Print

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

[gtmattz]

There is nothing in the column for the modifiers for weapons and armor utility... Is this simply an oversight or have they changed so we don't have the correct info to put in? or have they been removed altogether?  I am pretty sure that my dwarves outfitted in masterwork gear still perform better than dwarves in no-quality stuff? 

[Draco18s]

All of that info is in the 40d version of the page.  I moved stuff over once but some jerkoff (read: wiki moderator) decided that because it was "duplicate information" and of "questionable veracity" it was removed.

[G-Flex]

All of that info is in the 40d version of the page.  I moved stuff over once but some jerkoff (read: wiki moderator) decided that because it was "duplicate information" and of "questionable veracity" it was removed.

Are you talking about the weapon/armor damage/protection multipliers from 40d? And you moved them to the DF2010 version of the article?

In that case, no, he wasn't being a jerkoff, you were being presumptuous. Those modifiers don't even exist in the current versions.


If you're going to move content over to the new-version namespace, make sure it's actually correct, and don't insult moderators for having to clean up your mistakes.


[edit]
VengefulDonut pretty much covered this, but you don't seem to know what the "verify" tag is for on the wiki. You aren't supposed to add content that isn't verified, for one thing (this is stated on the wiki in probably several places, including that big box at the top of every page). The tag is for marking stuff that is on a page but that you think might need to be verified. It's a way to mark problematic content, not a way to get away with adding problematic content yourself. And in this case, the material you added wasn't even controversial; it's fairly common knowledge (among those who paid attention to .31's development) that the old armor/weapon damage multipliers are gone. A little bit of research and asking around could have clarified this.

People copying over information from the 40d namespace without verifying it first is a serious problem; it clutters up the wiki with information that isn't (or at least may not be) true anymore. If policy were to copy over all the old information and then change it as we notice that things are different, then the new namespace wouldn't have started off blank.

[Draco18s]

In that case, no, he wasn't being a jerkoff, you were being presumptuous. Those modifiers don't even exist in the current versions.

If you're going to move content over to the new-version namespace, make sure it's actually correct, and don't insult moderators for having to clean up your mistakes.

You mean like this sentence which explicitly states that such modifiers are still present? :|

Toady gave us a quote on weapon and armor quality, giving the game qualities of an "artifact" in DF2010:

3) Armor deflection roll has *3 roll modifier instead of the masterwork's *2.

That not only indicates that Masterwork items have a *2 bonus (exactly the same as 40d) and that Artifacts also have a bonus (*3).

And the primary reason for it being deleted was in fact "Duplicate Information" and not the questionable veracity.

[G-Flex]

Yes, there are still modifiers. However, the modifiers do not work the same way anymore. They don't apply to the same things or in the same way (for instance, there's no damage multiplier). Also, when is that Toady quote from? And what are the multipliers for the OTHER quality levels (we just don't know)? And does that also apply to weapons? And how? The fact is that these modifiers are necessarily going to be different for the new version since damn near nothing is calculated the same. You cannot simply assume that they're the same ones as before, and even if they are, we know they don't affect the same things as before.

Basically, you saw "there's still some sort of quality modifier for armor, and it's 2x for masterpiece and 3x for artifact" and took the unwarranted logical leap from that to "the quality modifiers for armor and weapons are both the same as before and serve the same purpose as before as well" (which we know for a fact is not true).



First off, you copy-pasted a *lot* of stuff, not just the table and the modifiers in it. Christ, you copied over damn near the entire 40d article, and made it pretty clear that you didn't bother verifying any of it. So it's not just about weapon/armor modifiers, it's about all the content you copy-pasted over, which is something you aren't supposed to do in the first place.

Have you noticed this giant box at the top of each page that says this inside?

Do not copy/paste old information into new articles without verifying it first.

So yeah. The information about armor/weapon multipliers is out of date, unverified, and in some spots known to be wrong in the new version, regardless of what Toady said in that one quote (which, I might add, is in the article itself now, which would have been a better idea). That, and that's only a small percentage of the unverified info you blindly copy-pasted in.

And the primary reason for it being deleted was in fact "Duplicate Information" and not the questionable veracity.

Did you read any of what he said to you? His edit summary was (emphasis mine):

Let's not copy/paste existing articles and pretend they're verified for 0.31, k? There's a link to the thing already.

And his initial comment on your userpage begins with this:

Please don't add information to an article unless you know it's true. We all suspect that a lot of information that was true about 40d is true about 0.31, but for most of it we don't know. So for information that might be true, look at the 40d article. For information that you're sure  is true, put it in the 0.31 article. From the comments you added, it became clear that most (if not all) of the things you copy/pasted are things you suspect are true.

You responded to this by being really confused over what the verify tag is for (or rather, being your old self and assuming that it's intended for something it isn't), and saying you'd "shut the fuck up" because you're "clearly [...] not wanted". VengefulDonut tried to calm the situation down and explain how the tag is used, and apologized for pissing you off (which wasn't even necessary on his part), and you remained obstinate, apparently going as far as to call him a "jerkoff" for actually understanding how the wiki works and trying to explain it to you.



Quite frankly, this isn't even the first time you've acted like this. There have been other cases of you copying over old content to new pages without verifying, or cross-linking 2010 namespace articles to 40d articles (although I'm not sure of policy on that), and do you remember that time months ago when you were making really angry comments (on the wiki and forums, I believe) about how there's no way to watch a page, without bothering to ask anyone or find out? You honestly come off as extremely presumptuous and as if you'd rather whine and complain about things you don't understand before even making an attempt to understand them.

The fact that you're bitching out and insulting wiki moderators/contributors on the forum for correcting your mistakes (and for apologizing after getting bitched out by you) is pretty telling.

[Draco18s]

Let me make this very clear.

I was wrong.  But I'm still not happy about it.

Kapish?

[Aramco]

See? He admits it. He is also sad and or angry about it.

[G-Flex]

Yeah, I had that much figured out from the start.