User talk:EasterlyIrk

From NetHackWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Binder page

You have removed a bunch of super useful reference tables that are not on the new ability page.

That is, the table of

Spirit | Requirement | Taboo

The table of:

Passive | Spirit

The table of:

Skill | Spirit

Can your add these back in please.


I don't think those are really useful anymore tbh. At least with all the spirits in one page, you can just ctrl-f for the ones you want. Those tables were just 4 of the 6 or so characteristics of each spirit - what's the advantage of having those over a comprehensive page?

--EasterlyIrk (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Multiplication signs

In the edit summary of one of your recent edits to dNetHack artifacts, it states that "we're not doing that" in reference to using multiplication signs (×) rather than the letter x to indicate multiplication. Would you mind pointing me to the discussion where this was agreed on? It seems someone forgot to add it to the style guide—the closest thing is "Consider consulting Wikipedia's Manual of Style", which prescribes the use of × over x or *. If NHW users have decided on a different convention, our style guide should be updated to reflect that. — Ardub23 (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I axed that since I've been going over a lot of these artifacts recently (side note - there may be a couple more changes incoming regarding actual gameplay stuff, I'll try to stick to the style guide). In all honesty, it's mostly for ctrl-f reasons. Some of the artifacts it actually matters a lot whether they're 2x or not, and I like being able to find all of the 2x ones immediately.
I'd be happy to discuss this more, I'm "rikersan" on IRC or discord. Try #nethack-hardfought on freenode.
--EasterlyIrk (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
If the issue is ease of finding artifacts that have a certain attribute, I think there's got to be a better solution, one that doesn't come at the cost of looking less professional. If each artifact had its own page, it'd be easy—we could just put them into categories like "Artifact weapons that deal double damage". But I think we can agree that the eight zillion non-vanilla artifacts aren't all notable enough to have their own articles.
The other solution I thought of is to put them all into a great big table with sortable columns, which would make finding shared attributes even easier than Ctrl-F. The only problem I see with that is there may be too many different attributes people might want to sort by, meaning lots of columns. That could possibly be mitigated by having abbreviated column headers—a column labeled "W", for instance, for "wishable" (with a key above the table to explain the abbreviations). Then each artifact could just have ✓ or ✗ in that column.
What do you think? Any other ideas? — Ardub23 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I see no reason to change it from its current state. It's relatively easy to find anything you're looking for. The only things I think could use a change would be standardizing the order for all the statistics (i.e. the first line is "drow noble-favoring intelligent droven spear", the second is "+1d5 to-hit and +1d10 damage", then goes on to list each ability with a designated order), but that's going a lot of work considering there's around 72 invoke commands alone with at least that many flags. I believe NeroOneTrueKing was working on some sort of in-game menu for artifact (and item) stats though, so eventually there will be an actual official format.
Is there any real issue with the list as-is? IMO, the only issues are that not every role has its own artifact section (which shouldn't happen though, since there are good reasons why it's in this ordeR), some artifacts aren't here (esp. my artifacts, the arc quest redesign and the death-spear of vhaerun), and that some attributes may be wrong (see my latest spidersilk change, it didn't even do sleep poison until I fixed the code). But in terms of formatting and everything I'm pretty sure it's okay?
(side note - average damage numbers would be nice, but that's also something I'll mention to Nero, and his descriptions may be pull-able into here). --EasterlyIrk (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)