 2018-09-27 at 00:31:26.|
Yup, they changed it.
|Posted by Rydian on 27 September 2018 at 14:08.|
For the comments I made on varying pages;
I was thinking that we may as well take out the % chart before the normal comparison, or bring it up to date (although I'm leaning towards the former, which is why I haven't updated it already).
Additionally, wouldn't it be better if the sections were 'Implemented/Not Implemented' rather than 'Normal/Unreleased' with a description of Unreleased repeating 'unreleased'?
As far as cylinders, I was thinking that in the list of equipment there should be sub-sections for Water/Fire cylinders (as they are differentiated this way in the 'effects' chart). Additionally, I think that it should be worded as Water/Fire-Attribute, as there is an actual 'Water Cylinder' and 'Fire Cylinder'. Or we could sub-categorize cylinders, such as Beginner (Beginner Cylinder), Basic (Cylinder/Tower Cylinder, no Special Upgrades), Basic Attribute (Earth/Fire/Water/Wind), Intermediate Attribute (Tidal Wave/Hurricane/Earthquake/Volcano), Demonic (Abyss/Hellfire), Divine (Gospel), and Celtic (Tetra). My reasoning against this (outside of my off-wiki use of it for personal preference) is the blurred lines of how Guard/Tower fits, in addition to only two categories of seven having more than two entries (unless we ever get Tempest/Inner Core, which I doubt), and it being very unlikely that the 'Beginner', 'Basic', 'Divine', or 'Celtic' sections would be expanded upon.
Ornament Section of Homestead:
It's my understanding that an indented subsection offers additional information or clarification. I do not believe that the 'Ornament' section currently reads that way, so I was looking to change it. I ended up with '===Ornament===
Some ornaments have an effect of generating additional Kons for your Homestead on a daily basis, so long as the ornament is not removed.
There are three tiers of Kon-generating ornaments: 1 Kon, 2 Kons, and 3 Kons. One may receive Kons from up to 10 instances of each tier; 10 Prairie Grass ornaments that provide 3 Kons each will provide 30 Kons per day, but having 11 will NOT give 33 Kons per day.
Ornaments that generate different amounts of Kons can stack together (e.g. ornaments that provide 3 Kons will stack with ornaments that provide 1). As such, if one has 10 ornaments of each tier, they the maximum of 60 Kons generated a day.
If you do not enter your Homestead daily to collect the bonus Kons, the value is stored and will be obtained the next time you enter your Homestead, up to a maximum of 30 days worth.'
I found it originally awkward to have the 10-instance restriction as a subsection, followed by an additional subsection that mentioned that the different tiers stack together. As such, I condensed the 'calculations' into the original section. However, as each new section relies on the information above (and therefore can't NOT be a subsection), it ended up as you can see above, which in my mind would just be better as a paragraph (which is obviously not what was intended). Additionally, I found it weird that the roll-over comment takes into account the maximum 60 Kon/day limitation, but is not considered a subsection (thus acknowledging that it requires this information as part of the description?). I also wanted to take out the calculation since it implies that you could hit the 1800 limit without needing to get the maximum of 60/day (which you do).
I'm sorry, I don't know if I'm being very clear? Real-time or voice chat would be an easier way to get my point across, I think. In any case I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions for my above example, or if it's fine as-is.
Pets (not specific pages)
Some have Protection listed as a %, some have it listed as a raw value. I'd suggest that we just say 'X.X (Z% Reduction)' or something like that to cover all of our bases, and make everything the same. Not that I have the know-how, but we could probably get a bot to do the calculations and formatting instead of manually editing each page (as they're bound to have one value or the other currently in them).
Would it be practical/possible to have a 'Stats' and/or 'Stats Growth' table so that players can compare pets' base stats (and perhaps 'maximum'; have a calculator where players pick which stat they want maxed out on the pet and an emulator tells them what age to level the pet at, and what the max stat would be? Alternatively, an additional section that could be headed as '[Stat Name] (Age)' and value as 'Value (Age)', like for the Perseus under 'Health (Age)' it would say '500 (1)' ?)
|Posted by Bronzebreak on 2018-09-27 at 17:33:29.|
Edited by Bronzebreak on 2018-09-29 at 22:25:32.
For pet protection, we go by what they list in their stats screen when summoned, since protection doesn't increase with level or skills (only buffs like Divine Link). When people put in protection sometimes they put in the % (and thus it shows up) and sometimes they don't, so it's just a consistency issue with all the various people typing it in over the years. Could probably just leave it off I guess since yeah it's not a direct % nowadays, but I don't have the tools or anything to go batch-fix it on all the pages (I think Snowie might)?
