Talk:Artifact weapon

From NetHackWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page protection

I've temporarily protected this page for reasons detailed below. If you'd like to contribute a non-controversial improvement, apologies for the inconvenience; feel free to suggest it in this section. —bcode talk | mail 17:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a bit of a wrinkle with the sentences about artifact weapons which "give a bonus against most targets" and which "give a bonus against all targets". Vorpy gives a significant bonus against targets with heads. Against headless targets, it gives +1d5 to hit and +1 damage, which is a significant bonus if you are in the (surprisingly short) period of the game where you can miss, or a trivial bonus if you are not.
I suggest Vorpal Blade be moved to the "most targets" list. While _technically_ it provides that +1 damage against all targets, it's essentially the case that over the course of a game, it will provide a significant bonus against most but not all opponents. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I hope this is non-controversial and can just be done. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay pinkbeast so I suggest categories, you keep reverting the page with damage categories and now you want to use those damage categories?

This is unbelievable I feel like I'm talking in circles.

-Magicbymccauley

Pinkbeast: We shouldn't have these damage categories magicbymccauley. The table is way better.

Also pinkbeast: Let's use those damage categories that magicbymccauley suggested, but I'd like to move vorpal blade over one category.

Gee pinkbeast! It's almost as if the damage categories I set up are a very efficient way for people to understand artifact weapons in a short, quick amount of space! Amazing! Can we do that please?

No. The page is protected and pinkbeast will revert all my edits even though he now agrees with my categorizations.

-magicbymccauley

The error you have made here - typical of your rgrn posts - is that you have made an observation that is true, but suppose incorrectly that it is tremendously insightful, that it is novel, and that it is the sole important factor, which is presumably why you write it up in a needlessly verbose fashion. This revision is typical, taking two pages to discuss what now occupies three short paragraphs. (As such, "a short, quick amount of space" has a certain irony to it...)
It's kind of obvious and it's not the only factor in weapon selection; eg you might well use Stormbringer to cross the Valley of the Dead, even though it provides no bonus damage at all there; if you have a pet or reflection from a shield, Cleaver is bad, even if it works on everyone.
The distinction between crap like Giantslayer and the rest is important; the distinction between the Brands and weapons that damage everything is not really very important and if anything we now devote too much space to it. One of NetHack's dirty secrets is that for most of the game almost every monster you meet is a joke and it doesn't matter if it takes a bit longer to kill some of them.
It also seems peculiar that you are complaining, essentially, that the workable part of your idea got included in the page. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, propose
"Some artifact weapons give a significant bonus against most or all targets. This is obviously useful; it is generally possible in the former case to obtain a backup weapon to be swapped to against resistant targets. Especially noteworthy is Grayswandir, with double damage against everything and additional damage to targets harmed by silver.
Fire Brand, Frost Brand, Mjollnir, Stormbringer, Vorpal Blade and two quest artifacts (the Sceptre of Might and Staff of Aesculapius) give a bonus against most targets. Cleaver, Excalibur, Magicbane, Snickersnee, Grayswandir, and one quest artifact (the Tsurugi of Muramasa) give a bonus against all targets".
That would better reflect the limited importance of this distinction (and fix the current typo "Greyswandir", oops) Pinkbeast (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


Claim that I see something as incredibly insightful, novel, or is the sole important factor: Claim denied.

Attempt to use an Ad Hominem attack: Fallacious.

Claim that what I'm doing is "typical" of my RGPN posts: Evidence that you are simply biased against me personally.

>It's kind of obvious

Claim that it's obvious that weapons that affect "most" monsters are as good as weapons that affect "all" monsters: Claim rejected. I've coached multiple people in playing nethack and they are all confused by this.

Further it is not typical of an RPG to have a energy type weapon and have so few monsters resistant to that type of energy. Nethack is an outlier in that. You are wrong.

>we now devote too much space to it.

Why are you obsessed with space? This is the internet, in case you haven't noticed space is infinite. Further I have no problem with you editing down the information that I've conveyed into less space. Instead, you revert the article like a bully, and DELETE new information I've added.

Is your goal just to delete information?

Your idea that we can convey all the relevant information about artifact weapons in three small paragraphs is flat out wrong. Artifact weapons are among the most complicated functions in all of nethack. Why are you trying to restrict it's explanation into only three paragraphs? Why are you reverting articles without including pertinent information? That's called "being a terrible editor", by the way.

If you can say what I say in less words then by all means condense it. But erasing huge swaths of data is not helpful.

-magicbymccauley


BY THE WAY I pointed out that "most" weapons work on almost all targets several times, and I had to do considerable legwork, statistics, and research to prove it over and over again, because on the boards no one believed it when I told them.

ON THIS discussion page someone challenged the idea that "most" weapons are almost as good as "all" weapons. ON THIS PAGE. So your claim that it's "obvious" is blatantly wrong and should be given pride of placement on the page to clear up that confusion and miconception, which MANY people, INCLUDING people on this discussion page, continue to have. Space and time should be spent on that topic!

-magicbymccauley

_____________________________________________________________________________________

This is user "Tone". Direct quotation:

>"He claims that weapons which double their damage to all monsters except those with a >specific resistance are effective against "90% or higher" of monsters. Where are these >numbers coming from and can they be proven to be accurate?"

So someone on THIS PAGE challenged the assertion that "most" weapons are as good as "all" weapons, and needed it explained in detail to them. But you, pinkbeast claim it's "obvious" even though this guy was uninformed about it and challenged it.

Your claim that educating people about this fact is "unimportant" or "obvious" is false.

-magicbymccauley ____________________________________________________________________________________

Please see current article version.

https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/User:Magicbymccauley/Better_artifact

Pinkbeast, your favored edit talks about weapon damage, it then talks about several irrelevant items of data, and then later talks about weapon damage again. It talks about guaranteed artifacts, talks about two weaponing, and then talks about guaranteed artifact weapons later. It places the rare and remote possibility that a monster will be generated with an artifact at the very beginning of the article. It puts a table smack dab in the middle of explanation.

This isn't even wikipedia stuff this is basic writing stuff. You're just protecting an inferior edit.


-magicbymccauley

The most obvious error in this is that Tone objected ("there are a lot of specific numbers and values listed with no justification") to the specific claim of "90%", not to "most". Pinkbeast (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The reason he objected to the specific claim of 90% is because he did not believe that these "most" weapons were as effective as universal "all" weapons and wasn't at all aware of that statistic.

Readers of the table aren't going to know that very few monsters are resistant, and it's not evident from the table, and is inconsistent with other RPG's, most of which have a lot of monsters with resistances.

If people are aware of this statistic, it brings into focus just how powerful these "most" weapons are, it's accurate exact language that demonstrates the relative value of artifacts, unlike your "are useful" or "are powerful".

Your claim that it's unimportant how close "most" weapons are to "all" weapons is demonstrably false. This is a MAJOR misconception in Nethack that needs to be cleared up by the wiki. If you're further unaware about how widespread this misconception is, I'm happy to cite you numerous board posts where people argued against this understanding. While it may seem "obvious" or "natural" to you, it is not evident to most players.

This is a function both of Nethack's huge bestiary and also monster frequency in Nethack, you might encounter 100 gnomes of various types, soldiers of various types, orcs, elves, bees or ants (no weapon resistances) but you might only encounter 2 energy vortexes the whole game (or none!).

Steam vortexes have resistances, but you likely won't encounter except on the plane of air, where your armor class should be so good that it can't damage you.

This is markedly different from the most popular RPG series of all time like Final Fantasy, Diablolo, The Legend of Zelda, where players regularly fight against monsters with resistances or immunities regularly.

-magicbymccauley

Wrong again. Tone's objection is even quoted in what you have replied to. (I notice once again, as with the claim that "acquiring both frost brand and firebrand is easy to do", on being proved wrong that "ON THIS discussion page someone challenged the idea that "most" weapons are almost as good as "all" weapons" you have reinvented what you were talking about, rather than just acknowledging you were wrong. This is not helpful.) Pinkbeast (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're challenging that "most" weapons are as good as "all" weapons, you are challenging that "most" weapons are as good 90% of the time.

If you're challenging that "most" weapons damage 90% of monsters, then you're challenging that these "most" weapons are almost as good as the "all" weapons.

The claims are one in the same.

If Tone had known that "most" weapons damage monsters 90% of the time, he would have known that "most" and "all" weapons are of similar power. He didn't and was shocked at the idea that "most" weapons are that good, so shocked and confused that he challenged the assertion.

Your assertion that these claims are different is hereby rejected. Nor have you addressed my overall objection but have focused on pedantic minutia, which is what you do whenever I prove you wrong.

