View source for Talk:Batter Up! (skill)

#how would you mark it as having a cost of 5 Fury?
#does it stack with other banishes? which?
#is it seal clubber only? 
#is anything different for other classes? --[[User:Evilkolbot|Evilkolbot]] ([[User talk:Evilkolbot|talk]]) 12:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
*#Because Jick [http://forums.kingdomofloathing.com/vb/showpost.php?p=4550786&postcount=1 told us] it costs 5 Fury when the skill rolled out. (I added that url to my edit summary.)
*#Can't test that right now, I'm not a SC.
*#Since it costs 5 Fury, I don't see any way other classes could use this skill.
*#Like mentioned above: No Fury, no use. Or at least it doesn't show up in my skill bar. --[[User:Yatsufusa|Yatsufusa]] ([[User talk:Yatsufusa|talk]]) 14:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
**Does stack with nano-banish. --[[User:Wpolly|Wpolly]] ([[User talk:Wpolly|talk]]) 14:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
***sorry, I'll rephrase question 1. "given that the skill popup has MP: n/a on it, how should we indicate on the page that this costs 5 fury?" --[[User:Evilkolbot|Evilkolbot]] ([[User talk:Evilkolbot|talk]]) 17:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
****Exactly the same way I did before: With "mpcost=5" and "costtype=Fury". The "costtype" parameter seems ideal for the Job, and I must say that in this particular case, just copying "MP Cost: N/A" from the game to the wiki really helps '''nobody''' – which is what all our work on the wiki is about: Helping players. I could sleep much better with an inaccuracy like the wiki stating the '''actual cost''', rather than with such a (sorry) stupid and nondescript cost indicator that might tempt people into thinking this skill didn't cost anything. My common sense tells me this is the right thing to do. '''Each and every''' Zombie Master skill reads "MP Cost" ingame – yet the wiki claims it would say "Zombie Cost". So I'm having a hard time to see why I'm met with that degree of resistance here... --[[User:Yatsufusa|Yatsufusa]] ([[User talk:Yatsufusa|talk]]) 18:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
****Maybe the skill template should be changed to display "MP: N/A" when costtype=Fury? --[[User:Vorzer|Vorzer]] ([[User talk:Vorzer|talk]]) 19:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
****To repeat my previous statement: Reversing every single edit that updates the costs is '''helping nobody.''' The skill doesn't cost "N/A MP" – it costs 5 Fury. Just as [[Corpse Pile]] doesn't cost 3 MP – it costs 3 Zombies. And that is what it says in the wiki. Because it makes sense. Either you insist on that a skill page may only reflect what can be seen ingame and consequently change every single Zombie Master skill to MP and add a lengthy explanation about how it doesn't ''actually'' cost any MP to 15 pages (plus the 15 that cost no zombies and explicitly state that they cost no ''zombies''), or you change this one to Fury. You can't just declare that it's fine to change it there but not here... I remember ''edit wars'' being unwanted by the admins – and rightfully so – yet there hasn't been given no '''proper explanation''' on this very talk page, despite having not one but 3 admins reverting edit on this page made by 3 different players to a poorer version. I don't care what it says in the game. If it said "100 MP" ingame, would you copy that costs, knowing that it is neither working that way nor planned to, or would you rather write the actual cost and a line about the cost displayed ingame being a bug? --[[User:Yatsufusa|Yatsufusa]] ([[User talk:Yatsufusa|talk]]) 22:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
*****I think that the top part of the skill template is used for showing what's ingame - hence the setting to MP Cost: N/A. In that case, a note saying that this requires 5 Fury to use would go under the Notes section. In this case, I've sent in a bug report to get this rectified. — [[User:Cool12309|Cool12309]] ([[User talk:Cool12309|talk]]) 22:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
******So what you're saying is that you will revert every single Zombie Master skill in the fashion I described above to have it perfectly match what players see in the game? Because if that's your standpoint you pretty much have to, if you're consequent... --[[User:Yatsufusa|Yatsufusa]] ([[User talk:Yatsufusa|talk]]) 22:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
*******the stated aim of the wiki is to reflect content in-game as accurately as possible. so if the zombie skills say MP then they should here too. thanks