Difference between revisions of "Talk:Judge"

From Discworld MUD Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(devblog)
 
(31 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<!--Chat: Moved 'deletions' section in from research tab, as it didn't belong there-->
+
{{archives|numarchives=1}}
==Deletions==
+
__TOC__{{-}}
Props to you guys for working out a proper rating system!
+
  
I have issue, though, with the deletion of the "Excellent weapon" pages: They're useful in that many players will only want to see the weapons in the 15th category of quality. Even if we scrap the pages in question, there needs to be a simple way to separate the "best" weapons from the not-so-great ones.
+
==All change!==
  
If we proceed with the deletion of the "Excellent" category pages, I propose that we add a second sortable table to each page, including only the 15th quality category.
+
As of {{Devblog|357 this announcement}}, judge has been significantly changed.  This means that judge can't be used to determine rating anymore until we do enough research to work out the new judge formula (and even then, the new formula may be such that it doesn't help determine rating with any degree of accuracy).
  
[[User:TherionAndAlts|-TherionAndAlts]] 06:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
+
I've archived all the old judge discussion (since it mostly related to the judge/rating mechanism, and isn't really applicable anymore).
  
:Why would we need a second table?  Sortability means that there ''is'' a simple way to separate out the best weapons: sort by rating and only look at that chunk of the table. ETA: And there's a good reason ''not'' to have two tables: unnecessary redundancy. It'll be two things to update on that page every time you add an excellent weapon (or change its judge info, or give it a more precise weight). I'm actually ambivalent about having those tables there at all, for that same reason, since they have to be updated by hand.  You can't just add a weapon article; you also have to go to its category page and update ''that''.  It's very useful to see them all in one place, yes, but I think the right thing would be to have the tables generated automatically... I'm just not sure if that's even possible here.  Anyway... there's also the question of where to put the cutoff.  If a weapon has a rating of exactly 94 or 95, is it excellent, or not?  Anyone with a high bonus will get "extremely good".  Would that mean that if you don't have a high enough bonus, you can't put something in that category?  --[[User:Ilde|Ilde]] 09:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
+
--[[User:Chat|Chat]] 19:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  
::The second table allows people to sort ''only'' "excellent" weapons by weight, specials, etc. You can use the main table, if you like (that's what it's there for), but the second cuts out the dross such as butterknives and rubber chickens, which many players don't care about because they're not "excellent." I often use the second tables for that reason; I care about the weight of a tiger fang relative to a kodachi, but not the kodachi relative to a copper short sword. (Insanity actually requested that we ''expand'' the second table, to include "Extremely good" weapons as well!)
+
I'll bug you later about it but fwiw, when using judge against at approx a 275 bonus statted i was able to start comparing damage with weapons as well, below that i was only getting attack ease and parry ease when using judge against with two weapons.
::If you, or anyone else, can work out a way to automagically generate tables filled with article data, then I'm all for it! The current tables are the way they are because I wished to add sortability but am inept with Wiki code. The current tables are not hassle-free, but I feel that the small amount of extra work involved is worth the return in convenience until such time as an automagical table can be generated.
+
--[[User:Inige|Inige]]
::As to the exact cutoff, I think we can work that out when we find someone with a high enough ot.ev.we bonus, and enough patience, to determine exact ratings for each and every weapon. In the meantime, I'm happy to have a broad range; since the "excellent" tables are now "100 club" tables, we can use the broad range of, say, 94-100, since that is the range in which judge will have an "excellent" result.
+
::[[User:TherionAndAlts|-TherionAndAlts]] 12:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
+
  
:::Hrm.  As I see it, there are essentially four main problems with having a second table, by whatever name:
+
==Regarding stats influencing judge==
:::*'''Some weapons will need to be added twice''' - once to the 'normal table', once to the 'special table'.  Ilde has already gone over this point above, so I won't elaborate much - essentially the issue here is that it's then easy for the information in both tables to get out of sync.
+
:::*'''Where is the cut off?''' - It looks like everyone wants this at a different level! 
+
:::**It's currently (roughly) a rating of 94+
+
:::**Insanity says he wants 'extremely good' too? Well, that's anything from 81+ to 89+. 
+
:::**Perhaps we want round numbers - 80+ or 90+?
+
:::**Someone really picky might only want 98+
+
:::*'''You can't determine rating accurately enough''' (or at least, you can't using judge).  Say Alice, with ad.ev.we bonus 400, judges the 'Womblefork' weapon (which actually has a rating of 95) as 'Extremely good'.  She would enter the weapon has having rating 89-95.  Now Bob, with ad.ev.we bonus 163, judges the 'Froghammer' weapon (which actually has a rating of 94) as 'Excellent'.  He would enter the weapon as having rating 94-100.  Most 'elite weapon' tables will now end up including the Froghammer, but not the Womblefork - despite the fact that the Womblefork actually has a higher rating.
+
:::*'''Is rating the thing you really want to use to distinguish weapons?'''.  Rating is a fairly generic measure, which is used in the judge command to give a single representation of the weapon's quality.  It's based purely on the weapon's average and max base damage, and isn't always the most appropriate measure.  Consider now the following weapons:
+
  