People don't know that monster resistances are rare and thus can't adequately evaluate which artifact weapons are good weapons. This needs to be corrected in the wiki. It's against what every other popular RPG does, and it's a source of misconception continually on board posts. I have supplied ample evidence that this is a common misconception. You have supplied nothing.

-magicbymccauley

This is absolutely the most annoying phenomenon I've ever seen in the Nethack community. First I fight for years, FOR YEARS to explain to people on the message boards that these "most" weapons are almost as good as "all" weapons.

Then I have to fight for months to get the relevant data on the wiki because pinkbeast claims it's irrelevant and that everyone already knows that.

Unbelievable. Just incredibly unbelievable.

-magicbymccauley

Please don't take a few words from my reply out of context and proceed to use them as the basis of a wall of text which attempts justify your belief that no one here understands something that we all actually agree with. It is *not* shocking to me that Frostbrand is a good weapon. --Tone (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you thought that frost brand was a good weapon. You just didn't know that Frost brand (and other "most" weapons) were nearly just as good as "all" weapons. If you did know that you wouldn't have challenged the idea that Frost Brand works on more than 90% of the monsters you encounter. If you already knew that why challenge it?

That's why this information needs to be included in the wiki. If we all agree with it, and if it's true, and if it's not known to players (such as yourself) and if nearly all other rpgs are the opposite of the way nethack is (where resistances are rare) why are we not putting that information in the wiki?

>your belief that no one here understands something that we all actually agree with.

We are not writing wikipedia articles for the 4 editors on the talk page. We're writing it for people who are new to the game and are trying to look up information, I don't know... maybe by looking at the wiki?

-magicbymccauley

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. --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

How about making separate columns for intelligence status, and when-wielded, when-carried, and when-invoked effects? --Tjr 02:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I recall from a source dive a while back that no artifact weapon will give "when carried" bonuses. IIRC, artifacts have "bonuses", e.g. warning, magic resistance, etc, and the effect only works when wielded if it is a weapon (probably the same for worn SLASH'EM artifact armor) and always ("When carried") if the artifact is not a weapon. Thus the "When carried" and "When wielded" columns should always be mutually exclusive. Splitting the when-x bonuses apart from damage bonuses and adding the other columns is probably a good idea, but I don't see any point in having both when-carried and when-wielded columns. -- Qazmlpok 02:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. --Tjr
This is not right. There are separate fields in the artifact structure: see Source:artifact.h#line39. For example, The Longbow of Diana gives telepathy when carried and reflection when wielded. --Gordon schumway 04:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Done, although sorting is broken now. --Gordon schumway 17:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Staff

"(cur | prev) 01:07, 10 March 2011 Gordon schumway (Talk | contribs) m (8,024 bytes) (Staff of Aesculapius: level drain itself *is* the d8 damage) (undo)"

Could someone explain this one too me a bit more? According to the Drain_life_(monster_attack) page "If a monster's level was zero, it dies. Otherwise, the monster's level is reduced by 1. Its maximum and current hit points are reduced by 2d6. If its hit points are reduced below 1, it dies." The The_Staff_of_Aesculapius page lists both the double damage and +d8 as bonuses against non-level drain resistant monsters. iirc from my source diving, weapons either get a damage bonus, +dx, or double damage; but both of those are stored in the same variable (0 bonus + bonus applied -> double damage), so the staff _can't_ have both. (See: [[1]]).

At the same time, +d8 doesn't seem to correspond to the 2d6 for monster hp ...

What is the staff's real bonus?

Also, thank you to Gordon Schumway for pointing this out.

Regarding splitting the columns, the quest artifact page is split, but since only the longbow would really benefit from a split on this page, while the entire table would be inflated, it doesn't seem like it would be worth it to me. In my mind the point of this page is to compare damage, not artifact bonuses.

Blackcustard 18:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not positive since I don't have much experience diving into artifact/item definitions, but it looks like the staff has no inherent damage bonus (+0 damage, +0 to hit), just does drain life. The drain life code (artifact, not monster attack: see artifact.c, line 1122) does 1d8 damage to both the monster max and current HP, adds this 1d8 (the same roll) to the amount of damage done, and heals you for half of the drain damage. So the result is 2 * 1d8 damage to HP (This is not the same as 2d8; slightly different distribution IIRC), -1 level, and 1d8 reduction to max HP. -- Qazmlpok 22:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too comfortable with my conclusions either. But I think:

spell of drain life, as in from the spellbook, cast on a monster -> 2d8 damage to current hp, 1d8 to maxhp, modified for resisting and for being a knight with the mirror (almost what's said on the [[2]] page, expect that that page doesn't note the maxhp drain, http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Source:Zap.c#line328 , http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Source:Zap.c#line4083)

life draining from stormy and staff -> 1d8 like you and Gordon said (http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Source:Artifact.c#line1122)

player, polymorphed into a monster with an innate level draining attack (e.g. a wraith) -> 2d6 (At least, as far as I can tell, damageum is called by hmonas, which is for polymorphed players attacking.) (Top of hmonas: http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Uhitm.c#line1931, calls to damageum from hmonas: http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Uhitm.c#line1977 and http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Uhitm.c#line2006, relevant part of damageum: http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Uhitm.c#line1467)

Then the double damage comes from the +0 you found in the artifact's definition (never read those definitions myself, glad to know it really is 0).

(Also: your right, 2 * 1d8 will give you only even numbers, 2d8 will give you everything between 1 and 16 as far as I know.)

Regarding the page, I sort of think the d8 should be added back in, with a note explaining its origin (assuming its correct). It's an integral part of the staff's damage, and relegating that detail to the staff's own page, and to the life draining page (which as far as I can tell doesn't correctly identify the +1d8 for life draining from the staff and stormy) seems to obscure decisions about what weapon to use. Then maybe the whole set of pages concerning drain life, life draining, and drain resistance could be reworked to be a tad more sensible/correct?

This is getting pretty confusing at this point, and I might be misreading everything. :(

Blackcustard 01:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The player-monster attack is definitely doing 2d6 damage (to both HP and max HP); it looks like this also negates the normal damage of the attack.
If the xd8 damage is added back to the article, it should be 1d8*2, not just 1d8. The target's current HP is reduced by 1d8*2, and weapon attacks normally deal with how much the current HP is reduced. The article itself should clarify that a 1d8 is rolled and is applied twice to the current HP and once to the maximum HP. It's also possibly worth clarifying that the 1d8 is distinct from a normal artifact damage bonus - this is relevant in SLASH'EM, as all +1dx artifact damage bonuses have become +x, while the drain life is unchanged.
Regardless, the staff and stormbringer should definitely be made consistent whatever changes are made. -- Qazmlpok 02:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds fine to me, but if it's not too much trouble, could you point to the two places the 1d8 is applied to current hp? I could only ever find 1, right next to the maxHP reduction :( (this one http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Source:Artifact.c#line1138). Blackcustard 21:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Nope, I can't. Looking at it again it only does the damage once. I'm not sure why I thought it was also subtracting the victim's current HP. Nevermind all that, then. -- Qazmlpok 22:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I purpose the following for the new staff row:

The Staff of Aesculapius quarterstaff (staff) neutral x2 damage & level drain to non-drain-resistant monsters (the draining itself causes an addition 1d8 damage to both current and max hp, and restores half that to your current hp, but this damage is NOT doubled.) Hungerless regeneration. Drain resistance. Healing, curses sickness, blindness, & sliming. Intelligent. 25.5 (10.5) 25.5 (10.5) Quest artifact of Healers.

And similarly, for the stormbringer row:

Stormbringer runesword chaotic +d5 to-hit, +d2 damage & level drain to non-drain-resistant monsters (the draining itself causes an addition 1d8 damage to both current and max hp, and restores half that to your current hp.) Drain resistance. Bloodthirsty. Intelligent. 18 (12) 17.5 (11.5) Chaotic crowning gift.

Those averages were apparently already accounting for the +1d8.

The stormbringer and staff pages should also be changed to reflect this.

The following is a separate change, and is probably out of scope for the artifact_weapon talk page, but I'll throw it out anyway.

I don't think the figures given for the damage on http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Spellbook_of_drain_life are correct (conflating 2d8 vs 2 * 1d8, not mentioning the 1d8 (NOT 2 * 1d8) max hp drain). And the drain life attack for stormy and the staff doesn't even have its own page. Those two and http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Drain_life_%28monster_attack%29 are pretty similar, maybe they could be combined in someway? The spellbook still needs its own page for sure, but the description of damage and effects of all 3 sources could maybe fit in a nice table, with columns for vs. enemy and vs. player. Also, all the citations we've dug up on this talk page should probably be sprinkled into those other pages.

