Talk:Artifact weapon/Archive 1 - Revision history

Umbire the Phantom: pothole

2025-04-08T11:03:31Z

pothole

Umbire the Phantom: Umbire the Phantom moved page Talk:Artifact weapon to Talk:Artifact weapon/Archive 1: oh ABSOLUTELY not.

2024-02-13T13:01:04Z

Umbire the Phantom moved page Talk:Artifact weapon to Talk:Artifact weapon/Archive 1: oh ABSOLUTELY not.

Magicbymccauley: /* meta, a solution */

2019-08-29T17:09:38Z

‎meta, a solution

Magicbymccauley: /* meta, a solution */

2019-08-29T08:27:19Z

‎meta, a solution

Magicbymccauley: /* meta, a solution */

2019-08-29T06:52:04Z

‎meta, a solution

Magicbymccauley: /* meta, a solution */

2019-08-29T05:21:42Z

‎meta, a solution

Magicbymccauley: /* meta, a solution */

2019-08-29T05:06:34Z

‎meta, a solution

Magicbymccauley: /* meta, a solution */

2019-08-29T04:53:14Z

‎meta, a solution

Magicbymccauley: /* meta, a solution */

2019-08-29T04:38:42Z

‎meta, a solution

Magicbymccauley: /* Page protection */

2019-08-29T04:25:08Z

‎Page protection

@@ Line 247: / Line 247: @@
 Should we include silver damage in the table?
 To me, it's an important part of the damage that Grayswandir and Werebane can deal out.  and Werebane can never inflict double damage without also causing silver damage.  The only drawback I see is that right now, the number in paranetheses is for monsters that are "resistant", and one isn't so much "resistant" to silver as not vulnerable to silver.  I added it in, because I think it's important to show how powerful Grayswandir can be, and how Werebane isn't the pathetic weapon that it otherwise appears to be.  Thoughts?  [[User:Derekt75|Derekt75]] 01:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
-:Semantics aside, the damage range of silver is certainly broader than junk like Ogresmasher or Trollsbane, so including it probably isn't a bad idea.  Still though, I'd recommend including as ''+10.5'' for the non-resistant number, and not at all in the resistant one.  As it is now, it only makes sense because both the silver artifact weapons also happen to do double damage against silver-haters (Grayswandir against everyone, Werebane against lycanthropes).  This isn't true in SLASH'EM, for example: you have the [[Sword of Balance]], which is anti-lawful and anti-chaotic; it's best against silver-hating chaotics, but still good against [[shade]]s (silver-hating neutral), in fact better than it would be against most chaotics/lawfuls.  Putting the number in italics nicely indicates that there is a second dimension to the damage. -[[User:Ion frigate|Ion frigate]] 03:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
+:Semantics aside, the damage range of silver is certainly broader than junk like Ogresmasher or Trollsbane, so including it probably isn't a bad idea.  Still though, I'd recommend including as ''+10.5'' for the non-resistant number, and not at all in the resistant one.  As it is now, it only makes sense because both the silver artifact weapons also happen to do double damage against silver-haters (Grayswandir against everyone, Werebane against lycanthropes).  This isn't true in SLASH'EM, for example: you have the [[Sword of Balance (SLASH'EM)|Sword of Balance]], which is anti-lawful and anti-chaotic; it's best against silver-hating chaotics, but still good against [[shade]]s (silver-hating neutral), in fact better than it would be against most chaotics/lawfuls.  Putting the number in italics nicely indicates that there is a second dimension to the damage. -[[User:Ion frigate|Ion frigate]] 03:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 ::You do make a good point about werebane at least. I'd leave the silver damage in the non-resistant calculation because there is no situation where you will get double damage but not silver damage. For grayswandir though I agree it should be separate; I don't use grayswandir because I plan on hitting some vampires, I use it for the double damage and the extra silver damage is just a nice touch. -- [[User:Qazmlpok|Qazmlpok]] 04:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 :::I went ahead and put the silver damage in italics for both weapons; I think this is best, to just consider them separately.  In the event that the table is expanded for SLASH'EM weapons, or by some miracle another version comes out, this is more robust: it concisely indicates the up to four possible cases.  It happens that both current silver artifacts have only two cases, but that's only because nothing resists Grayswandir's double damage, and all of Werebane's double-damage targets are silver haters. -[[User:Ion frigate|Ion frigate]] 04:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 29 August 2019
Line 977:		Line 977:

	https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/User:Magicbymccauley/Better_artifact		https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/User:Magicbymccauley/Better_artifact
		+
		+	-magicbymccauley
		+
		+	This was never about making the article better. You're just all of the opinion that change is bad, that making the article better is bad, that making the article more organized is bad and that including more information in the article is bad. Your excuses about why my article is bad is just disingenuous falsehoods.
		+
		+	If you've decided the wiki can never change or you're never going to allow me to edit it (no matter what I say) I'd appreciate you saying that, rather than making disingenuous claims about the quality of my edit.
		+	That way I don't spend hours trying to organize and edit this article.
		+
		+	Still no answers, after dozens of posts about why a wikipedia article with no topic headings, which meanders from topic to topic and back again, or which has less pertinent information is a better wiki article.

