Talk:Mjollnir - Revision history

Umbire the Phantom: /* Indestructible war hammer? */

2021-05-06T19:52:07Z

Indestructible war hammer?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 6 May 2021
Line 110:		Line 110:

	::::I can see your viewpoint, but I still think that, if it's devteam-written text, it should be accurate. -[[User:Actual-nh\|Actual-nh]] ([[User talk:Actual-nh\|talk]]) 19:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)		::::I can see your viewpoint, but I still think that, if it's devteam-written text, it should be accurate. -[[User:Actual-nh\|Actual-nh]] ([[User talk:Actual-nh\|talk]]) 19:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

			:::::You have the right to that opinion, I suppose. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 19:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Actual-nh: /* Indestructible war hammer? */ Can see your viewpoint

2021-05-06T19:42:29Z

Indestructible war hammer?: Can see your viewpoint

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 6 May 2021
Line 108:		Line 108:

	:::It is an encyclopedia entry whose purpose is to serve as a means of flavoring the game in question while hinting at some (though not necessarily all) of a given object or creature's properties, and as such need not always be taken at face value. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 18:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)		:::It is an encyclopedia entry whose purpose is to serve as a means of flavoring the game in question while hinting at some (though not necessarily all) of a given object or creature's properties, and as such need not always be taken at face value. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 18:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

			::::I can see your viewpoint, but I still think that, if it's devteam-written text, it should be accurate. -[[User:Actual-nh\|Actual-nh]] ([[User talk:Actual-nh\|talk]]) 19:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Umbire the Phantom: /* Indestructible war hammer? */

2021-05-06T18:54:23Z

Indestructible war hammer?

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:54, 6 May 2021
Line 106:		Line 106:

	:: When it's a quote, that's fine. If not, it's a bug IMO. -[[User:Actual-nh\|Actual-nh]] ([[User talk:Actual-nh\|talk]]) 18:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)		:: When it's a quote, that's fine. If not, it's a bug IMO. -[[User:Actual-nh\|Actual-nh]] ([[User talk:Actual-nh\|talk]]) 18:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

			:::It is an encyclopedia entry whose purpose is to serve as a means of flavoring the game in question while hinting at some (though not necessarily all) of a given object or creature's properties, and as such need not always be taken at face value. --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 18:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Actual-nh: /* Indestructible war hammer? */ Quotes vs devteam encyclopedia entries

2021-05-06T18:45:16Z

Indestructible war hammer?: Quotes vs devteam encyclopedia entries

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 6 May 2021
Line 104:		Line 104:

	:...You know those don't always reflect game properties, right? --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)		:...You know those don't always reflect game properties, right? --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

			:: When it's a quote, that's fine. If not, it's a bug IMO. -[[User:Actual-nh\|Actual-nh]] ([[User talk:Actual-nh\|talk]]) 18:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Umbire the Phantom: /* Indestructible war hammer? */ :V

2021-05-06T18:43:15Z

Indestructible war hammer?: :V

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 6 May 2021
Line 102:		Line 102:

	This would appear to be a bit misleading in the encyclopedia entry (re "indestructible"). -[[User:Actual-nh\|Actual-nh]] ([[User talk:Actual-nh\|talk]]) 18:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)		This would appear to be a bit misleading in the encyclopedia entry (re "indestructible"). -[[User:Actual-nh\|Actual-nh]] ([[User talk:Actual-nh\|talk]]) 18:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

			:...You know those don't always reflect game properties, right? --[[User:Umbire the Phantom\|Umbire the Phantom]] ([[User talk:Umbire the Phantom\|talk]]) 18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Actual-nh: /* Indestructible war hammer? */ new section

2021-05-06T18:42:25Z

Indestructible war hammer?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:42, 6 May 2021
Line 98:		Line 98:

	-magicbymccauley		-magicbymccauley

			== Indestructible war hammer? ==

			This would appear to be a bit misleading in the encyclopedia entry (re "indestructible"). -[[User:Actual-nh\|Actual-nh]] ([[User talk:Actual-nh\|talk]]) 18:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Magicbymccauley2 at 06:36, 3 September 2019

2019-09-03T06:36:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:36, 3 September 2019
Line 95:		Line 95:
	A player that doesn't understand the this diminishing probability (50% and of that 50% only 33% of that, and of that 30% only 50% of that number etc) will misapprehend the drawback as a major one, when really it's a minor one.		A player that doesn't understand the this diminishing probability (50% and of that 50% only 33% of that, and of that 30% only 50% of that number etc) will misapprehend the drawback as a major one, when really it's a minor one.

	My ~~not~~ about conducts was taken out, but I don't think it was really understood, and I think it's relevant. In a game with no polypiling, and/or no wishing, or other difficult conducts, item preservation might be more important.		My note about conducts was taken out, but I don't think it was really understood, and I think it's relevant. In a game with no polypiling, and/or no wishing, or other difficult conducts, item preservation might be more important.

