Talk:War hammer - Revision history

Slarty: /* for some reason the new interface is not allowing me to merely add to the current edit, I must start a new topic */

2010-10-29T18:13:20Z

for some reason the new interface is not allowing me to merely add to the current edit, I must start a new topic

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:13, 29 October 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:

	::How about fleshing out a section "War hammers outside Nethack", akin to "Tinning in the real world"? I personally liked the trivia, but I see they don't have much to do with our game. [[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 13:23, October 29, 2010 (UTC)		::How about fleshing out a section "War hammers outside Nethack", akin to "Tinning in the real world"? I personally liked the trivia, but I see they don't have much to do with our game. [[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 13:23, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
	:::This is my point...(not sure if a colon would create unwanted effect here)The author mentions it about 4 times. Seems to me 1 would suffice ('nuff said?!).[[Special:Contributions/74.51.19.114\|74.51.19.114]] 18:11, October 29, 2010 (UTC)		:::This is my point...(not sure if a colon would create unwanted effect here)The author mentions it about 4 times. Seems to me 1 would suffice ('nuff said?!).[[Special:Contributions/74.51.19.114\|74.51.19.114]] 18:11, October 29, 2010 (UTC)[[User:Slarty\|Slarty]] 18:13, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

74.51.19.114: /* for some reason the new interface is not allowing me to merely add to the current edit, I must start a new topic */

2010-10-29T18:11:25Z

for some reason the new interface is not allowing me to merely add to the current edit, I must start a new topic

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, 29 October 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:

	::How about fleshing out a section "War hammers outside Nethack", akin to "Tinning in the real world"? I personally liked the trivia, but I see they don't have much to do with our game. [[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 13:23, October 29, 2010 (UTC)		::How about fleshing out a section "War hammers outside Nethack", akin to "Tinning in the real world"? I personally liked the trivia, but I see they don't have much to do with our game. [[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 13:23, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
			:::This is my point...(not sure if a colon would create unwanted effect here)The author mentions it about 4 times. Seems to me 1 would suffice ('nuff said?!).[[Special:Contributions/74.51.19.114\|74.51.19.114]] 18:11, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Tjr at 13:23, 29 October 2010

2010-10-29T13:23:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 29 October 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:'''Due to it's low damage in all cases, lower than the mace (a good option for priests), and the long sword (a good option for barbarians), a war hammer is generally a useless weapon, and usually only good for training the hammer skill in preparation for Mjollnir. '''		:'''Due to it's low damage in all cases, lower than the mace (a good option for priests), and the long sword (a good option for barbarians), a war hammer is generally a useless weapon, and usually only good for training the hammer skill in preparation for Mjollnir. '''
	:I've never played D&D or swung a war hammer at a real-life armored opponent. I'm going to assume that the original editor's claim that a warhammer is actually effective in both situations is true based on his word alone. However regardless of a warhammer's use in some other situation, in Nethack the warhammer is damn near useless. According to the editor, the warhammer should be much more powerful, and have the ability to somewhat pierce the opponent's AC, or used for grappling, or stunning to simulate a concussion, or anything of the sort. However in Nethack the worth of a standard weapon is more-or-less equal to the average damage it can do, as most weapons (including the hammer) have no special abilities such as piercing AC. As the article even states, a long sword or mace will ''always'' do higher average damage than a warhammer, no role can gain expert (or skilled) in hammer that cannot gain expert in either mace or long sword, and a long sword has the bonus of training the skill used by 7/24 of the artifacts. It's not that the article is biased, rather the warhammer is simply not a good weapon in Nethack. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] 12:17, October 29, 2010 (UTC)		:I've never played D&D or swung a war hammer at a real-life armored opponent. I'm going to assume that the original editor's claim that a warhammer is actually effective in both situations is true based on his word alone. However regardless of a warhammer's use in some other situation, in Nethack the warhammer is damn near useless. According to the editor, the warhammer should be much more powerful, and have the ability to somewhat pierce the opponent's AC, or used for grappling, or stunning to simulate a concussion, or anything of the sort. However in Nethack the worth of a standard weapon is more-or-less equal to the average damage it can do, as most weapons (including the hammer) have no special abilities such as piercing AC. As the article even states, a long sword or mace will ''always'' do higher average damage than a warhammer, no role can gain expert (or skilled) in hammer that cannot gain expert in either mace or long sword, and a long sword has the bonus of training the skill used by 7/24 of the artifacts. It's not that the article is biased, rather the warhammer is simply not a good weapon in Nethack. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] 12:17, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

			::How about fleshing out a section "War hammers outside Nethack", akin to "Tinning in the real world"? I personally liked the trivia, but I see they don't have much to do with our game. [[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 13:23, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Qazmlpok at 12:17, 29 October 2010

2010-10-29T12:17:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:17, 29 October 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:

	The article seems to me to clearly be a rant/natter against how the war hammer is treated in nethack, as opposed to a)Dungeons and Dragons, and b)(so claimed) real life (I've not researched it, so have no idea how war hammers are in real life, or D&D for that matter, but there is more editorialising in the article about how someone feels war hammers should be in nethack than information about how war hammers actually ARE in nethack). Appearantly found a war hammer, and died wondering. Editorialising. Intermingling opinions with facts. There are I think @ least 4 dentences in this article that strike me as clearly complaints about nethacks treatment of war hammers.[[User:Slarty\|Slarty]] 23:45, October 28, 2010 (UTC)		The article seems to me to clearly be a rant/natter against how the war hammer is treated in nethack, as opposed to a)Dungeons and Dragons, and b)(so claimed) real life (I've not researched it, so have no idea how war hammers are in real life, or D&D for that matter, but there is more editorialising in the article about how someone feels war hammers should be in nethack than information about how war hammers actually ARE in nethack). Appearantly found a war hammer, and died wondering. Editorialising. Intermingling opinions with facts. There are I think @ least 4 dentences in this article that strike me as clearly complaints about nethacks treatment of war hammers.[[User:Slarty\|Slarty]] 23:45, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
			:Try switching to Monaco. It should still be an option until the 3rd.
			:'''Due to it's low damage in all cases, lower than the mace (a good option for priests), and the long sword (a good option for barbarians), a war hammer is generally a useless weapon, and usually only good for training the hammer skill in preparation for Mjollnir. '''
			:I've never played D&D or swung a war hammer at a real-life armored opponent. I'm going to assume that the original editor's claim that a warhammer is actually effective in both situations is true based on his word alone. However regardless of a warhammer's use in some other situation, in Nethack the warhammer is damn near useless. According to the editor, the warhammer should be much more powerful, and have the ability to somewhat pierce the opponent's AC, or used for grappling, or stunning to simulate a concussion, or anything of the sort. However in Nethack the worth of a standard weapon is more-or-less equal to the average damage it can do, as most weapons (including the hammer) have no special abilities such as piercing AC. As the article even states, a long sword or mace will ''always'' do higher average damage than a warhammer, no role can gain expert (or skilled) in hammer that cannot gain expert in either mace or long sword, and a long sword has the bonus of training the skill used by 7/24 of the artifacts. It's not that the article is biased, rather the warhammer is simply not a good weapon in Nethack. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] 12:17, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Slarty: /* for some reason the new interface is not allowing me to merely add to the current edit, I must start a new topic */ new section

2010-10-28T23:45:18Z

for some reason the new interface is not allowing me to merely add to the current edit, I must start a new topic: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 28 October 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:What do you mean by "bias"?[[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 22:49, October 28, 2010 (UTC)		:What do you mean by "bias"?[[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 22:49, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

			== for some reason the new interface is not allowing me to merely add to the current edit, I must start a new topic ==

			The article seems to me to clearly be a rant/natter against how the war hammer is treated in nethack, as opposed to a)Dungeons and Dragons, and b)(so claimed) real life (I've not researched it, so have no idea how war hammers are in real life, or D&D for that matter, but there is more editorialising in the article about how someone feels war hammers should be in nethack than information about how war hammers actually ARE in nethack). Appearantly found a war hammer, and died wondering. Editorialising. Intermingling opinions with facts. There are I think @ least 4 dentences in this article that strike me as clearly complaints about nethacks treatment of war hammers.[[User:Slarty\|Slarty]] 23:45, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Tjr at 22:49, 28 October 2010

2010-10-28T22:49:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 28 October 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I apologise if I am just unable to streight out BE BOLD, and also if I am wrong that the bias level of this article is just way out of line, and apon confirmation that I really outa man up, will remove said bias asap, or @ least, asac.[[User:Slarty\|Slarty]] 18:59, October 28, 2010 (UTC)		I apologise if I am just unable to streight out BE BOLD, and also if I am wrong that the bias level of this article is just way out of line, and apon confirmation that I really outa man up, will remove said bias asap, or @ least, asac.[[User:Slarty\|Slarty]] 18:59, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

			:What do you mean by "bias"?[[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 22:49, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Slarty: Created page with "I apologise if I am just unable to streight out BE BOLD, and also if I am wrong that the bias level of this article is just way out of line, and apon confirmation that I really o…"

2010-10-28T18:59:21Z

Created page with "I apologise if I am just unable to streight out BE BOLD, and also if I am wrong that the bias level of this article is just way out of line, and apon confirmation that I really o…"

New page

I apologise if I am just unable to streight out BE BOLD, and also if I am wrong that the bias level of this article is just way out of line, and apon confirmation that I really outa man up, will remove said bias asap, or @ least, asac.[[User:Slarty|Slarty]] 18:59, October 28, 2010 (UTC)