::::{|class="wikitable" border="1"
+
Just a heads up to whoever else that may be researching judge values of weapons, strength influences the results, regardless of bonus. Strength seems to influence ease of attacking and parry so far. For instance, going from a 19 to 21 in strength makes a custom katana move up 1 notch in ease of attacking. Some weapons move up an entire judge rank, typically from rather good to very good. Also there was a bug with judge that gave bad results. It was fixed on the 17th of February.
    !Name
+
    !Min dmg
+
    !Ave dmg
+
    !Max dmg
+
    !Rating (derived)
+
    !Weight
+
    !Difficulty 
+
    |-
+
    |''Foobane''
+
    |50
+
    |100
+
    |150
+
    |60
+
    |5 lb
+
    |40
+
    |-
+
    |''Frogcleaver''
+
    |110
+
    |110
+
    |110
+
    |57
+
    |4 lb
+
    |50
+
    |-
+
    |''Blade of Fluff''
+
    |50
+
    |105
+
    |160
+
    |64
+
    |10 lb
+
    |75
+
    |-
+
    |''Gunfork''
+
    |0
+
    |90
+
    |180
+
    |62
+
    |3 lb
+
    |20
+
    |-
+
    |}
+
  
::::Alice the Assassin is off to kill giant spiders. She's probably best off using ''Frogcleaver'' here, as average damage will be most relevant to her attacks. Were she to choose a weapon based on rating, however, she'd go with the ''Blade of Fluff'', which would actually be less effective.
+
* Some more info on the strength stat influence. It seems that it even helps with lower strengths to have a str boost. With a glass shard, for example, going from a 14 to 16 str with gauntlets increases its ease of attack from very easy to extremely easy. Going from a 19 to 21 increased this from extremely easy to incredibly easy.
  
::::So should we order on average damage instead?  No.  Bob the Barbarian is off to kill Troll Grflxen. A Troll Grflx has very tough skin that absorbs 160 hitpoints off all damage.  Choosing either ''Blade of Fluff'' (best by rating) or ''Frogcleaver'' (best by average damage) would be foolish - poor Bob won't damage those Troll Grfxen at all!  He should go with the fearsome ''Gunfork'' here (best by max damage).
+
* increasing dexterity to 23 from 21 did nothing to change the judge results. The judge results were also the same at 21 dex as at 16 dex.
  
::::Polly the Priest is now off on a jaunt through Ankh-Morpork, killing a pretty random selection of things (with varying levels of armouredness).  She wants a good all-round weapon, so rating is probably more relevant to her than either max or average damage alone.  She therefore chooses the sturdy ''Blade of Fluff''.  But wait!  Would she be better off using the ''Foobane'' instead?  Sure, it does slightly less average and max damage, but it weighs half as much and is easier to use.  She won't hit as hard using it, but she'll hit more often, and be less likely to miss, and that will probably more than compensate.
+
* decreasing constitution from 10 to 5 did nothing to change judge results for maces or axes.
  
::::The moral of the story here is, we should probably just present all the data that is available, and let the viewer decide how to order it.
+
--[[User:Baldarov|Baldarov]]
  
:::Given the above issues, I think we're probably best off just with having a big sortable list in the categories - if the viewer wants to see the 'best weapons', let them sort the table according to whatever criteria they desire.
+
Since Judge has so far only been affected by changes in strength and the only things noticeably affected have been ease of attack info and parry capability, I'm trying to figure out a good place to put info regarding this. At the moment, if there is a change in a weapon's judge with regards to strength, I've been putting a note on the page for that weapon. However, this doesn't give the strength that the original judge info was checked with or anything. Perhaps some sort of template can be figured out for this so that it can be added to the weapon's individual page? Also, some sort of baseline strength needs to be figured out. A judge at 8 strength can be for different than at 25. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone with an 8 strength and high ad.ev.we. Then again, I don't know many people.
  