for the heads up. --[[User:Evilkolbot|Evilkolbot]] ([[User talk:Evilkolbot|talk]]) 22:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
********Unfortunately, those goals get communicated rather poorly. My logs say I'm editing since March 2010 and up until now I was under the impression that first and foremost we were aiming to help players of the game ''The Kingdom of Loathing''. Where could I read up on those goals and to whom do I complain to for aiming so low? --[[User:Yatsufusa|Yatsufusa]] ([[User talk:Yatsufusa|talk]]) 23:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
********OK, see, what I don't understand is, if a skill works differently than the game describes it, why is the wiki's page on the skill supposed to reflect the game's inaccurate description instead of reality? If the wiki page is more accurate than the in-game description, why should it be edited to be less accurate? Sure, something like spelling errors in the flavor text shouldn't be changed (aside from adding a sic template), but we're talking about the listed skill cost here. The listed cost should be the actual cost, not the in-game description of the cost. --[[User:Vorzer|Vorzer]] ([[User talk:Vorzer|talk]]) 02:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
********If the aim of the wiki is to reflect content in-game, there are a whole bunch of pages which should probably be deleted altogether. There are multiple pages which describe in game mechanics which are not revealed in-game. As such, those pages can in no way be construed to reflect "content in-game" at all. For example, the Reanimated Reanimator page has a Function section, which discusses at length how body parts collection works. This information simply does not exist in-game. Is this page not following the stated aim of the wiki? There is a link there, showing that the information came from Jick on the Forums. But the forums are not in-game. Perhaps, if these "stated aims" (which I have never seen stated anywhere... they certainly are not stated on the Established Standards page) are to be followed, a seperate forums and radio show wiki is needed?     Fwiw, if the only content on the wiki is what I can already get from the game, I won't have any reason to ever visit the wiki. --[[User:RogerMexico|RogerMexico]] ([[User talk:RogerMexico|talk]]) 22:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
*at the risk of getting all inquisitiony about this, I'd say the wiki has two stated aims. the first to record and represent in-game content for kol as completely and accurately as possible. the second is to provide commentary and analysis of that content in a way that is as useful as possible. these two functions should not only remain separate, they should be visibly so. game text and images should be presented exactly as they are in-game. no decoration of text, no links, no footnotes, no fixing of typos. if necessary, explanatory headings can be added but as sparely and economically as necessary. as far as the opinion and explanation goes, try to follow the house style, keep down the funny and make sure you can justify any claims you make. THIS IS NOT WIKI POLICY, it is only my interpretation of it. I'd still say that if the zombie skills say "mp:n/a" then so should we until lobbying jick to fix it bears fruit. edge-cases, wedge-ends and inch-miles. it seems that inertia has made a different decision, though. --[[User:Evilkolbot|Evilkolbot]] ([[User talk:Evilkolbot|talk]]) 00:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
**Thanks for the clarification. I understand what you are getting at now. I would agree that the presentation of game content should be consistent with in-game appearance, with commentary/explanation/analysis held seperate. There are a couple of places where, imo, the wiki analysis hews too closely to in-game misinformative descriptions (I'm looking at you, group monster damage explanation). Also, I'm still confused by your usage of the phrase "stated aims". You don't have to say the wiki has x number of stated aims. If they are stated, you should actually be able to pull up the page where they are stated and count them. (If it's never been said, it isn't stated!)(IMO, it would be nice to have standards regarding content... but all I can find on established standards is information regarding formatting.)--[[User:RogerMexico|RogerMexico]] ([[User talk:RogerMexico|talk]]) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
***did i say "stated"? i think i meant "unspoken". --[[User:Evilkolbot|Evilkolbot]] ([[User talk:Evilkolbot|talk]]) 20:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)