	-magicbymccauley		-magicbymccauley

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:27, 29 August 2019
Line 975:		Line 975:

	Is 992 the maximum number of words allowed for this article?		Is 992 the maximum number of words allowed for this article?
		+
		+	https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/User:Magicbymccauley/Better_artifact

	-magicbymccauley		-magicbymccauley

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:52, 29 August 2019
Line 963:		Line 963:

	DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS BRO? BECAUSE IT'S THUNDERDOME TIME! I'M GOING TO MAKE IT SHORTER THAN YOUR ARTICLE AND CONTAIN MORE INFORMATION. CAN YOU HANDLE THAT? WHAT WILL YOUR EXCUSE BE THEN?		DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS BRO? BECAUSE IT'S THUNDERDOME TIME! I'M GOING TO MAKE IT SHORTER THAN YOUR ARTICLE AND CONTAIN MORE INFORMATION. CAN YOU HANDLE THAT? WHAT WILL YOUR EXCUSE BE THEN?
		+
		+	-magicbymccauley
		+
		+	Okay I failed at the thunderdome challenge. Endless shame is mine.
		+
		+	But I've gotten down to 1381 words to the current article's 992. There is no more concise left to be had.
		+
		+	May I have 389 words to improve the article?
		+
		+	What is the word to zorkmid conversion rate?
		+
		+	Is 992 the maximum number of words allowed for this article?

	-magicbymccauley		-magicbymccauley

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:21, 29 August 2019
Line 956:		Line 956:

	Is the game to get the article to contain all the information it does now in two pages or less? Is that the goal? Because I will slam dunk that if that's the goal. I have no idea why all the editors think that the article MUST be 2 pages or less, but if that's the unwritten rule and foolish consensus of all these editors, trust me I will do it, and I'll have a lot more information a lot better organized than the current crappy article, trust me.		Is the game to get the article to contain all the information it does now in two pages or less? Is that the goal? Because I will slam dunk that if that's the goal. I have no idea why all the editors think that the article MUST be 2 pages or less, but if that's the unwritten rule and foolish consensus of all these editors, trust me I will do it, and I'll have a lot more information a lot better organized than the current crappy article, trust me.
		+
		+	-magicbymccauley
		+
		+	Current article (excluding references and headings) 992
		+	My article (excluding references and headings) 2002.
		+
		+	DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS BRO? BECAUSE IT'S THUNDERDOME TIME! I'M GOING TO MAKE IT SHORTER THAN YOUR ARTICLE AND CONTAIN MORE INFORMATION. CAN YOU HANDLE THAT? WHAT WILL YOUR EXCUSE BE THEN?

	-magicbymccauley		-magicbymccauley

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:01, 13 February 2024
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:06, 29 August 2019
Line 944:		Line 944:

	Or why the current page leaves out tons of very relevant and helpful information, when the goal is to inform and educate people?		Or why the current page leaves out tons of very relevant and helpful information, when the goal is to inform and educate people?
		+
		+	-magicbymccauley
		+
		+	Okay here. I changed my article:
		+
		+	"Crowning guarantees artifact weapons depending on alignment. Lawfuls receive Excalibur, Neutrals Vorpal Blade, Chaotics Stormbringer."
		+
		+	So now the reference to crowning is several less words than the current edit and contains more information related to artifact weapons (the topic of the article) and leaves information about crowning in the reference (as you said it should be).
		+
		+	So are you going to change the article now? Or is this all just a disingenuous game where you're never going to let me change the article again, no matter how much better I make it?
		+
		+	Is the game to get the article to contain all the information it does now in two pages or less? Is that the goal? Because I will slam dunk that if that's the goal. I have no idea why all the editors think that the article MUST be 2 pages or less, but if that's the unwritten rule and foolish consensus of all these editors, trust me I will do it, and I'll have a lot more information a lot better organized than the current crappy article, trust me.

