User talk:Talkerst

From Diablo Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Skills[edit source]

Level 60 data? Really? I think we need a different plan, like a level split starting with level 1. Thanks. --Wynthyst 16:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree but right now we only have the level 60 data that blizzard has provided. We won't know how skills change on a per level basis until we can start testing them. The current "script formula" that is in the descriptions provides 0 information. At least until we can figure out the true rate the level 60 info provides some useful data. Also, the level 60 info is what is displayed by the DiabloFans' skills tool. --Talkerst 16:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Have you seen the skill calculator on Dfans? Those calculations are based on the script formulas I believe.... you can get numbers for each level of the skill. Seems like a perfect resource if you ask me. --Wynthyst 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
When you say Dfans do you mean DiabloFans? I've been over their skill calculator a couple times and it only give you the level 60/7 info (i.e. level 60 character using level 7 runes). If there is some way to enter a desired level I'd be most appreciative for a little help on how to do so. So far I haven't found any input boxes for it. --Talkerst 20:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Data navboxes[edit source]

They are not needed at all. Please remove them since that namespace will never be viewed by regular viewers. -Zhuge 12:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there some other way to efficiently move between Data:spell pages? At the moment making a change to all skills (which is almost a requirement for any template changes) is an incredibly cumbersome process. The ability to navigate between the Data:Spells pages is pretty important to speeding that up. I realize it's not something that will be needed by many but for those that do wish to make structural changes it is a big time savor. When making a few hundred menial changes extra mouse movements add up quick. Is it an issue of screen clutter? If it's usefulness is still unapparent I'll remove them when I've finished updating the classes for use with the updated D3_Skill template (should be finished some time tomorrow at the latest). --Talkerst 15:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes there is, -Zhuge 15:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The list is nice but it is still more cumbersome to edit all of them than directly linked data:spell pages. That being said, I can see the desire for minimalism so I will remove the nav boxes. -Talkerst 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not that "they are not needed at all", the point is they need to be placed on the Main namespace page, not the Data namespace page. Basically, avoid chain transclusions. For ease of editing, open up a bunch of tabs with all the pages you plan on editing... we shouldn't have to retrofit the data namespace pages for the sake of easy editing. (if you are confused about anything please PM us on the forums) -Apoc 15:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just use the breadcrumb arrows to jump between data namespace and main. --Wynthyst 18:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Some concerns[edit source]

I have some concerns that you are making the skill lists far too complicated to encourage participation by average users. While I understand that you are trying to streamline the process, if your average visitor to the wiki can't figure out how it works, they will never contribute. This wiki is already full of very complex templates, and I'd really like to see stuff made much more simple, even if it comes at the price of having to do more work. --Wynthyst 22:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a new template for the item lists that I whipped up. Wanted to see if people think it would be of any use or if it over complicates stuff (List Template Example). My goal was to simplify the process of making item lists down to the minimum information required. Basically you just enter in the header names and the list items, the template does all the formatting work/linking work. It's pretty robust and generic so you could even use it to fill out new sections (such as rares) without having to redo any already completed ones. -Talkerst 13:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Item Infobox[edit source]

I see you're adding a lot of variables to it. What's the plan with that item infobox design?--PhrozenDragon 21:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently there is no way to calculate the true DPS for Legendary/Set items as elemental effects are not added into the calculation. I was adding extra fields to specify the elemental (Holy, Fire, Cold, Lightning and Poison) damage adds so that the DPS for items with known adds can be calculated properly. You can see an example in my Sandbox3. Don't know if +attack per sec and +armor are needed. Will just remove them if not necessary. +Damage appears to be pre-factored into the base DPS so didn't need that one either. -Talkerst 21:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Finished making the DPS calculation changes. It will now take into account elemental damage and differing attack speeds. I checked it against a few different items on Blizzard's site and I get the same numbers they do. I threw in a few variables to hopefully make it easier to follow. This also allowed the DPS section to be greatly simplified, eliminating the need for two sections based on whether you were using damage_min or damage_min_min. Let me know what you think (Example). If everyone approves I'll push it out and the legendary's can finally have DPS values :D -Talkerst 19:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The only potential problem I see is not knowing how future datamined information is going to be labeled. So by eliminating existing fields and just making up your own, chances are it's all just going to get overwritten with the next data dump. Also, you need to make sure that all fields are optional and hidden if not used (I see that Attack Speed is still visible in your sandbox model). -- Wynthyst User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 19:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't eliminate any. I just added in new ones that lined up with the others. You can still use all the old parameters but they won't give an accurate DPS. Based on what was in the noinclude section I'm betting item_damage_min_min et. al. are derived as well and didn't come from the data mining. Given that there are only a few dozen legendary and set items ATM I'd rather have all the information in and have to redo the template to line up later on than have them be incomplete for a while.