:::On a related note, I think what we actually want for weapons in general is to install either the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_MediaWiki SMW] or [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Data Data] extensions - that way auto-updating tables can be created.
+
Right now I've decided to put the strength judged at in the weapon info box. It will not be viewable however so I have no idea if this is good or not.
:::--[[User:Chat|Chat]] 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
+
  
::::Ooooo! I like the look of [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_MediaWiki SMW] better--[http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Africa this page] looks like exactly the kind of thing we want, whereas I don't see an example of anything like that for Data.
+
--[[User:Baldarov|Baldarov]]
::::--[[User:Ilde|Ilde]] 20:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
+
  
:::''The current tables are not hassle-free, but I feel that the small amount of extra work involved is worth the return in convenience until such time as an automagical table can be generated.''
+
:I've added the display for it, just add a line with "Judge-str = (stat)" like in [[Large axe]].
:::Oh, I definitely agree there.  It's miles better than ''not'' having the tables and it seems like the best we can do with the wiki as it currently is.  It just offends my delicate sensibilities to, basically, have it as a table instead of a view. ;)
+
:Once we figure out how it affects the rest we can retrofit the template to display the relationship better.
:::--[[User:Ilde|Ilde]] 20:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
+
:--[[User:Frazyl|Frazyl]] 09:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  
::::Keep in mind that the second table is only linked from the main weapon page; the players that don't want to use it don't have to. It's there for the ones that do.
+
::I guess we could add a variable for parry and ease of attack for every qualifiers to put the str value of the lowest one that gives this result. Like Judge-ease-very-easy=12 but that would require the whole lot of them to be put in so you'd see for example for the rapier:
::::The cutoff is not really as relevant to me as the ability to sort by multiple conditions. Since I don't know how to make a single table that allows you to sort primarily by rating region (I propose 95-100, since iirc that's the widest range that can possibly show up as excellent) and then sort ''that'' by weight, the second table (which shows the weapons that fall between the example of 95-100), is useful.
+
::Ease of attack: easy at 12 str
::::If you know how to make a table sortable by multiple parameters, then I'd be all for the single table; but as it is, we don't have such a method. Once we do, the second table can be dropped with no complaints from me.
+
::::::rather easy at 17 str
::::Regarding your example, is there actually a way to accurately determine the base damage of a weapon (without knowing its exact rating), its difficulty, and the relative power of its specials? If an accurate and objective method exists, I'd like to add that to the infoboxes and tables; they would be a great way to differentiate the weapons.
+
::::::very easy at 23 str
::::I use the rating to sort weapons because, as far as I am aware, it is the only objective way to determine a weapon's quality in terms of hard data.
+
  
::::It's also worth pointing out that if we install the SMW or Data extensions, the problem of out-of-sync tables are solved, and the only remaining issue is the cutoff.
+
::But that's still rather unwieldy.
::::[[User:TherionAndAlts|-TherionAndAlts]] 00:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
+
::Maybe something like the bars could have little numbers above it indicating the str needed for each additional bar, but the numbers would need to be very bunched up together since it varies slowly and the str is in the two digits.
 +
::--[[User:Frazyl|Frazyl]] 20:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 +
:::Wish I knew more about how to do such things. Perhaps now that I have time I will poke around at it. Not going to promise anything though. I think a drop down menu above the judge info where you could select the strength there would be nice but no idea on how to accomplish that...
 +
:::--[[User:Baldarov|Baldarov]] 23:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 +
::::Alrighty then, I did up a different layout for the whole strength thing. To see it, check out [[fine sabre]]. Will do the others the same way till something better is done up.
 +
::::--[[User:Baldarov|Baldarov]] 21:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  
:::::This seems to work: sort by the least important attribute first, then by the most important attribute. So, sorting by weight and ''then'' by rating will mean that, within a group where the rating is the same for all of them, records are sorted by weight. --[[User:Ilde|Ilde]] 01:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
+
*Ok, how does everyone feel about making the Strength chart thing I've done up as a standard thing on all weapon pages? At least til someone can come up with something better. Even if people are unable to judge at multiple strengths, at least the one strength they judged it at could be put on this chart. Up to everyone else though. I'm ok with doing it as I have, just adding it as found out but I can also see the convenience of the other way.
  
::::::How exactly did you achieve this? If it does work, then we've solved out problem. [[User:TherionAndAlts|-TherionAndAlts]] 01:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
+
If so, could then remove the strength stat from from the weaponinfo box.
 
