User talk:Kpsmith67
Discarding
I think the point is that we want to discourage people from noting global behaviours on all applicable item pages. For example, the regular editors often remove effect notes that state "can be removed by SGEEA," because most effects can be removed in that way. It just adds to the maintenance work on the Wiki, which often doesn't get done (check out Astral Badger--it's got a bit of trivia on the list of animated familiars in the notes section, but this hasn't been updated for many of the other familiars), so we've got pages that aren't treated consistently. I don't think anyone would complain if you were, for example, to add the discardable items to an applicable page. Off the top of my head, a new section in Autosell or Items by autosell price (1-25 Meat) might be appropriate. --BagatelleT/C 04:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense. At the same time, I'm trying to figure out how to appropriately note the behavior in the double-sided tape page itself, because that is where people will look for it. Particularly in the case of that item, there has been some curiosity about how the discard link would behave -- have you ever tried to throw out double-sided tape? It isn't easy! And Jick has a propensity for humor, so having the link fail ("you attempt to discard the double-sided tape, but try as you might, you cannot shake it off") would fit. Another contributor (in the discussion section) noted the discard link and was curious about it, but did not try it for fear of losing his tape.
Since it appears that the discard link is automatically generated by the game for items with autosell prices of 0 but without the "cannot be discarded" trait (something I only realized by the strong reaction against posting discard behavior), perhaps the behavior should be noted where the autosell price for other items would otherwise be noted. Instead of "Selling Price: X meat", perhaps a "Selling Price: 0 (can discard)" note would be appropriate? I prefer the "can discard" note be tied to the "selling price: 0" trait because those two characteristics appeared to be tied in the game mechanics. Only items that cannot be autosold can be discarded.
In the spirit of your suggestion with the Autosell page, perhaps that page should document this game mechanic and include a link to discardable (sell price 0) items?
Your thoughts? I would like some way of noting the behavior in the double-sided tape page itself. Requiring people to check the discussion page seems wrong. --Kpsmith67 17:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- It would probably be frowned upon if you noted the discard behaviour on the tape page. As I outlined above, it's a global behaviour. We don't want to start putting global behaviours on item pages because it will inevitably lead to pages not being maintained consistently, which would lead to confusion ("Does this item have X behaviour? Why isn't it noted?") or encourage bloating. The convention on this Wiki is to note exceptions (e.g., note when using an item doesn't consume it), and as far as I know, whenever you discard an item, it says exactly the same thing, except an item name is substituted. It's inappropriate to place it where the sell field would be because we're trying to mimic the in-game display as closely as possible. Besides, it's clear from context, like you pointed out, an item is discardable when there is no selling price and the no-discard flag is absent. --BagatelleT/C 03:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- What would you think about a Discardable Items category? I think the item template could be made to auto-cat these. I think. --Flargen 03:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It is clear from context after I had time to think hard about the likely game mechanics. But the number of discardable items is so small that I had never considered it deeply before. I had wondered several times why so many items are marked as "cannot be discarded" when virtually no items can be discarded.
While I understand your positon, I also disagree with it. The items discardable trait that appears to derive from a selling price of 0 and the lack of the "cannot be discarded" flag is essentially being documented on the item page by the absence of information (no selling price, no "cannot be discarded" flag). As a consumer of the wiki, an absence of information is the same as being undocumented which is only reasonable for something that is completely obvious (and what the discard link would do was not obvious to me).
If a significant percentage (10%?) of the items were discardable, I would agree with your position because the discarding behavior would be obvious (as selling is). If there was only 1 discardable item, I assume you would agree with mine. I am only aware of 8 such items (three trinkets, pretty flower, useless powder, personalized mug, banana, double-sided tape), which means there are probably a dozen or so total. And two of those items grant you trophies by discarding. At what point is it a rare enough behavior that it is reasonable to document it in the item descriptions themselves? --Kpsmith67 17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- My goal in contacting you was to explain why Quietust, one of the senior admins here, reverted your addition. I don't want to get into a debate about Wiki conventions on a user talk page--this is not a proper venue for that. If you want to take this further, feel free to take it to Proposed Standards or Discussion. Flargen's category suggestion is reasonable, unintrusive compromise, and is easy to implement by the {{item}} template if one of the admins can be convinced to make the edit. --BagatelleT/C 00:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. I'll let it drop for now ... my energy level has dropped below my caring quotient and apathy is setting in. --Kpsmith67 01:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Attack and defense
The defense value you encounter ingame is around 90% of the true value with some variance thrown in. Stat values are equal to atk/4, min 1. This page has a decent intro - it was what I used when populating the data pages, anyway.
Sorry for not having this written up anywhere. --Ryo_Sangnoir 14:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. My kol bot is written up using older game mechanics from before mob level variance was added. Themthar hills is one place my bot kept getting beaten up, and being hit with a moxie of only 178 led me to assume that the posted level of 169 was wrong. But, with new mechanics, 169 could be 174 which might require a moxie of 181. I need to revisit and code up the current game mechanics. Meanwhile, I've reverted my changes. Thanks. --Kpsmith67 16:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