For the pet stat comparison, all the info from all the pets would need to be in some sort of searchable/comparable DB on the wiki, which they aren't right now (they're just info on individual pages in manual tables, more or less). So even if somebody made sorting/searching functionality it wouldn't have any data to go off of right now. Technically it would be possible to re-dump the base stat and stat growth stuff fresh from the game client using various tools... but actually making the stuff would likely be some Semantic MediaWiki witchcraft that nobody here knows how to manage.
Fixed has this in the effect field... "SetSetItemEffectOnEquip(mana_saving, +1)" so it is the set effect.
|Posted by Rydian on 28 September 2018 at 21:09.|
Edited by Rydian on 28 September 2018 at 21:09.
Posted by Rydian on 28 September 2018 at 21:09.»Chamomile edited.
For pet protection, we go by what they list in their stats screen when summoned, since protection doesn't increase with level or skills (only buffs like Divine Link). When people put in protection sometimes they put in the % (and thus it shows up) and sometimes they don't, so it's just a consistency issue with all the various people typing it in over the years. Could probably just leave it off I guess since yeah it's not a direct % nowadays, but I don't have the tools or anything to go batch-fix it on all the pages (I think Snowie might)? I know that for the Nimbuses, some were the actual values, and some were the actual percent (not like, (value)%, but (value converted into percent)%). So we'd basically need a manual pass of all pets? I can do the ones I own, obviously.
For the pet stat comparison, all the info from all the pets would need to be in some sort of searchable/comparable DB on the wiki, which they aren't right now (they're just info on individual pages in manual tables, more or less). So even if somebody made sorting/searching functionality it wouldn't have any data to go off of right now. Technically it would be possible to re-dump the base stat and stat growth stuff fresh from the game client using various tools... but actually making the stuff would likely be some Semantic MediaWiki witchcraft that nobody here knows how to manage.Fair enough.
Fixed has this in the effect field... "SetSetItemEffectOnEquip(mana_saving, +1)" so it is the set effect. Should it be mentioned that it's erroneously labeled as % in game?«
|Posted by Bronzebreak on 2018-09-28 at 18:47:06.|
Fixed could probably use the notice... if that's possible to put in the stats section with the way enchants are done.
|Posted by Rydian on 29 September 2018 at 22:24.|
TL;DR: May I source/reference Forums, and when do I need to/need not to Reference?
2018-09-03T04:44:41 (diff | hist) . . (+122) . . m Return Incentive (May we use forums as references? If not, merely undo this edit and keep the one below.)
Regarding this? I realize we can't 100% absolutely at-face-value trust everything everyone says, but if there is at least a visual reference would this be sufficient for adding? Or may we do as currently and just reference the post (which could possibly be deleted/altered).
'cause in my mind, as far as assuredness (from least to most);
Comment from forums.
Screenshot of comment from forums.
Image in forums.
Screenshot of image from forums.
Discovered by Wiki contributor.
Verified via image/video by Wiki contributor.
Verified image/video from Wiki contributor, by another contributor.
Verified image/video from Wiki contributor, by Admin/Staff.
Verified via Nexon employee.
Screenshot of verification by Nexon employee.
That being said, obviously we are not going to run into many situations of the last five. As such, what level is considered the minimal acceptable for use to use as a reference, and should all references by uhh, referenced?
I understand that we can have what I'd call 'nested references' (where for instance, Nexon says that the Black Bag Coupon is in the current event, so reference the Announcement post and then on the Black Bag Coupon page we reference the event, but we don't need to reference the announcement of the event on the Black Bag Coupon itself, nor do we reference the event or original announcement on the Black Bag page, though we do say it's from the Black Bag Coupon), but under what level can we post without references (for instance, the Kons given by various plants grown in the Fields of the Homestead aren't individually referenced via video, but that would be tedious and ludicrous. That being said, we did have Chamomile contain an incorrect value because we weren't that thorough...).
This is quite nitpicky, I realize.
|Posted by Bronzebreak on 2018-09-30 at 00:44:06.|
Edited by Bronzebreak on 2018-09-30 at 00:45:14.
|Posted by Bronzebreak on 2018-10-05 at 22:43:30.|
You can look at an existing page with a redirect to see the code to insert a "maybe you meant" at the top.
And for a redirect page you can edit that by clicking the redirect to go to the redirect page to edit the code.
|Posted by Rydian on 7 October 2018 at 21:09.|