Blackcustard 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So I did finally make some changes to the block of level drain related pages. I still feel like its all kind of a scattered mess, but at this point I'm not sure that's poor wiki organization so much as a direct reflection of the fact that level draining is a scattered mess in Nethack itself. Blackcustard 01:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

silver damage

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? 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 shades (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. -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. -- 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. -Ion frigate 04:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Universal, Broad, Narrow

Can someone please explain the erasure of all my edits. The edit history just said "dubious" and "non-factual" and "garbage".

That certain weapons affect all monsters (universal), most monsters (broad) and only some monsters (narrow) is nothing more than the english verbalization of their factual attributes on the weapons table. These designations are completely factual and make it easier for new player/all players to understand the relative strength and utility of artifact weapons.

For the other information included, please have specific refutations for why what was included was not factually accurate, thank you.

-magicbymccauley

These terms are ones you have made up. They're not in common use amongst players, and they're not used elsewhere on the Wiki. Your edits don't promote understanding; like most of your rgrn threads, they take a truly preposterous number of words to combine statements of the obvious with egregious errors. Players do not need a wall of text to understand that Grayswandir with x2 damage is better than Giantslayer; they don't need any at all. What they do need is not to have the table with this information buried under a torrent of rambling. Even if every single thing in here was correct (and it's not) it would be a net detriment to the page.
If there is to be a strategy section on this page, it could say "It is useful to obtain an artifact weapon that provides a bonus against most or all enemies, such as Excalibur, as soon as possible". That says all that needs to be said. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Universal, broad and narrow are just words in the english language describing what targets the weapon does extra damage to. I will edit the content down to minimal words.

I have edited the content for brevity as per your suggestion. I'll also put the table first.

If you think that the content could use better word choice or that the same thing can be said with more brevity, you could EDIT the entry instead of wholesale deleting sections. -Magicbymccauley

-magicbymccauley


pinkbeast said: "combine statements of the obvious with egregious errors."

Could you please list the errors so that I can correct them? Thank you.

-magicbymccauley

Just skimming through this section a bit, there are a lot of specific numbers and values listed with no justification. Claims that a to-hit bonus equals double damage over time, comparison of weapon damage without consideration of both damage vs. small and damage vs. large targets (e.g. saying that Grayswandir does double the damage of a longsword leaves out context and is not strictly true), the claim that weapons which double their damage to all monsters except those with a specific resistance are effective against "90% or higher" of monsters. Where are these numbers coming from and can they be proven to be accurate?
Also the statement "As time goes on the [Astral] plane gets more difficult" is neither true nor relevant here, in my opinion.
Why mention that Vampire Lords in the castle can be a problem? V aren't on the list of monsters which can be generated in the throne room -- they will only generate randomly, like anywhere else in the dungeon.
This section has too many controversial opinions and dubious claims presented as facts to remain in its current state. --Tone (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The section was edited since I wrote the comments above this, some of this may be changed already. --Tone (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I have suggested an edit for brevity. It is "It is useful to obtain an artifact weapon that provides a bonus against most or all enemies, such as Excalibur, as soon as possible". That's as good a piece of advice about strategy as this entire monolith. The answer isn't to slightly reduce something almost unbelievably excessively verbose (keeping the made-up terms, etc). Pinkbeast (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't like the new changes either. People read this wiki to know the important details, not to prominently see negligible factors like item destruction that rarely happens, and not to read about categorizations that don't make a difference. Every new section except maybe the first and last would be a waste of time to read. And if the last section is correct, it should go in Aligned priest, not here. Sorry if this is a harsh response, but even correct facts aren't useful if they aren't well-organized. --Bug sniper (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


Bug sniper, the rule you are using is that facts which are rarely or rarely affect gameplay should be deleted. The article has this in it's beginning:

"Sunsword and Demonbane might be created in the possession of a humanoid angelic creature; Archons are sure to be generated with one."

This seems to be a rarely occuring or little known fact. Why has no one asked for its deletion then?

I think that players are going to want to know about item destruction properties of artifact weapons and it isn't in the table. I think that's important.

>Every new section except maybe the first and last would be a waste of time to read. And if the last section is correct, it should go in Aligned priest, not here.

That assumes that a new player is going to know the interaction between aligned priests and getting an artifact weapon, which I don't think they will know. A new player will come to this page first right?

> "It is useful to obtain an artifact weapon that provides a bonus against most or all enemies, such as Excalibur, as soon as possible". That's as good a piece of advice >about strategy as this entire monolith.

I don't agree. You're not explaining to the audience what's going on. You're taking the approach of someone who already understands the game not someone who doesn't.

-magicbymccauley


>"He claim that weapons which double their damage to all monsters except those with a specific resistance are effective against "90% or higher" of monsters. Where are these >numbers coming from and can they be proven to be accurate?"

Yes, they can. See: http://www.steelypips.org/nethack/343/mon1-343.html Resistant monsters are very rare. The only exception to that is possibly undead, as zombies and mummies are frequent, but those are monsters that usually can be killed easily with a normal weapon anyway.

Also consider monster frequency, even for the rare monsters that are resistant, they are very rare. You may go an entire game without seeing a fire resistant hellhound, but you are guaranteed to see at least 50 gnomes, orcs, soldiers, etc. Certain monsters who are resistant also you might not encounter at all with 100% certainty (if you're not a priest you will never see the fire resistant Nalzok). There are certain resistant monsters that are guaranteed to appear in the game (Valley of the Dead, Plane of air etc). I've noted this in the wiki.

By the way the idea that most new players have is the misconception that weapons like fire brand and frost brand and mjollnir aren't good weapons because they only affect some monsters. In reality they affect the vast majority of monsters and considering relative frequency well over 90% of monsters. Thus a weapon that works on everything but resistant monsters is ALMOST as good as one that works universally on all monsters. Exceptions exist but those exceptions should not be considered as a heavy factor in artifact weapon selection as the drawback is something that happens very rarely, not regularly. Players are confused about this as they don't know the statistical numeric layout of resistant monsters and the relative frequency of resistant monsters. It's a misconception I hope to correct with this edit.

-magicbymccauley

Removal

Three editors have commented here. None of them is in favour of this inclusion. Special:Contributions/Luxidream is also opposed to it. The reaction from IRC was also not positive - "who is wiki admin? and can just look at this and say lol this shits fucking stupid what the fuck", "wtf man what has happened to the artifact weapon article", "at the very least, label his section in big bold letters 'OPINION ONLY' or some such", and no, I'm not cherry-picking (and no, these are three different people none of whom is one of the editors involved here).

Since it appears that no-one at all is in favour of it apart from you, I am going to remove it again. Please do not re-add it until there appears to be some actual support for including it. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Even if all of the grammatical and factual errors were corrected, this article would still be poorly written. Artifact weapons that deal bonus damage most or all of the time are superior to normal weapons, and suitable for ascension. You should sacrifice or crown to obtain a usable weapon. It's quite clear to most readers from the pages on Fire and Frost Brand and Mjollnir that they are good weapons, and it doesn't take a genius level intellect to realize that something like Ogresmasher or Trollsbane is a terrible weapon. Reading a long and misleading wall of text isn't necessary to draw these conclusions. --Luxidream (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't fully agree with the short replacement text, if only because it may encourage players to wish for artifact weapons early on, which is rarely, if ever, a correct decision. --Luxidream (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I've expanded it with a (short) section on Selection, about as long as I think the subject merits (and with no made-up terminology), and tried to address your gripe about wishing for them, which I agree is rarely a good plan. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

No one has come up with a single objection fact wise, to anything in the article. The contention that several people don't like it (for unnamed reasons) is not a reason.

A strategy section with one sentence is a very, very poor strategy section and it's brevity is misleading.

Players need to know that some weapons do extra damage to all, some weapons do extra damage to most, and some weapons do extra damage only to some.

The other list of facts, some of which are important (such as destruction of items) is important knowledge that has been deleted for some reason, while other unimportant facts (that artifacts have a negligible chance to appear in the hands of Archons) has been included.

This is inconsistent with giving players good information that will aid in play.

I will rework the edit from the ground up and try again.

-magicbymccauley

Your strategy section is much more misleading, suggesting strategies such as converting the altar in the Valley of the Dead, enchanting elven broadswords (mistakenly named "elven runeswords") to +9, and telling players to risk their life for an artifact (??), among others. These are clearly bad ideas, and I'm not sure if you're an inexperienced player or a troll for making this unsubstantiated nonsense official advice.
I could go on about every mistake that I found in your entry, but others have pointed out some already, which you dismissed. It's very clear in the artifact weapons table and on the pages of each artifact weapon what monsters take extra damage from each weapon, and what artifact weapons are worth using. While I don't agree that one sentence is enough, a dubious 2000 word essay with bad weapon advice, strategy advice, and many grammatical and stylistic errors is far worse.
If you want to make another major edit, please post your draft here and we can discuss it at length. --Luxidream (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

>Article has been edited, please continue with comments.

