Difference between revisions of "Talk:Elemental Staff"
(→Rare case of non-documented changes: new section) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:I've checked with [https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14787 the folks in Tavern], and while they couldn't confirm that two Evoc/27 tests (what LearnDB says) is correct, they DID confirm that it triggers often enough to be good at killing things. I'm switching it back for now, but if you can show me the source code that disagrees, I'll look into this further. --[[User:MoogleDan|MoogleDan]] ([[User talk:MoogleDan|talk]]) 14:40, 15 January 2015 (CET) | :I've checked with [https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14787 the folks in Tavern], and while they couldn't confirm that two Evoc/27 tests (what LearnDB says) is correct, they DID confirm that it triggers often enough to be good at killing things. I'm switching it back for now, but if you can show me the source code that disagrees, I'll look into this further. --[[User:MoogleDan|MoogleDan]] ([[User talk:MoogleDan|talk]]) 14:40, 15 January 2015 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Rare case of non-documented changes == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Well, I looked up several (26-30) version lists of changes and found no documentation that this unrand had been newly balanced. First posiibility: someone forgot to add it to such a list. Second possibility: did someone try to test how long false parameters remain undetected? -- [[User:Bwijn|Bwijn]] ([[User talk:Bwijn|talk]]) 11:16, 6 May 2023 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 10:16, 6 May 2023
Hey Ensis, can you link me to where you found those numbers? Those numbers are just staggeringly low, and conflict with the LearnDB enough to make me suspicious. Per the LearnDB, it makes two Evoc/27 checks, and if either passes, it deals the additional damage. That makes it 100% reliable at 27 Evocations, and even at 15 Evo it's over 75% likely, which is so conceptually different from 7% max that I've got to be suspicious here... --MoogleDan (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2015 (CET)
- I've checked with the folks in Tavern, and while they couldn't confirm that two Evoc/27 tests (what LearnDB says) is correct, they DID confirm that it triggers often enough to be good at killing things. I'm switching it back for now, but if you can show me the source code that disagrees, I'll look into this further. --MoogleDan (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2015 (CET)
Rare case of non-documented changes
Well, I looked up several (26-30) version lists of changes and found no documentation that this unrand had been newly balanced. First posiibility: someone forgot to add it to such a list. Second possibility: did someone try to test how long false parameters remain undetected? -- Bwijn (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2023 (CEST)
