Difference between revisions of "Talk:Magic contamination"
(Created page with "==="Relatively harmless"=== The "History" section should be revised - after all, we don't want newbies misinterpreting the statement "relatively harmless glow from Sticky Fla...") |
(→Wiki "Contam Points" vs Contamination: re: 1000 is better than 1) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==="Relatively harmless"=== | ==="Relatively harmless"=== | ||
| − | The "History" section should be revised - after all, we don't want newbies misinterpreting the statement "relatively harmless glow from Sticky Flame" and thinking that Sticky Flame is useless (player spell) or harmless (monster spell)! | + | The "History" section should be revised - after all, we don't want newbies misinterpreting the statement "relatively harmless glow from Sticky Flame" and thinking that Sticky Flame is useless (player spell) or harmless (monster spell)! [[User:Jwoodward48ss|Jwoodward48ss]] ([[User talk:Jwoodward48ss|talk]]) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (CEST) |
| + | :I think the sentence indicates pretty clearly that the glow from Sticky Flame is a side effect, and if a newbie wants more detail about it, they can just click the link, and the Sticky Flame page explains very well why it's a powerful spell. Then again if you want to rephrase it you're always free to do so. -- [[User:Fingolfin|Fingolfin]] ([[User talk:Fingolfin|talk]]) 10:52, 3 September 2016 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Wiki "Contam Points" vs Contamination == | ||
| + | |||
| + | As far as I can tell, contam "points" - being 1000x smaller than what's stated in the coded (see {{source ref|0.29.0|player.cc|3959}}, etc.) - originate from the wiki. So why keep it? Right now I added some out of place warnings to any place that cites contam. Displaying it as 5 instead of 5000 does help readability, and inertia is a strong force. [[User:Hordes|Hordes]] ([[User talk:Hordes|talk]]) 23:15, 18 October 2022 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : I agree that it's better to use numbers from the source code than use our own scale, which requires scary warnings on relevant pages. Also, speaking about readability, the current "-0.025 per turn instead of -0.075" and "Disjunction had .75 - .799 contamination on cast" will be more readable if we switch to the proper numbers. [[User:Ge0ff|Ge0ff]] ([[User talk:Ge0ff|talk]]) 13:34, 20 October 2022 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:34, 20 October 2022
"Relatively harmless"
The "History" section should be revised - after all, we don't want newbies misinterpreting the statement "relatively harmless glow from Sticky Flame" and thinking that Sticky Flame is useless (player spell) or harmless (monster spell)! Jwoodward48ss (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (CEST)
- I think the sentence indicates pretty clearly that the glow from Sticky Flame is a side effect, and if a newbie wants more detail about it, they can just click the link, and the Sticky Flame page explains very well why it's a powerful spell. Then again if you want to rephrase it you're always free to do so. -- Fingolfin (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2016 (CEST)
Wiki "Contam Points" vs Contamination
As far as I can tell, contam "points" - being 1000x smaller than what's stated in the coded (see player.cc:3959 (0.29.0), etc.) - originate from the wiki. So why keep it? Right now I added some out of place warnings to any place that cites contam. Displaying it as 5 instead of 5000 does help readability, and inertia is a strong force. Hordes (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2022 (CEST)
- I agree that it's better to use numbers from the source code than use our own scale, which requires scary warnings on relevant pages. Also, speaking about readability, the current "-0.025 per turn instead of -0.075" and "Disjunction had .75 - .799 contamination on cast" will be more readable if we switch to the proper numbers. Ge0ff (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2022 (CEST)