-magicbymccauley


-magicbymccauley

You did not address any grammatical errors or the instances of misleading advice that I pointed out, among other bits of incorrect and misleading information. As such, I am reverting the article because it lowers the quality of the page. If you would make any edits, please post them here for discussion before you add them to the article. This wiki is not a soapbox, and it's important to consider both the facts and general strategy before we write. For the record, I think there is some merit in explaining the strategy of artifact weapon selection beyond a single sentence, but I don't think your approach is best. --Luxidream (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
to magicbymccauley - stop editing the artifact weapon page. A significant portion of what you're posting is your opinion, not fact. Some of what you're posting is either misleading or straight up wrong. No, you can't convert the altar in the VotD. Yes, Stormbringer is very much a viable weapon to use in the VotD because it confers drain resistance. So on and so forth. You're doing a disservice to new players trying to find viable and helpful information. I'm recommending that your editing privileges for pages temporarily be suspended as you're not getting the hint. --K2 (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Your request to have me stop editing the artifacts page is denied.

>A significant portion of what you're posting is your opinion, not fact.

Please read the current iteration of the page. All traces of opinion has been removed. If there are other traces of opinion please let me know and I'll remove them.

>Some of what you're posting is either misleading or straight up wrong. No, you can't convert the altar in the VotD. Yes, Stormbringer is very much a viable weapon to use in >the VotD because it confers drain resistance.

Both have been removed. If there are other instances of inaccuracies I will remove them.

>I'm recommending that your editing privileges for pages temporarily be suspended as you're not getting the hint.

You are free to do so. However, there are significant facts absent from the page that need to be added in order for a new player or any player to make correct decisions about artifact weapons.

In terms of many artifact weapons of a particular energy affecting 90% of monsters, In terms of some artifact weapons destroying objects, in terms of some artifacts greatly increasing damage over time I'm willing to die on that hill. In terms of some alignments having worse access to artifact weapons I am willing to die on that hill.

This is important factual game information about artifacts and it should be included on the page about artifacts. If you wish to edit the information, fix spelling or grammatical errors (which are not valid criteria for wholescale block deletions), you may do so. But unless you include this information somehow on the page, I will continue to add it. It's absolutely vital game information. Some of it is on the chart, but most of that information isn't.

Wikipedia is a process of editing articles to include more vital information, not about block deleting information and lessening it in a fit of pique about grammatical errors.

-magicbymccauley ________________________________________________________________________________

The attitude here has been "I've found one instance of opinion or one inaccuracy, let's delete the whole article".

NO. That's not how wikipedia works. If you find an inaccuracy or a statement of opinion, you edit it or delete JUST that statement, or reformat it to make it better.

-magicbymccauley

This isn't Wikipedia, but it's like Wikipedia in two respects:
  • If you add huge lumps of your own incoherent analysis to pages, it'll be removed.
  • If you persistently try and crowbar something in that no other involved editor thinks merits inclusion, you'll be blocked. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
You additional edits are not very educational. They point vaguely at things but do not explain them. Certain points (the value of energy weapons early game/drawbacks of energy weapons late game) need to be made clear.
I will try to work with your edit to further bring out those points.
-magicbymccauley
What you mean is they're not uselessly verbose and - unlike yours - they have the approval of multiple other editors. I strongly recommend not junking them up, in view of the two observations above.
"Energy weapons" is another piece of made-up terminology conveying nothing, except possibly ZAPM's laser rifle. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

__________________________________________________ "Energy Resistance" has been removed.

You say things in your edit like having a cross aligned artifact is "annoying". That's clearly opinion related speech.

You also don't organize your article well, describing the damage properties of a weapon, saying three other irrelevant factoids and then going back to the damage properties. Needs to be organized as I've organized it.

The "broad", "narrow" and "universal" are no longer categories they are just adjectives, and they are factually accurate. Don't remove them simply because you don't like those particular adjectives because they come from me. They are factually accurate and very well describe the damage properties.

-magicbymccauley

meta, a solution

Unfortunately a malignant force (henceforth MF) has been corrupting this page of the wiki as of lately. I think that perhaps we must bargain with it. The MF is controlled by one stubborn motherfucker and although negotiation with this MF may prove to be impossible I think that at least an attempt is worthwhile.
I think that including information about some weapons are useful against different subsets of monsters can be useful, but having a long winded explanation on the artifact weapons page is not the way to do that. A mere sentence or two on the artifact weapons page along the lines of "Different artifact weapons may have different effectiveness against different monsters. Look at each weapon's individual page for more information on the topic." I remember when I was a very nooby noob and didn't even know what Sokoban was I misread the Grayswandir page and thought that it only did 2x damnage to silver weak monsters or something and used excal over it so many those pages need to be more clear on what monsters they specifically target but you can only do so much for stupid.
Regarding that whole 90% thing: the mere statement 90% of monsters are not affected by X-brand is a useless statement. It might be more productive to curate a list of monsters unaffected by each brand's double damage and then make an edit to the talk page of those weapons with the information and suggestion that is might be added.
deadnoob (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the two-week block will be entirely effective. By all means suggest improvements, but there's no reason to allow the blocked user to influence us.
I have added a few paragraphs about relative effectiveness which I hope address most of these concerns. In particular I don't think the statement "Some artifact weapons, such as Giantslayer, only give a bonus against a small subset of monsters", which is as close as we come now to the 90% thing, is useless - I think the average player, especially armed with the table in the article, can work out which monsters Giantslayer works on.
The question of which monsters resist (say) Frost Brand is more interesting but I don't see any way to address it in detail here without huge and unwieldy lists of monster resistances. It soon becomes clear in practice. Particular gotchas (that Mjollnir neither provides shock resistance nor does bonus damage against energy vortices) could best be mentioned on individual weapons' pages. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that the edits by magicbymccauley are largely inappropriate, I don't think the situation is helped by using personal insults or abusive language. The proper solution (in my opinion) has already been put forward: post the suggested changes here for discussion first. The controversial changes are well-intended, after all. --Hothraxxa (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Hothraxxa Wikid (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, magicbymccauley here. I'm just going to tell you: the page isn't good and saying "frost brand hurts any monster that isn't frost resistant" isn't good information because a new or even average player doesn't know how many monsters ARE frost resistant. The description in the table doesn't give a new player a good assessment of how good frost brand is. Explaining to players that there are three categories of artifacts in nethack: ones that affect all monsters, ones that affect almost all (90%) of monsters and some that only affect a small subset of monsters is a CRUCIAL type of information about artifact weapons.

"I think the average player, especially armed with the table in the article, can work out which monsters Giantslayer works on."

They can work that out, but they can't work out that weapons such as frost brand, fire brand, mjollnir, etc work on almost every monster. No data is given on the page as to how effective these elemental weapons are and so by not including that information you're further confusing them. Directing them to another page is needlessly pedantic and silly. The MAIN question that a person accessing the Artifact Weapon page is: "What are the good artifact weapons? Is my artifact weapon that I have right now good enough? What's a good artifact weapon for this role/alignment?" Having a table that doesn't explain how strong overall each artifact weapon is does NOT help things.

A simple categorization of Universal, Broad, and Narrow artifact weapons allows even a novice player to understand what's going on quickly.

"It soon becomes clear in practice." What the actual? The entire, ENTIRE point of the wiki is so that players can quickly assess which artifacts are serviceable to ascension, explain their drawbacks and enable a good choice RIGHT from the wiki. We aren't giving out vague clues here, we're trying to teach people about the game. -magicbymccauley

I think the only thing that might be useful here is to expand the list in "Some artifact weapons give a bonus against most targets, like Fire Brand and Frost Brand" to list all such weapons: Mjollnir, Stormy, and maybe the Sceptre and Staff if we want to get into quartifacts. (It is basically inevitable that I've forgotten one here...)
"It soon becomes clear in practice" was said with reference to a particular idea - listing all resistant monsters - not the context for it you have imagined. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


Okay, so suggested change:

>Artifact Damage:

>Artifacts can be placed into three general categories for damage purposes: Artifacts that deal additional damage to all targets, artifacts that affect most targets, and artifacts that only affect a very narrow group of targets. >When selecting an artifact a player will want to have a weapon that deals extra damage the most amount of monsters as possible. > >Artifacts that deal extra damage and affects all targets are as follows: Cleaver, Excalibur, Magicbane, Vorpal Blade, Snickersnee, Greyswandir, The Tsurugi of Murumasa. > >Artifacts that deal extra damage to most targets are as follows: Firebrand, Frostbrand, Mjollnir, The Sceptre of Might, The Staff of Aesculapis, Stormbringer. > >Artifacts that only affect a narrow range of monsters are as follows: Demonbane, Dragonbane, Giantslayer, Grimtooth, Ogresmasher, Orcrist, Sting, Sunsword, Trollsbane, Werebane.