	-magicbymccauley		-magicbymccauley

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:53, 29 August 2019
Line 922:		Line 922:

	-magicmymccauley		-magicmymccauley
		+
		+	"As for the reader knowing to look at crowning and sacrifice pages: they are already included in the first paragraph of the article. In my opinion, it's better to keep the articles clear and concise so that someone can easily read through them and get the information they need, but also allow the reader to continue reading deeper via links or a "See Also" section if they are looking for more information."
		+
		+	So first of all being short doesn't necessarily mean "being clear" I also cite crowning and talk about it in as few words as possible.
		+
		+	This is the current article:
		+
		+	"Excalibur, Vorpal Blade and Stormbringer may be acquired by praying with very good Luck; this is known as crowning. "
		+
		+	This is my article:
		+
		+	"Crowning provides a guaranteed artifact weapon depending on alignment. Lawfuls recieve Excalibur, Neutrals get Vorpal Blade while Chaotics receive Stormbringer. (See Crowning)"
		+
		+	Current article is 19 words. Mine is 20 words. Mine provides more information about artifacts (which alignment they go to) which belongs on the artifact page. The current page instead talks about the process of crowning, which should be part of the link people click, the process of crowning shouldn't be on the artifacts page.
		+	So I don't really understand how the current article is clear and concise (explaining the wrong thing) and my article is unclear and too verbose (containing one extra word).
		+	Again, how is an article that conveys vastly more pertinent information (and takes up only 3 and 1/4 pages) inferior to an article that's 2 pages, talks about the wrong thing, flits from topic to topic, is disorganized and vague with no topic headings?
		+
		+	I don't understand how my article isn't clear and consise. It's way more clear and conveys more relevant information, in barely anymore space. The information in it is strictly about artifact weapons.
		+
		+	This again just seems like you want to be a traditionalist and keep things the way they are rather than improve them. Can you please explain why having one more word about crowning than your article is a moral affront? Or why 3 and 1/4 pages is terrible but 2 pages is okay?
		+
		+	Or why the current page leaves out tons of very relevant and helpful information, when the goal is to inform and educate people?
		+
		+	-magicbymccauley

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:38, 29 August 2019
Line 910:		Line 910:
	:As for the reader knowing to look at crowning and sacrifice pages: they are already included in the first paragraph of the article. In my opinion, it's better to keep the articles clear and concise so that someone can easily read through them and get the information they need, but also allow the reader to continue reading deeper via links or a "See Also" section if they are looking for more information.		:As for the reader knowing to look at crowning and sacrifice pages: they are already included in the first paragraph of the article. In my opinion, it's better to keep the articles clear and concise so that someone can easily read through them and get the information they need, but also allow the reader to continue reading deeper via links or a "See Also" section if they are looking for more information.
	:--[[User:Tone\|Tone]] ([[User talk:Tone\|talk]]) 01:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)		:--[[User:Tone\|Tone]] ([[User talk:Tone\|talk]]) 01:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	Okay, first off, gauntlets of power are never a mid tier wish, for any player they are a top tier wish for many, many classes. Usually I'd say that DSM should come first before an artifact or GOP or damage output of any kind, because damage output from an artifact that you can easily get from a nearby altar is readily available and you should just do that.
		+
		+	The context we're talking about is "alternatives to artifact weapons" as in you can't find an altar and have a wish or multiple wishes available. ANYWAY, monks can't wear DSM or any mail for that matter. Monks can't get skill in any artifact weapon other than the staff of Aesculapius which is two handed, and might prevent use of a shield: sometimes a monk needs a shield for reflection or just because AC is so hard to get without body armor.
		+
		+	So in a situation with no altar, no way to get skill in an artifact weapon, and you (say) aren't a neutral monk and can't get the staff (or need to use a shield), gauntlets of power are a fine, fine wish and alternative to an artifact weapon. (There are also many circumstances where you can't wish for an artifact, because you are going artiwishless or because two artifacts have been generated in the game because you went on your quest already or there were two crappy ones on the floor of the castle).
		+
		+	Certainly there are other circumstances where GOP is not a good idea, if you are a monk who's been fortunate enough to get a lot of attack spells and a ring of slow digestion (maybe wish for magicbane?).
		+
		+	But in any case, GOP is usually a fine wish for a Monk. The "it enhances spellcasting" is talking about gauntlets of dexterity in my reference, and anyway, this spoiler I cited is very well vetted and liked in the nethack community.
		+
		+	-magicmymccauley

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:25, 29 August 2019
Line 140:		Line 140:

	:You're still making assumptions about me here to fit your narrative... I actually think Frostbrand and Firebrand are strictly better than pretty much every weapon except for Grayswandir. --[[User:Tone\|Tone]] ([[User talk:Tone\|talk]]) 01:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)		:You're still making assumptions about me here to fit your narrative... I actually think Frostbrand and Firebrand are strictly better than pretty much every weapon except for Grayswandir. --[[User:Tone\|Tone]] ([[User talk:Tone\|talk]]) 01:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	That's not really supportable from the data. You are right that Greyswandir is unquestionably the best weapon, but only in the LATE game, maybe earlier if you get scrolls of enchant weapon early or before the castle. The best early game weapon is Mjollnir which does the most damage unenchanted of any weapon with no skill (even more than 2 handed weapons!) at an average damage of 16, fire brand and frost brand are only 9. There are rare circumstances where it's bad: against a resistant monster where it's base damage is only 1d4. But there are less monsters that are shock resistant, with much less frequency in the game than fire or frost resistant. But unenchanted in the early game with no skill it's doing far more damage than the two brands (fire and frost), and that's when you need damage output the most.
		+
		+	The "Vs. large" in Nethack category is pretty unimportant because that category is again very rare, only 56 monsters are Large or bigger in nethack and their frequency is rare too.
		+
		+	Of Firebrand and Frostbrand I'd say firebrand edges out to a win over frost brand, because frost brand doesn't do its damage on undead (a category of monster you meet early game with some frequency) and firebrand is bad against demons (a category of monster you meet near the late mid and end game when damage output is much less important).
		+
		+	Many people think Excalibur is better than the brands. It's one point better than the brands unenchanted, 10 instead of 9 and works on all monsters as well as automatic searching (but doesn't find traps) and hallucination resistance. Demons are generated hostile to it. "Monsters can always find you" with Excalibur so invisibility is out.
		+
		+	I'd say snickersnee for me is just the same as Excalibur because we're only talking about excalibur doing more damage to large monsters, which are rare and also are not an early game threat (are large monsters ever a threat?).
		+	The Tsurugi is a strange weapon because it's barely better than excalibur or snickersnee, and isn't a wish target of anyone and takes up two hands. It doesn't make much sense and isn't a good deal. When I'm ascending Samurai I just leave it and ascend with excalibur or snickersnee. Magicbane has a good argument for the best weapon in the game because it can engrave semipermanent elbereth in one turn, a lifesaver in the early game that keeps on giving. It's status effects allow you confuse and scare monsters into running away and to pile on more damage and spells. You can sometimes do more damage with magic bane because you get in so many unanswered hits, and it's the only sacrifice gift that grants magic resistance. Cleaver's ability to hit three monsters at a time, changes it's average damage output from 10 to 30. This is super lifesaving against many common early nethack killers: hordes of orcs bees ants soldiers, elves etc. Stormy's average damage is 11, but remember it gives YOU an average of 4 hit points PER HIT. That's really quite significant in the damage battle, you could even say the overall damage differential is 14, which is a hell of a lot of damage unenchanted. Some people don't like it because it hits their pet or kills an aligned priest or shopkeeper. Fair. (I play petless and always kill shopkeepers, so for me it's not a problem).
		+
		+	The difference between these weapons is really very slight. The top tier is Greyswandir/Mjollnir (best late game/best early game). Then comes Magicbane, Snickersnee and Excalibur followed by Firebrand, then Frost Brand. Sceptre of Might and Staff of Aesculapius are also great but you usually have to have a great weapon to beat the quest nemesis to get them (I recently had a lawful priest find a wand of wishing and he got sceptre of might early game. SICK!). Certain things can change this if you have extra wishes, if you get an early second wish, or some artifacts can be a bad choice like frost brand for a neutral priest going on the quest to a giant graveyard.
		+
		+	Anyhoo, the three damage categories all/most/narrow is an easy way to drive players to correct and good artifact weapons without a bunch of explaining like the above. Once they get an artifact weapon in the top two categories they can easily ascend with it, and like I said in my wiki there are alternatives too. Ascending with a rustproof blessed +7 weapon on expert (or a +7 silver weapon) is just fine. You're not missing out on a huge amount of damage, and AC -45 is going to make it so that the extra damage isn't so relevant. Running in the endgame is mostly what you do (not fighting) so that's another reason why a weapon on expert at +7 is just fine.
		+
		+	Players in the wiki need to be steered twoards good solutions to their problems, and I believe my article does that. It addresses questions like what are the best artifacts as well as categories of damage output, data showing that the top tier artifacts are very similar, drawbacks and how to mediate them, and alternatives if you can't find an altar, which really frustrates players. That's something the current article doesn't do very well, not to mention it has poor organization, vauge speech, no topic headings, a chart interrupting the flow, talks about a topic, then abandons that topic and rejoins it, etc.
		+
		+	-magicbymccauley

	==table==		==table==