As a side note I'm betting Blizz does some pretty hefty parsing/math to get their displayed values. If you can give me the exact values that can currently be mined I can probably create a template to do the same though it will not be simple. I could have come up with something based on what was already there but I wasn't sure if it had been added to. Also, I was trying to keep it simple by adding new easy to read values rather than having to parse the properties looking for ones that can add to damage. -Talkerst 20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand Talkerst, and I'm not trying to dis what you are doing, I'm all for us providing the most accurate information for our community as possible, I was just pointing out some possible pitfalls. :D I don't honestly know if or when we will be getting additional datamined info, it's just something we have to keep in mind as we are doing all of this. -- Wynthyst User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 05:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you planning to go back through all the weapons and armor that we have already completed to implement your changes to the infobox? -- Wynthyst User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 15:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The short answer is yes. The changes I made should have zero effect on existing items so it's something I was planning on doing at a more leisurely pace than the skills changes I did (I touched every skill like 3 times in under a week then). Also, the new fields are pretty self-explanatory so anyone should be able to use the to update an item if they find one that has old DPS info. Though if people could use the new fields on the items that haven't been entered yet, that would be great. Basically it's just a min/max for speed and naming the elemental adds as opposed to calling them propertyX. -Talkerst 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again... some concerns[edit source]

Talkerst, I know I sound like a broken record, however.... I simply feel I once again have to ask you to use the "KISS" theory always while you are making changes to stuff and/or designing new templates. In case you don't know what KISS stands for it's "Keep It Simple Stupid". You are once again leaning towards making multiple templates, that are going to be impossible for any average user to navigate through and use, you are adding layers of complexity that are going to get lost and broken often especially while we are still in Beta, and changes to both skills and items are going to occur often and repeatedly up until launch, and then with every update of the game.

Don't get me wrong, your enthusiasm is great, your ingenuity is to be commended, but think of your average player who is excited about the game, and wants to become involved by supporting our wiki and contributing.... they are going to take one look at your templates and run away screaming..... if it takes me more than a minute to figure out how a template is suppose to be used, and what adjustments need to be made to update information, it's too complicated. -- Wynthyst User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 23:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I want to say I assumed your lack of response to my changes when you commented on this in the community portal was tacit approval. That was my mistake and I will try to keep from jumping the gun so quickly. Is there a general time frame I should allow for comments before I push something live?
With that aside, up until this issue I've agreed with your concerns about me over complicating things. In this case though I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion. To me, most of the core templates will never be accessible to the casual wiki editor. Infobox_Item is a great example, no one who isn't an experienced wiki editor is going to take a look at that and feel confident making changes. In general, we don't want them to even try. So we just have to accept that some templates are too complex for casual editors. Once you do that, the next question should be what is the smart thing to do. By smart I don't mean cleaver, I mean what is going to make maintenance the easiest.
The DPS calculation is messy, and is only going to get uglier as time goes on. Before my change it was duplicated in two files. We aren't talking about two lines of code, there were a few thousand characters that were duplicated and they were not all collocated. This is going to be a major headache to maintain. So I moved the calculation to it's own template that can simply be included in the other templates that need it. Thus changes are done in one place only and automatically are used where needed. The problem with DPS is it requires a large number of parameters to calculate and passing them all in as named params would be a huge mess, so I compromised and passed them as unnamed.
This does make the DPS template a little harder to follow. To alleviate this I created copious amounts of documentation, way more than any other template. Any new, wiki savvy editor should be able to follow along after going through that. The standard for solving complex problems is to break them apart and document the hell out of each piece. I really believe this is the way we should be headed as opposed to trying to keep the templates so simple that anyone can access them when that is an unrealistic goal.
I actually have quite a bit more to say about this subject and the general way complexity is being handled but this is already a very long comment for a wiki discussion. I think I'll create a forum post to help keep this discussion organized. -Talkerst 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw... did you even NOTICE that the changes you were making to Template:D3 Skill will nullify the work I did for the past 2 days to get all the categorization done? I guess maybe I'm just missing where you are asking the questions, because I didn't see you ask anything about the skill resource stuff. -- Wynthyst User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 23:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, I didn't see what you were doing with categorization. However, I made sure that anything that was using the old spell_resource_type_en would still work correctly. I even kept it in Evasive Fire as to not break anything there. The only place that would have seen a change are ones that were trying to use the resource type as a unique field and in those rare instances it should have fixed problems. In fact, I don't see how it would have worked with your categorization? Wouldn't you have gotten a category that was Category: Hatred[br] Cost: 4 Discipline if you backflip Spender Skills? That doesn't seem like a good thing to me. I don't want to seem combative on this. I was trying to do something simple that solved a problem and didn't affect the existing pages except where desired. Maybe I acted in haste but I did make sure it was backwards compatible. Is there a different solution you would prefer, issues with the one I did you would like to discuss? -Talkerst 14:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you![edit source]

Curse would like to recognize the work and dedication of the wiki community administrators with a token of our thanks. To do that, we need mailing information. If you would like to participate, and receive our thank you gift email me at with your username, and real world mailing information. -- Wynthyst User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 16:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)