-magicbymccauley


Weapon Drawbacks:

[Some Artifact Weapons have additional drawbacks. Some destroy items carried by monsters (such as Mjollnir, Frostbrand, and Firebrand). These weapons also can be disadvantageous in specific levels (Firebrand on the plane of fire) or against certain dangerous monsters (Stormbringer against a Lich). However, resistant monsters are rare. 90% of monsters cannot resist fire/cold/shock. Monsters that can resist level drain are slightly more common (Undead and Demons). Very few monsters have resistances in the early game. However, in the late game the riders, the wizard, a quest nemesis, demons and many Elementals in the planes have resistances. For this reason, acquiring a second artifact weapon, or a normal weapon with which the player has expert skill and is enchanted to +7 that can be switched in is desireable.]


No one objected, so I added the above edits.

-magicbymccauley

Just my two cents, but a weapon dealing extra damage to most targets is already implied by "[bonus] damage to non-[element]-resistant monsters." as is already included in the table; and simply listing all of the weapons which have this description leaves out an important piece of information: which monsters they *don't* deal bonus damage to. This three-tiered taxonomy strikes me as a potentially cumbersome oversimplification (at least as currently proposed).
By the way, there's no reason to switch to a mundane weapon just because your artifact weapon doesn't do bonus damage to something -- it will still provide the same base damage. I'd even argue that obtaining and enchanting a second artifact weapon is generally a poor use of resources, especially for the planes where you shouldn't be attacking much to begin with. --Tone (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the most recent page revision, please try to improve the formatting of the page. There is currently a "Strategy" section in the article that is entirely blank. Many of these paragraphs are not significant enough to have their own entry in the article's Table of Contents (this was a major problem with some of the previous edits, in my opinion). Also please wait longer than 46 minutes for feedback before assuming there are no objections -- this wiki is not incredibly active so it may take a day or two to get a full response. --Tone (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

>a weapon dealing extra damage to most targets is already implied

Implied is not as good as explained fully. There is no information as to how many monsters have resistance so there is no way a player can draw the conclusion that a weapon damages almost all (90%) of monsters. The three tiered classification instantly clarifies this.

>This three-tiered taxonomy strikes me as a potentially cumbersome oversimplification (at least as >currently proposed).

Please explain how it oversimplifies things and confuses the reader more than a table which says that the weapon damages those that aren't resistant and gives no information on how many monsters are resistant?

With this description, the player can instantly see the strength of the artifact weapon they have as comparison to other artifact weapons, without scanning each weapon and then having to dive for information on how many monsters are resistant to what type of effect.

> it will still provide the same base damage. I'd even argue that obtaining and enchanting a second >artifact weapon is generally a poor use of resources, especially for the planes where you shouldn't be >attacking much to begin with.

A good point, I will add it. The instant mental question people have is "How do I compensate for the disadvantages of an artifact weapon that doesn't deal extra damage to x target."

In the planes of course you want to run away from everything but that's obviously not always possible, you ARE going to get engulfed by an air elemental most likely, and for instance, the Death rider must be meleed most often (wand of death doesn't work). There are other options for Death like magic missile or missile weapons that are enchanted up.

The danger of having a "most" weapon is earlier. It's when you get engulfed an energy vortex very early and have mjollnir, or if you have frost brand and are attacked by a group of frost wolves, or try to use your weapon on the Quest Nemesis who may be resistant to it.

>Many of these paragraphs are not significant enough to have their own entry in the article's Table of >Contents

I didn't write those, someone else did, and I'm afraid they will be mad if I take it down. I'm not the only one who can edit this page so I will contribute with approval and people can take down what they don't like. I'm going to be accused of "forcing" my own interpretation if I do otherwise.

-magicbymccauley _________________________________________________________________________________________________

Suggested Addition:

[Guaranteed Artifacts]

[Several artifacts are guaranteed in Nethack provided certain conditions are met. Guaranteed first sacrifice gifts are Cleaver for Barbarian, Mjollnir for Barbarian, Snickersnee for Samurai, and Magicbane for Wizards.

For Lawfuls, they are guaranteed Excalibur so long as they are level 5 and can dip a longsword in a fountain (1/5 chance, but guaranteed as long as you have enough fountains). Note that this does not unrestrict the longsword skill (as crowning and sacrificing does) Excalibur is also the crowning gift for Lawfuls.

For Neutrals, Vorpal Blade is the crowning gift and though it can behead creatures and affects all monsters which have a head, it's damage bonus is only +1.

Chaotics have Stormbringer as a guaranteed sacrifice gift.

Elves can guarantee Stormbringer as their first sacrifice gift if they name Sting and Orcrist First. Elven Rangers start out with an Elven dagger (which they can name) making this even easier for them.

Note that of these guaranteed artifacts, all except Sting and Orcrist (which are guaranteed so long as you can find and name an Elven dagger or Elven broadsword) are in the top two damage categories, meaning that these guaranteed artifact weapons (excepting Orcrist and Sting) are worthy weapons possibly usable all the way to ascension.

Wishing for artifacts is only guaranteed if one artifact or less already exists in the current Nethack game. Obviously when wishing for an artifact weapon, a player will want to wish for one from the top two damage categories. Wishing early in the game for an artifact so as to guarantee that the player will get it, may be a poor use of resources if they already have a good artifact weapon guaranteed by their first sacrifice or crowning gift.]

Suggested addition. I will wait 48 hours on this one.

-magicbymccauley

The multiple section headings and empty section were in fact introduced by you. here is the page before you started mangling it again; here is your version, which introduces all that.
The entire 46-minute edit is pointless. As said, adding a few artifact names to the page would convey the same information.
I think you should wait until someone other than you actually suggests these interminable chunks of text are a good idea, not just wait a bit and cram them in regardless. The second one is no better, taking acres of space to express simple concepts. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not "acres of space" it's a few simple concepts explained in a very small amount of space and in a small amount of time which the reader can follow far better than a huge list.

Please leave the edit for a while to see if people like it. The way things were explained in the previous edit was very unorganized. Here I've edited out redundant information and bad explanations.

>you started mangling it again

If I delete anything to make it more organized you claim I'm cramming. If I leave what I wrote and what other authors wrote you claim I'm "mangling".

What do you want me to do? I believe this edit is far better. Please read it though and decide. The topics are organized well now and no it's not taking up "Acres" of space.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT EDIT. BAD WRITING. DISORGANIZED STRUCTURE. INFORMATION NOT GROUPED UNDER TOPICS. VAGUENESS.

>Because of the way that the odds of getting an artifact from a sacrifice reduce as more >artifacts are generated, if you aren't going to risk wishing for a specific artifact, >artifact selection tends to be about finding something that's good enough, not reviewing >the entire list and making a selection in advance.

This is terrible writing. This talks about "risk wishing" but doesn't explain what the risk is. Vague. What does "finding something good enough" mean? Vague. How do you know if your artifact weapon is "good enough? Vague.

>Some artifact weapons, such as Giantslayer, only give a bonus against a small subset of >monsters. These are nigh-useless; in practice by the time you see large numbers of giants, >you'll have a better option. Receiving one as a sacrifice gift does unrestrict the >relevant skill, which can be useful if you have a better artifact of the same type. Many >variants try to improve artifacts of this type.

Which artifacts do? What subset of monsters is "small". Are monsters who are vulnerable to shock a small subset? How do I tell if my artifact weapons affects some monsters or not? POOR WRITING. VAGUE AND CONFUSING. This also doesn't say if it's a damage bonus or a to hit bonus. VAUGE AND CONFUSING.

>A two-handed weapon means that you cannot use a shield, and in the late game it can become >cursed, requiring you to #tip an uncursing item out of your bag to regain use of your >hands.

Okay, decent information. Not sure it belongs under "Strategy".

>Cleaver and Stormbringer are both dangerous to use around pets or neutral monsters you >don't want to anger.

>Mjollnir, Fire Brand, and Frost Brand can destroy consumables that monsters are carrying. >All things being equal, you would rather have those consumables for yourself, but all >three of these weapons are also powerful.

Shouldn't this open a topic called "Weapon Drawbacks"? Shouldn't the drawbacks of weapons all be listed under one section, as I've done?

>Some artifact weapons give a bonus against most targets: Fire Brand, Frost Brand, >Mjollnir, Stormbringer, and two quest artifacts (the Sceptre of Might and Staff of >Aesculapius). First of all you talked about damage before. Then you went away from that for several sections. Then you are now going back to damage again. this is poor organization.

