Talk:Weapons

From Discworld MUD Wiki
Revision as of 13:32, 25 August 2009 by Chat (Talk | contribs) (Disambiguation page?: Avoid disambig for heavy traffic; hatnotes and updating main page are a good idea though)

Jump to: navigation, search

The modification of damage formula for enchantments looks inconsistent with the the information in the distribution lib. Can the person who posted the formula cite their source?

The source was the mudlib I believe. Rehevkor 13:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed.
obj/weapon.c, lines 176-177:
  tmp = val + (val * query_enchant()) / (query_max_enchant() + query_enchant());
Subtract out the base damage:
  extra_dmg = base * query_enchant() / (query_max_enchant() + query_enchant())
Divide top and bottom by max_enchant gives:
  extra_dmg = base * fraction_enchant / (1 + fraction_enchant)
Then multiple top and bottom by 100 to use a percentage:
  extra_dmg = base * (%enchant / (100 + %enchant)
Which is what is in the article. --Chat 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's close. And probably close enough for _most_ integer math since the decimal bits get dropped off. But it's not right. Why not just leave it at the real formula so that it's right all the time?

The formula is as presented because:
  • Percentage enchantment is a much more relevant figure to players than absolute enchantment and max enchantment - the enchantment level you see when looking at an object (as a magic user) is directly related to the percentage enchantment. In order to get the absolute current and max enchantment levels, you need to use a thaumometer and the post office balance (and know the relevant conversions from the mudlib).
  • Presenting the data this way also highlights that the damage increment is (to all intents and purposes) independent of the weapon's maximum enchantment level, and thus, of the weapon's weight. See the text that follows the formula in the article.
  • The error introduced by conversion from discrete to continuous calculation here is at most 1hp of damage, and I call that sufficiently small as to be disregarded.
PS: Please sign and indent your talk edits:
  • You can sign edits by entering '~~~~' at the end of them.
  • You can indent by placing colons in front of your lines - one colon gives one level of indentation, two colons two levels, etc.
--Chat 17:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
... Wow. I'm sorry you see it that way. You're really bad at math. But I thought I'd see what the general opinion :was before I put the correct formula on the page. it looks like you're more interested in ... I don't know... What :are you interested in? I have no idea. I'll not edit the page then. Feel free to blank out after reading. You :definitely don't need anyone new's help in not maintaining this wiki thing. 70.16.25.125 21:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? The math is fine; all the steps check out. A percentage is just another way of expressing a fraction--a way that is, as Chat notes, more intuitive and appropriate in this case. It's just a different notation for the same thing. --Ilde 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation page?

Given that many people will be visiting a page entitled "Weapons" hoping to find a weapon database, I propose that we make the weapon lists easier to find. I see a couple ways to do this...
1. A disambiguation page, with two links: One to this (very good, by the way) article on weapon mechanics, and another to the weapon database.
2. A permanent link to Category:Weapons at the top of THIS page. I added one as a temporary solution, but of course we can change it later.
3. We could make the "Weapons" link on the main page go to Category:Weapons, and place the following header on THAT page: "This is a list of weapons currently and historically available in game. For detail on the mechanics and nature of weapons, click here."

Any thoughts?
-TherionAndAlts 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's true that everyone going to 'weapons' is necessarily looking for a list of them - I for one was expecting a page on weapon concepts, for example. However, I can certainly see that people could come here looking for a list, so some means of differentiating the two is clearly desirable.
Regarding the solutions you have proposed:
  • Disambiguation page: Disambigiation pages are fine for less common pages, but on the whole I suggest we should avoid using them for heavy traffic pages - they'll just slow people down frequently as they're browsing, creating a rather frustrating experience.
  • Cross-links: These I think are a better alternative if the pages are frequently visited, or one of the disambiguations is clearly more visited than the other. Note that we have the {{seealso}} template that can be used for this purpose.
  • Changing the main page link: I think I can go one better here, by changing the main page to have links to both this page and the list (ie. 'Weapons [List]') - that way it should be immediately obvious that there are multiple pages, and which is which. The same should presumably be done for armour.
--Chat 17:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)