Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Moopli]

Ah, right, right, it's client-side. The MediaWiki API docs suggest using JSONP requests, but of course that's a security risk and just-about-requires use of the API...

[Nunzillor]

Skills and stats are repeated twice in character pages when the site is viewed in mobile mode.  I can't fix it,  but I thought I'd point it out for those who can.

[Parisbre56]

Oh, sorry, my fault. I'm using a hidden table and apparently the phone version changes the style of the tables and unhides it. I'll fix it when I get back to my PC.

[Nunzillor]

It's working now.  Thanks!

[AoshimaMichio]

http://einsteinianroulette.wikia.com/wiki/Artifact_Data

This page, but more updated, could serve that purpose.

Relevant data on that page is kind of lost in sea of other information. And purpose of that Artifact Data is more to provide list of things not researched yet, or so I believe was the original idea. I was thinking something along Weapons Statistics page. It would result duplicate data, but... Hmm, I don't know...

It would be nice to able to link directly to the used material. For example all blueradite references in blaster weapons pages so people would quickly find out what kind of stuff blueradite is.

[syvarris]

I was looking at the wiki, and noticed that Milnoplate is marked as developed by "Caellath (HMRC), syvarris(?) (ARM)".  Technically, while I designed the current armory item from scratch, the idea was taken completely from Cael.  The only original concept is the addition of hexsand armor to the flight variant.

I'm wondering if I should remove my mention entirely, or just the question mark.  The former seems better, because Cael should probably be paid the royalties, and having two designers listed would be confusing.

Thoughts?

[renegadelobster]

Maybe have "original version-Cael, updated version-syvarris"?

[Radio Controlled]

I'd say you put in enough effort to deserve credit, both for the armory mention and getting tokens from a sale. You'd have to make an agreement with cael of course, but far as I see you actually did a lo of the work with working out prices and such.

[syvarris]

I think the (HMRC) and (ARM) designations serve that purpose fine.  My main concern is token payments--Removing the question mark makes it ambiguous who gets paid when it's bought.

Unrelated: Can I remove the civic defender's longcoat from the armory?  It's completely inferior to the sharksuit, and people have been buying it in preference.  I'd have already done it, except I designed the sharksuit, and therefore might be unknowingly biased.

[Radio Controlled]

As said, you need to contact cael to work that out, but in my hardly relevant opinion you deserve (part of) the money.

As for the second, perhaps just add a tag saying it's outdated and replaced by sharksuit? People might still want it for rp reasons ("I think it looks cooler." Or "I don't trust sharkmist nanobots.")

[AoshimaMichio]

The word is "deprecated".

[NAV]

I don't think the rules for being payed for player designed items are on the wiki yet. Can someone please tell me what they are or link me to them? I'm planning on putting them on the Tinker page, but if there's a better place let me know.

[Nikitian]

I think the (HMRC) and (ARM) designations serve that purpose fine.  My main concern is token payments--Removing the question mark makes it ambiguous who gets paid when it's bought.

Unrelated: Can I remove the civic defender's longcoat from the armory?  It's completely inferior to the sharksuit, and people have been buying it in preference.  I'd have already done it, except I designed the sharksuit, and therefore might be unknowingly biased.

My intention was to split off a second "Armory" page (Back of the Armory? Custom and Rare Stuff? Something like that) and to move there any and all entries that have not been explicitly approved for Armory inclusion (or didn't come as part of Piecewise-approved item list). That would deal with Civic Defender's longcoat, as well as a large number of other obscure things.
(Then the cull of 'old approved items' would slowly follow, figuring out straight replacements and removing the officially now-obsolete items (Mk I, Mk II, etc.). )

I simply didn't have enough time to do such a large change on my own, so I put the idea on hold for now.

I'd say you put in enough effort to deserve credit, both for the armory mention and getting tokens from a sale. You'd have to make an agreement with cael of course, but far as I see you actually did a lo of the work with working out prices and such.

I agree. Perhaps we could have Piecewise allow full dividends to all people who participated in (consecutive) creation of an item in a major enough way? (Judged by some neutral third party. Maybe even have the Council do it, or some other committee. )

I don't think the rules for being payed for player designed items are on the wiki yet. Can someone please tell me what they are or link me to them? I'm planning on putting them on the Tinker page, but if there's a better place let me know.

Uh, it's 25% of the item's price, rounded up (except for 1-token items, for them it's 1 token per 2 items sold, to avoid abuse).

(Another thing I've planned to add to the wiki, but never followed through (except for the category of player-made designs for easy reference). Sorry.)

[syvarris]

Updated the Milnoplate page with what Cael and I have agreed upon so far.  I offered to let him have 100%, and will fix the wiki if he changes his mind.

Is it understandable?  I tried to make the wording unambiguous.

@Nik

I didn't know we'd changed to 1-for-2.  I don't really see how it prevents abuse, considering you can still sell two one token items back for two tokens.  Also, 1-for-2 makes keeping track of when someone gets paid harder.  What if one person buys a 1 token item, and then someone else buys it too a couple of months later?  Who'll remember?

I still think we should just give fractional tokens, which are unusable and untradable until they become full tokens--like how partial bars from melting work in DF.

[Nikitian]

I didn't know we'd changed to 1-for-2.  I don't really see how it prevents abuse, considering you can still sell two one token items back for two tokens.  Also, 1-for-2 makes keeping track of when someone gets paid harder.  What if one person buys a 1 token item, and then someone else buys it too a couple of months later?  Who'll remember?

I still think we should just give fractional tokens, which are unusable and untradable until they become full tokens--like how partial bars from melting work in DF.

Well, that is rules abuse by intention, and it gets prevented by Nyars bat. Before that, I was talking about 'honest' abuse and skewered results - or rather, that Piecewise couldn't accept that, so this was the best deal that could have been brokered (it puts the output of 1-token items to the same rate as 2-token ones - 50% return on item price).

And the rules are generous as the are and non-fractional because it's not really expected that more than one item would ever be sold; judging by diversity of ARM arsenal, things vary a lot. Of course, some items might be more popular, but the bottom line are the unpopular ones, and treating them fairly. (While, of course, incentivising - not requiring - to create 'popular' items which are sold well.)

As a system, it's a more or less fair one towards what it tries to accomplish, and that's what matters, I guess. Any system would've been mixed blessing here.