>Obviously, these are useful;

Is it obvious? Why is it obvious? They are useful? Why are they useful. Are they more useful than other artifacts? Why?


>generally it is possible to obtain a pair which can be switched between as required.

This is factually false. It is very difficult to obtain BOTH firebrand and frostbrand. Because of the random generation of artifacts from a list and that it becomes increasingly difficult to generate artifacts. While I can't give you exact percentages of how likely it is to get both firebrand and frostbrand in a game it is quite rare.

As well you can't obtain a "pair" of weapons for all of the "most" weapons. There is no "pair" to mjollnir, or Stormbringer. Factually false. Misleading. Opinion.

>A few artifact weapons give a bonus against all targets: Cleaver, Excalibur, Magicbane, >Vorpal Blade, Snickersnee, Greyswandir, and one quest artifact (the Tsurugi of Muramasa). >This is obviously a useful property. Especially noteworthy is Grayswandir, with double >damage against everything and additional damage to targets harmed by silver.

Why is this a useful property? Are these just another "useful property" or are these weapons better than other weapons.

Why is there a sentence about narrowly useful weapons, then four more sections then two sections on weapon damage (without telling the reader which one is better, just vaguely noting that they are "useful".

Why shouldn't this be organized by topic (weapon damage, Drawbacks).

This edit is vague, poorly written, creates confusion, is disorganized and has factually wrong statements.

________________________________________________________________________________________ Here is my edit:

Artifact Damage

Artifacts can be placed into three general categories for damage purposes:Artifacts that deal additional damage to all targets, artifacts that affect most targets, and artifacts that only affect a very narrow group of targets.

When selecting an artifact a player will want to have a weapon that deals extra damage the most amount of monsters as possible.

Artifacts that deal extra damage and affects all targets are as follows: Cleaver, Excalibur, Magicbane, Vorpal Blade, Snickersnee, Greyswandir, The Tsurugi of Murumasa.

Artifacts that deal extra damage to most targets are as follows: Firebrand, Frostbrand, Mjollnir, The Sceptre of Might, The Staff of Aesculapis, Stormbringer.

Artifacts that only affect a narrow range of monsters are as follows: Demonbane, Dragonbane, Giantslayer, Grimtooth, Ogresmasher, Orcrist, Sting, Sunsword, Trollsbane, Werebane.


Weapon Drawbacks

Some Artifact Weapons have additional drawbacks. Some destroy items carried by monsters (such as Mjollnir, Frostbrand, and Firebrand). These weapons also can be disadvantageous in specific levels (Firebrand on the plane of fire) or against certain dangerous monsters (Stormbringer against a Lich). However, resistant monsters are rare. 90% of monsters cannot resist fire/cold/shock. Monsters that can resist level drain are slightly more common (Undead and Demons). Very few monsters have resistances in the early game. However, in the late game the riders, the wizard, a quest nemesis, demons and many Elementals in the planes have resistances. For this reason, acquiring a second artifact weapon, or a normal weapon with which the player has expert skill and is enchanted to +7 that can be switched in is desirable.

Guaranteed Artifacts Several artifacts are guaranteed in Nethack provided certain conditions are met. Certain roles are guaranteed to receive a particular weapon as their first gift[6]: Valkyries receive Mjollnir, Barbarians receive Cleaver, Wizards receive Magicbane, and Samurai receive Snickersnee.

For Lawfuls, they are guaranteed Excalibur so long as they are level 5 and can dip a longsword in a fountain (1/5 chance, but guaranteed as long as you have enough fountains). Note that this does not unrestrict the longsword skill (as crowning and sacrificing does) Excalibur is also the crowning gift for Lawfuls.

For Neutrals, Vorpal Blade is the crowning gift and though it can behead creatures and affects all monsters which have a head, it's damage bonus is only +1.

Chaotics have Stormbringer as a guaranteed sacrifice gift.

Elves can guarantee Stormbringer as their first sacrifice gift if they name Sting and Orcrist First. Elven Rangers start out with an Elven dagger (which they can name) making this even easier for them.

Note that of these guaranteed artifacts, all except Sting and Orcrist (which are guaranteed so long as you can find and name an Elven dagger or Elven broadsword) are in the top two damage categories, meaning that these guaranteed artifact weapons (excepting Orcrist and Sting) are worthy weapons possibly usable all the way to ascension.

Wishing for artifacts is only guaranteed if one artifact or less already exists in the current Nethack game. Obviously when wishing for an artifact weapon, a player will want to wish for one from the top two damage categories. Wishing early in the game for an artifact so as to guarantee that the player will get it, may be a poor use of resources if they already have a good artifact weapon guaranteed by their first sacrifice or crowning gift.

Selection It is useful to obtain an artifact weapon that provides a bonus against most or all enemies, such as Excalibur, early in the game. However, wishing for one may not succeed if artifacts have been generated already (perhaps without your knowledge), and uses a valuable wish which normally could be used to considerably improve your defenses.

A two-handed weapon means that you cannot use a shield, and in the late game it can become cursed, requiring you to #tip an uncursing item out of your bag to regain use of your hands.

An intelligent cross-aligned artifact is unusable; an unintelligent cross-aligned artifact is annoying (and potentially dangerous) to use.

Cleaver and Stormbringer are both dangerous to use around pets or neutral monsters you don't want to anger.

Some artifact weapons provide a useful resistance or other ability. For example, Stormbringer's level drain resistance means that you might wield it to clear the Valley of the Dead - it does no bonus damage to undead, but it essentially eliminates any threat they pose. Sunsword only deals bonus damage to undead, but can be useful as a light source.

Well, we'll see if any other editor thinks any of this has merit (or follows the astonishingly convoluted misreadings you've managed of the existing text...). If not, I suggest not cramming it in again. The consequences of doing so should be obvious by now. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

>or follows the astonishingly convoluted misreadings you've managed of the existing text...)

Please substantiate your claim that I am "misreading" the current text.

If a text CAN BE misread, that means it's unclear, vague writing. Writing should be clear, not vague, not up to interpretation and multiple readings ESPECIALLY for a wiki article..

You also have not answered the comment that the current page is completely disorganized writing sentences on disparate topics, all grouped together with no rhyme or reason.

Why is that organization structure better than mine?

Further, the claim that both frost brand and firebrand can be easily acquired in one game is completely false. Why is the edit of this wiki with that mistake preserved while mine is removed?

I await your answer.

magicbymccauley ________________________________________________________________________________________________

"If not, I suggest not cramming it in again. The consequences of doing so should be obvious by now. Pinkbeast (talk)."

In other words, you want to preserve a wiki page with factual mistakes, vague writing and poor organization. And if I do anything about it, you're going to block me and revert it to an inferior page.

Got it.

-magicbymccauley

I won't claim to have reviewed every single part of this exchange including the detailed changes made. However, it seems clear to me that things won't be going anywhere at the current rate.
I've protected the page due to ongoing edit warring. I'll be more than happy to reverse the protection if people can reach a consensus on how to handle this situation.
Please try to keep it civil, everyone. —bcode talk | mail 17:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

So now you've PROTECTED the page from further edits, fully keeping the bad edit which is full of disorganization, bad, vague writing and has factual errors, and prevented anyone else from making edits to improve it.

Can someone please tell me why we need a badly written, poorly organized article with factual inaccuracies as the PROTECTED page preventing further progress?

Still waiting on pinkbeast to answer me as to how my reading of this badly written page is "misreading it", how the claim that acquiring both frost brand and firebrand is easy to do, and why the page should bring up damage, abandon the topic, re-engage the topic, talk about disadvantages, abandon that topic, re-engage that topic and not have any topic headings.


-magicbymccauley

As an example of the misreading, the claim that "acquiring both frost brand and firebrand is easy to do" is not, and was never, made. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

YES it WAS.

>Obviously, these are useful; generally it is possible to obtain a pair which can be switched between as >required.

It is NOT "generally possible" to "obtain a pair which can be switched between". That statement is factually false. It is very hard to acquire two weapons that deal damage to "most" monsters. Getting one is sometimes hard to do. (Especially for Chaotics).

You have yet to answer why an article that meanders all over the place switching from topic to topic (damage, drawbacks, and irrelevant data) is better than an article grouped under headings all on the same topic.

You have yet to answer why vague sentences such as "This is generally considered useful." and "Obviously this is quite useful" are better than my edit.

I suppose you're not going to answer those two questions?