+
--[[User:Baldarov|Baldarov]] 22:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Exactly the way I described.  First click the thing at the top to sort by weight, then click the one to sort by rating. I assume that when it sorts two records that are the same with regards to the column you're using to sort, it just leaves them in whatever order they were in. --[[User:Ilde|Ilde]] 01:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
+
 
+
::::::::Excellent, though unless I'm mistaken, that only solves the problem so long as the ratings are displayed as broad ranges. Once we cut the ratings down to tighter ranges and eventually accurate values, the problem will arise again (because the ratings being so precise will render the multiple-sorting function essentially meaningless). [[User:TherionAndAlts|-TherionAndAlts]] 02:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
+
 
+
==Specials==
+
It seems you don't always get told which specials are available with a weapon... perhaps this depends on whether you ''have'' those specials?  When I judged Sarilak with a character without any specials (but an ad.ev.we bonus of 192), it didn't tell me the specials even when I succeeded... but now I'm judging it again, with a character who only has 188 ev.we (but who has a lot more specials available) and I'm seeing that it can be used to pierce and slice. --[[User:Ilde|Ilde]] 01:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
+
 
+
:I propose having that character learn commands, one at a time. Judge Sarilak after every new command, and if the specials appear only after you learn them, then there's your answer. :) [[User:TherionAndAlts|-TherionAndAlts]] 02:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
+

Latest revision as of 16:44, 3 October 2011

Filing cabinet.gif Old content for this page has been archived, and can be found at the following locations.
Judge/Archive 1

All change!

As of this announcement , judge has been significantly changed. This means that judge can't be used to determine rating anymore until we do enough research to work out the new judge formula (and even then, the new formula may be such that it doesn't help determine rating with any degree of accuracy).

I've archived all the old judge discussion (since it mostly related to the judge/rating mechanism, and isn't really applicable anymore).

--Chat 19:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll bug you later about it but fwiw, when using judge against at approx a 275 bonus statted i was able to start comparing damage with weapons as well, below that i was only getting attack ease and parry ease when using judge against with two weapons. --Inige

Regarding stats influencing judge

Just a heads up to whoever else that may be researching judge values of weapons, strength influences the results, regardless of bonus. Strength seems to influence ease of attacking and parry so far. For instance, going from a 19 to 21 in strength makes a custom katana move up 1 notch in ease of attacking. Some weapons move up an entire judge rank, typically from rather good to very good. Also there was a bug with judge that gave bad results. It was fixed on the 17th of February.

  • Some more info on the strength stat influence. It seems that it even helps with lower strengths to have a str boost. With a glass shard, for example, going from a 14 to 16 str with gauntlets increases its ease of attack from very easy to extremely easy. Going from a 19 to 21 increased this from extremely easy to incredibly easy.
  • increasing dexterity to 23 from 21 did nothing to change the judge results. The judge results were also the same at 21 dex as at 16 dex.
  • decreasing constitution from 10 to 5 did nothing to change judge results for maces or axes.

--Baldarov

Since Judge has so far only been affected by changes in strength and the only things noticeably affected have been ease of attack info and parry capability, I'm trying to figure out a good place to put info regarding this. At the moment, if there is a change in a weapon's judge with regards to strength, I've been putting a note on the page for that weapon. However, this doesn't give the strength that the original judge info was checked with or anything. Perhaps some sort of template can be figured out for this so that it can be added to the weapon's individual page? Also, some sort of baseline strength needs to be figured out. A judge at 8 strength can be for different than at 25. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone with an 8 strength and high ad.ev.we. Then again, I don't know many people.

Right now I've decided to put the strength judged at in the weapon info box. It will not be viewable however so I have no idea if this is good or not.

--Baldarov

I've added the display for it, just add a line with "Judge-str = (stat)" like in Large axe.
Once we figure out how it affects the rest we can retrofit the template to display the relationship better.
--Frazyl 09:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess we could add a variable for parry and ease of attack for every qualifiers to put the str value of the lowest one that gives this result. Like Judge-ease-very-easy=12 but that would require the whole lot of them to be put in so you'd see for example for the rapier:
Ease of attack: easy at 12 str
rather easy at 17 str
very easy at 23 str
But that's still rather unwieldy.
Maybe something like the bars could have little numbers above it indicating the str needed for each additional bar, but the numbers would need to be very bunched up together since it varies slowly and the str is in the two digits.
--Frazyl 20:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Wish I knew more about how to do such things. Perhaps now that I have time I will poke around at it. Not going to promise anything though. I think a drop down menu above the judge info where you could select the strength there would be nice but no idea on how to accomplish that...
--Baldarov 23:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty then, I did up a different layout for the whole strength thing. To see it, check out fine sabre. Will do the others the same way till something better is done up.
--Baldarov 21:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, how does everyone feel about making the Strength chart thing I've done up as a standard thing on all weapon pages? At least til someone can come up with something better. Even if people are unable to judge at multiple strengths, at least the one strength they judged it at could be put on this chart. Up to everyone else though. I'm ok with doing it as I have, just adding it as found out but I can also see the convenience of the other way.

If so, could then remove the strength stat from from the weaponinfo box. --Baldarov 22:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)