	-magicbymccauley		-magicbymccauley

Magicbymccauley2: /* Improper Reverting */

2019-09-03T06:07:36Z

Improper Reverting

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:07, 3 September 2019
Line 91:		Line 91:
	This is on the right track, and I appreciate the gist of my edit being included in a differnet format. However it is not quite true that "mjollnir will usually kill the monster before its wands (or rings) are destroyed".		This is on the right track, and I appreciate the gist of my edit being included in a differnet format. However it is not quite true that "mjollnir will usually kill the monster before its wands (or rings) are destroyed".

	The chance for mjollnir (not mjolnir, spelling error I think) being low because the monster will die first is not quite correct. I guess it is true that there is a probability that it will explode rings and wands on each hit (which is not a certainty). But the real reason that the drawback is rare and minor is because of a probability tree: mjollnir doesn't destroy normal items>doesn't destroy weapons or armor>doesn't destroy items that appear as a death drop> doesn't destroy rings that enemies pick up because none really do>doesn't destroy items on the ground> doesn't destroy magic items except rings and wands> doubles of rings and wands are rarely that relevant (if you have one that's usually all you need)> and so forth.		The chance for mjollnir (not mjolnir, spelling error I think) destroying items being low is because the monster will die first is not quite correct. I guess it is true that there is a probability that it will explode rings and wands on each hit (which is not a certainty). But the real reason that the drawback is rare and minor is because of a probability tree: mjollnir doesn't destroy normal items>doesn't destroy weapons or armor>doesn't destroy items that appear as a death drop> doesn't destroy rings that enemies pick up because none really do>doesn't destroy items on the ground> doesn't destroy magic items except rings and wands> doubles of rings and wands are rarely that relevant (if you have one that's usually all you need)> and so forth.

	A player that doesn't understand the this diminishing probability (50% and of that 50% only 33% of that, and of that 30% only 50% of that number etc) will misapprehend the drawback as a major one, when really it's a minor one.		A player that doesn't understand the this diminishing probability (50% and of that 50% only 33% of that, and of that 30% only 50% of that number etc) will misapprehend the drawback as a major one, when really it's a minor one.

Magicbymccauley2 at 06:06, 3 September 2019

2019-09-03T06:06:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:06, 3 September 2019
Line 82:		Line 82:

	I'll tell you EXACTLY how to run a wiki because you've been running it wrong for years, making articles that don't properly help or educate people. Just because you've done it for years doesn't make it correct.		I'll tell you EXACTLY how to run a wiki because you've been running it wrong for years, making articles that don't properly help or educate people. Just because you've done it for years doesn't make it correct.

			-magicbymccauley

			Current version:

			"Mjolnir has a small chance of destroying wands and rings in a monster's inventory. In practice, this is rare because even intelligent enemies don't pick up or carry rings and Mjolnir will usually kill the monster before its wands are destroyed."

			This is on the right track, and I appreciate the gist of my edit being included in a differnet format. However it is not quite true that "mjollnir will usually kill the monster before its wands (or rings) are destroyed".

			The chance for mjollnir (not mjolnir, spelling error I think) being low because the monster will die first is not quite correct. I guess it is true that there is a probability that it will explode rings and wands on each hit (which is not a certainty). But the real reason that the drawback is rare and minor is because of a probability tree: mjollnir doesn't destroy normal items>doesn't destroy weapons or armor>doesn't destroy items that appear as a death drop> doesn't destroy rings that enemies pick up because none really do>doesn't destroy items on the ground> doesn't destroy magic items except rings and wands> doubles of rings and wands are rarely that relevant (if you have one that's usually all you need)> and so forth.

			A player that doesn't understand the this diminishing probability (50% and of that 50% only 33% of that, and of that 30% only 50% of that number etc) will misapprehend the drawback as a major one, when really it's a minor one.

			My not about conducts was taken out, but I don't think it was really understood, and I think it's relevant. In a game with no polypiling, and/or no wishing, or other difficult conducts, item preservation might be more important.

	-magicbymccauley		-magicbymccauley

Magicbymccauley: /* Improper Reverting */

2019-09-01T08:39:03Z

Improper Reverting

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:39, 1 September 2019
Line 76:		Line 76:
	-magicbymccauley		-magicbymccauley
	:Why do you keep telling us how to run a wiki that has been running for years without problems before you came along? You're just riling up everyone against you, and the most likely conclusion is that the wiki admins will eventually have enough of you and ban you. There are rules on this wiki after all, and everyone else is capable of abiding them. But what you are doing is called "vandalism" and "edit-warring" and is very clearly against the rules. --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 07:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)		:Why do you keep telling us how to run a wiki that has been running for years without problems before you came along? You're just riling up everyone against you, and the most likely conclusion is that the wiki admins will eventually have enough of you and ban you. There are rules on this wiki after all, and everyone else is capable of abiding them. But what you are doing is called "vandalism" and "edit-warring" and is very clearly against the rules. --[[User:Bluescreenofdeath\|Bluescreenofdeath]] ([[User talk:Bluescreenofdeath\|talk]]) 07:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

			Really, there are rules against providing information that's helpful to players? Claim rejected, please provide such a rule. Providing information and edits that include that information isn't "Vandalism". Claim rejected.

			What rules do you claim I'm violating?

			I'll tell you EXACTLY how to run a wiki because you've been running it wrong for years, making articles that don't properly help or educate people. Just because you've done it for years doesn't make it correct.

			-magicbymccauley