-Magicbymccauley

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Not to get into a Monty Python sketch, but no, it wasn't.
"Some artifact weapons give a bonus against most targets, like Fire Brand and Frost Brand. Obviously, these are useful; generally it is possible to obtain a pair which can be switched between as required."
This does not assert that anything is "easy to do". It asserts that something is generally possible. It also makes no assertion about obtaining Fire Brand and Frost Brand specifically. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Generally it is possible" to obtain a pair of artifact weapons in this category is false. It's difficult to acquire two weapons (such as frost brand and fire brand or any other combination) that deal damage to "most" monsters.

That is false, period.

You have yet to answer why an article that meanders all over the place switching from topic to topic (damage, drawbacks, and irrelevant data) is better than an article grouped under headings all on the same topic.

You have yet to answer why vague sentences such as "This is generally considered useful." and "Obviously this is quite useful" are better than my edit.

Please answer those questions.

Unless of course you don't have an answer to those questions and are just reverting the topic for some other reason, that is other than the purpose to make a wikipedia article better.

-magicbymccauley _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here's an example that comes up pretty often, a dwarven Valkyrie. They can dip for Excalibur and obtain Mjolnir from sacrificing. An optimal player would probably use Mjolnir against most monsters because of its high damage bonus, and switch to Excalibur to fight enemies like aligned priests and angels who are shock resistant.

Neutrals can easily obtain Vorpal Blade to complement a brand or Mjolnir.

A chaotic can use Stormbringer alongside a brand or a silver saber.

As you can see, it's quite easy for most roles to supplement their artifact weapon with a different damage type. However, this is hardly ever necessary because a well enchanted Frost Brand, for example, would still hit as hard as a +7 long sword, one of the best ordinary weapons in the game. I routinely finish chaotic games using only Stormbringer.

Wishing for an artifact weapon is a risk because it forgoes a potential wish for dragon scale mail or some other form of equipment that can protect against instant death. If you're wishing for an artifact at the Castle, you've already won NetHack, do whatever you want.

Statements such as "obviously, these are useful" are quite clear to me. Weapons that do extra damage to everything are desirable. Weapons that deal extra damage to most monsters are also desirable. The current article makes it quite clear that the brands and Mjolnir are good weapons, and their minimal weaknesses can be compensated for. I would only add that it is not necessary to do so in order to win. There is no confusion about the effectiveness of these weapons compared to "banes" like Giantslayer in the article as written.

The strategy section is not long enough to be broken down further.

Please don't accuse others of having personal reasons to block your edits. Everyone here is trying to make the wiki better, not just you. ——Luxidream (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The statement "generally you can obtain a pair [of artifact weapons that can damage most monsters]" is still false. GENERALLY you're lucky to get one artifact weapon that can damage most monsters. Lawful Valkyrie is the exception not the rule. They have TWO guaranteed artifact weapons, which is one key reason they are the most ascended combination. GENERALLY that is not the situation. A player is trying to get a "most" or "all" artifact weapon if they can. Getting two, in most circumstances is rare, and in some circumstances impossible: Chaotics can get Stormbringer at crowning or from sacrificing. Getting a second artifact weapon to compliment Stormbringer isn't likely.

Vorpal Blade is not a complement for damage, it only does +1 damage, so you're wrong about that.

Your Statements that normal weapons are almost as good as Artifact weapons was a section that I wrote and included in the wiki. Nor does that have anything to do with "accquiring a pair".

Chaotics cannot easily get a brand alongside Stormbringer. That's very difficult with the list of artifacts chaotics have to contend with and the diminishing possibility of getting a brand with more sacrifices. You are wrong.

Stating that you can generally get a pair of artifact weapons that damage most targets is inaccurate, vague, and bad writing.

"Statements such as "obviously, these are useful" are quite clear to me." That's because you're writing from the perspective of someone who ALREADY knows how to ascend in nethack. That is not clear to people who haven't, which is precisely who the wiki is for.

>There is no confusion about the effectiveness of these weapons compared to "banes" like Giantslayer >in the article as written.

Yes, there is! The article as written assumes that the reader already knows everything about artifact weapons and how they function. The article is not being clear nor specific. You are making a self-referential fallacy, reading the article as someone with complete knowledge of nethack rather than reading it as if the person knows nothing (or knows very little) about nethack. That is unhelpful and myopic.


>current article makes it quite clear that the brands and Mjolnir are good weapons, and their minimal >weaknesses can be compensated for.

No, it does not. It never even says "weapons like the brands and mjollnir are good weapons". Never says that. Never.

>Please don't accuse others of having personal reasons to block your edits.

  1. request denied.

>Everyone here is trying to >make the wiki better, not just you.

  1. claimrejected
-magicbymccauley
Vorpal Blade does not just do +1 damage. Against most monsters, it beheads, a bonus to effective damage.
The Brands and Mjollnir are described as "powerful". I trust the reader, even a novice, to be able to work out that "powerful" weapons are good. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

AGAIN:

1. "Generally it is possible" to obtain a pair of artifact weapons in this category is false. It's difficult to acquire two weapons (such as frost brand and fire brand or any other combination) that deal damage to "most" monsters.

That is false, period.

2. You have yet to answer why an article that meanders all over the place switching from topic to topic (damage, drawbacks, and irrelevant data) is better than an article grouped under headings all on the same topic.

3. You have yet to answer why vague sentences such as "This is generally considered useful." and "Obviously this is quite useful" are better than my edit. Vagueness is bad. This should be changed.

Please answer those questions.

Unless of course you don't have an answer to those questions and are just reverting the topic for some other reason, that is other than the purpose to make a wikipedia article better.

-magicbymccauley _______________________________________________________________________________________________________


>Vorpal Blade does not just do +1 damage. Against most monsters, it beheads, a bonus to effective >damage. >The Brands and Mjollnir are described as "powerful". I trust the reader, even a novice, to be able to >work out that "powerful" weapons are good. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware that Vorpal Blade can behead most monsters, but it's not a good compliment to resistant monsters since many can't be affected by Vorpal Blade's behaading attack. Sorry, you are still wrong.

Describing with vague words such as "useful" and "powerful" doesn't specifically describe WHY such artifact weapons are powerful, nor does it give the reader context to understand it.

Explaining that there are three categories of weapons that deal damage to all, most, and only some (and that weapons by and large can be put in those three categories) exactly explains the relative power of each weapon.

You STILL have not explained by a wikipedia article that lists weapon damage for three different types of weapons, and categorizes sections into "Weapon Damage" "weapon drawbacks" and "guaranteed artifact weapons' is a worse idea than your bunch of vague meandering sentences that flit from topic to topic in a disorganized way.

Can you please explain why that is "better"?

I think an article that has these three very important topics in three categories is a lot better than vague meandering sentences on a variety of topics with no rhyme or reason.

-magicbymccauley

_____________________________________________________________________________________

This isn't how wikipedia articles are supposed to work.

First of all, tables don't go in the middle of an article, tables go at the end of an article. Many users here want the table to go first or in the middle. That's not how wikipedia works. References and tables go at the end. Reading some text then having it interrupted by a table, and then reading more text is not a good way to convey information.

Secondly when writing a wikipedia article, you go from most general and important information first, and then to specific and less important information. This article has random factoids in the beginning that's not how you write an article.

Third, information should be grouped into categories.

The wiki should look like this.

1. What is an artifact weapon and general properties (to hit and damage bonuses, can't be held second, Methods of getting one, cross aligned artifacts blasting or evading your grasp, etc.

2. What is a good artifact weapon as opposed to a not so good one? This is answered by a damage section on artifacts showing three categories: The top tier weapons (that damage all), the good weapons (that damage most) and the bad weapons that only damage some.

3. What artifact weapons are guaranteed? This should include the list of the guaranteed first sacrifice gifts for each race, guaranteed artifact weapons from the quest, as well as the crowning gift for each alignment, guaranteed longsword dipping for lawfuls, naming orcrist and sting to get a guaranteed stormbringer for elves, etc.

4. What are the drawbacks for artifact weapons especially drawbacks not listed on the table? Are these drawbacks significant?

5. Other miscellaneous information about artifacts.

6. The table of artifacts.

THAT is how you organize an article. You don't organize it with a table in the middle, with information all over the place on different topics, etc.

-magicbymccauley

Please remember that we are not Wikipedia; our goals as a NetHack wiki are somewhat different from Wikipedia's goals, and our guidelines (be they written or unwritten rules people agree to) are thus different as well. It's fine to argue about how things should be, but "this is how wikipedia does it" is not always a reason to do things the same way here (although the reasons that made them do it might be).
You have a point about long tables interrupting the flow of reading, and I imagine most of us can get on board with that. User:Pinkbeast, since you've been the other party most involved in this, would you agree to rearranging the existing sections, putting the list between the prose sections and the references / see also parts (which always go last)? —bcode talk | mail 06:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know what others think, but I don't see anything wrong with the current situation which presents facts first, then discusses the consequences of those facts. It is an arrangement also found on Comestible, Tool, Potion, Scroll, Wand... Pinkbeast (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Pinkbeast, the situations you cite are paragraphs that fully explain something about an object, followed by a chart. These explanations are simple, and the charts are simple. It makes sense to have a paragraph FULLY explaining something and then a chart, and then some paragraphs FULLY explaining something else and then another chart. Makes perfect sense.

The artifact weapon chart is exceedingly complex and you can't even understand what the chart is referring to, or how the chart is relevant without explanation of the chart first. Putting the chart first or putting it in between paragraphs that explain the chart is not good for conveying informaiton.

I also have a point about other things. Before I got here the "Strategy" section on artifact weapons was a single sentence. I have had to battle to get even one more iota of information in the wiki. The editors here seem obsessed with brevity.

Artifact Weapons are one of the most complicated things in nethack and interact with class, race, quest, variable effects of a sacrifice, alignment, crowning, wishing and so forth. You can't effectively explain all that in three short paragraphs. There's simply no way, especially to new players.

All the editors have opposed my adjectives which describe three types of artifacts. This effectively allows a very good basis for new or even experienced players to assess the power of their artifact. Why have they opposed this? I don't know. The consensus seems to be "That's not how we've traditionally described artifacts in the past."

I suspect that what's going on here is traditionalism (we have to keep things the way they are), or gatekeeping (we don't want to explain what's going on, or we want to explain it in code for only people in the know).

Experienced players on here state that THEY understand what the wiki means, but that understanding only comes with the fact that they've ascended several times. They do not read it with the eyes of a beginner.

The reason that wikipedia explains things (from general and important down to specific and not as important) is to accurately convey information. I'm not a wikipedia rules lawyer, I'm trying to convey information. When people go to something called NETHACKWIKI they expect to find something that explains things adequately and de-mystifies a topic. If that's not the aim of the admins here and instead traditionalism or gatekeeping is their aim, I think they should put the fact that they are attempting not to spoil nethack, and a link to something that will actually provide all the information and explain it.

Having meandering sentences jumping from topic to topic as the current entry does, and not putting sentences under topic headings isn't just what wikipedia does, you lean that in your 1st grade English class. It's proper communication.

The claim that SEVERAL (three?) wikipedia editors agree that my edits are bad (and so shouldn't be included) is a bandwagon fallacy. Simply because people agree to do the article this way doesn't mean that's how it should be done.

I have been stymied left and right by editors who, instead of EDITING what I've written on wikipedia or correcting mistakes I've made decide to revert and delete all the content. If there is an error I or others have made then it should be corrected. If wording is cumbersome it should be edited to be better, similarly with spelling or grammatical mistakes.

Instead the editors here have seen fit to revert the article entirely whenever I add information to it, in an attempt to preserve an article with LESS information in it. That isn't how it should be done, on wikipedia, or in any environemnt where you're trying to convey information to an audience. Again, this is traditionalism and gatekeeping.

I've created a wikipedia article sample absent of all the mistakes and disorganization of the current one. You can see that here:

https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/User:Magicbymccauley/Better_artifact#Strategy

I am adding to it, creating references and links as well as other information, it's not done yet. But this is the general structure that the article should have.

-magicbymccauley

The reason tables are located near the top of most articles here is because the NetHack Wiki has largely replaced other reference sources, so most users come to these pages solely to look at these tables. Also over the years the articles here have largely developed their own style which appears to work for most users, which is why some editors may get defensive towards a new editor coming along and changing things in their own very different style. The reason the information appears separated is because the information left out of the Strategy section is for facts, while strategy sections are naturally more subjective (but should be largely agreed upon).
Skimming through your proposed article draft, my opinion is that there is a lot of information here that can be referenced from other pages which already include such information (Sacrifice Gifts, Guaranteed Artifacts, Crowning, the individual artifact pages, etc.). Also there still remains generally poor advice (recommending monks to wish for gauntlets of power), bad information (saying that Excalibur makes demons hostile -- this may technically be true but is misleading or incorrect without context), and then some weird cases like listing thieves as their own role that should enchant daggers (?).
Also I'll put my opinion out there that I think the table does a rather good job of relaying a lot of this information in a very clear and concise manner, and allows any user who would like more information to follow the link for all the details they might want about a particular artifact weapon. This doesn't necessarily mean that it should stand alone, but I think it serves as a good way to organize information.
I'll also add that I do think the Strategy section that's currently locked in could be improved, it currently appears to be an attempt at a compromise to include a lot of the information that you wanted but in a more succinct manner.
--Tone (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

>The reason tables are located near the top of most articles here is because the NetHack Wiki has largely >replaced other reference sources, so most users come to these pages solely to look at these tables.

1. Do you have any data to back up the assertion that players chiefly go to the page in order to look at the tables?

2. If you want to put the tables first in all wiki entries, that's fine but it should be consistent.

3. This still doesn't make sense in terms of putting text that explains the items on the table, the table, and then more text that explains the table.

>Also over the years the articles here have largely developed their own style which appears to work for most >users,

Do you have any evidence that the writing style here "works for most users"?

> Also there still remains generally poor advice (recommending monks to wish for gauntlets of power),

Why is monks wishing for gauntlets of power poor advice? I'm perfectly willing to delete it but the section is devoted to alternatives to artifact weapons, in case someone cannot get a good one and comes to this page.

By the way, I have a reference to that it's in the steelypips faq, where they advise a monk to wish for gauntlets of power:

http://www.steelypips.org/nethack/monk_faq.html#wish

"Blessed rustproof +2 gauntlets of power -or- dexterity: Gauntlets of power give combat bonuses but interfere with spellcasting; gauntlets of dexterity enhance spellcasting. Personally, I prefer gauntlets of power, as in my experience the spellcasting interference is not significant; vegetarian monks also have a difficult time gaining strength."

BTW I got gauntlets of power with a monk once and it was the absolute nuts. So not sure what you're on about here.

> bad information (saying that Excalibur makes demons hostile -- this may technically be true but is >misleading or incorrect without context)

Okay..... you can edit it to provide context. Every second people criticize me for not being brief enough now you're urging me to expand. Okay... I can do that.

>, and then some weird cases like listing thieves as their own role that should enchant daggers (?).

That's just a typo for rogue. You can change that. Here I did it. Done.

A lot of the information I've included isn't in the charts, in fact most of it isn't, and the information I've included helps you interpret the chart, as well as provide additional context. It's true that people can follow links to more information. You can include just the chart in the article and nothing else, if you wish, but I hardly think that's a good, well written argument.

If there's a chart, the written information should explain and give context for the chart so that.... wait for it.... someone who's never looked at the chart can interpret it rather than someone who's ascended many times.

Secondly information about artifacts that ISN'T in the chart should be included in the wikipedia article next to the chart, rather than just in individual artifact articles, if the information is true about a broad number of artifacts (for instance the three categories of damage, and general methods of acquiring). Something that's true for many artifacts shouldn't be solely in individual artifact articles. It should be on the main artifact weapon page.

Lastly people aren't going to know that they need to go to the "crowning" artifact page or the "sacrifice" page unless you contextualize why you need to go there. This should obviously be done on the main page with more details in those specific pages. I've tried to endeavor to do that as many times as possible and as brief as possible, I will redouble my efforts and try to do more.

No one has explained why my topic headings are bad ones, or why the editors here seem bent on NOT having topic headings that effectively organize information. Can we talk about that?

-magicbymccauley

The current wiki page is 2 pages of text long. My wiki is 3 and 1/4 pages long. Why is this verbose and objectionable? Are we going to run out of bits and bytes by my article being 1 and 1/4 pages longer than the current version? Is someone going to die? What is the terrible horrible consequence of having my version be the page?

Tone is right. The editors truly have "their own style". This is just super insulated editors not understanding how to write a wikipedia article for an audience that knows nothing about a topic, and instead writing a wiki article for an audience of 5 people who've all ascended 100 times.

-magicbymccauley

So gauntlets of power give martial artists a decent damage bonus that can be difficult to get otherwise, but are more of a mid-tier item as far as wishes go. They can be very nice to have, but I wouldn't flat-out recommend wishing for them. Also Monks are better off using artifact weapons anyways, it's more that GoP are very nice for weaponless melee characters (I realize that this is what you meant, but it's best to be specific in these articles). As far as that wishing spoiler goes... well most of the wishing spoilers I've seen do not offer great advice. Just from the excerpt that you included about gauntlets of power, it also recommends wishing for gauntlets of dexterity which nearly always is a bad use of a wish (although perhaps a Monk trying to use a weapon untrained while wearing body armor would be an exception?), and it even says that the gauntlets *enhance* spellcasting which is not true.
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.
--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

"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

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

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

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?

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