User talk:Ryo Sangnoir

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Description ID

How do you find it, anyways? --'Ivan 10:53, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

Ryo Sangnoir, do you know the algorythm with wich desc_id can be calculated from item_id and also effect desc from effect number? i tried about a hundred of hash algorithms with no any matchs... --Hrag 14:23, 3 July 2008 (CDT)

Really Quite Poisoned

  • is it -70% or -9? it can only be both under very narrow circumstances. what exactly does this mean? --Evilkolbot 02:24, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Monster data

Are you adding all the monster data pages by hand? User:Quietust has said in the past that all he needs is a well formatted data file to get a bot to do it.

Also, what source are you using for the monster data?--Starwed 19:09, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

It seems that the vast majority of the monsters now have data pages, thanks to you. Do you still use the list on my user page to decide what's been done? If not, I might get rid of it and swap it for a list of what's left. It might be easier to stick a template on all of the area pages that have monsters whose data hasn't been spaded fully. If you still use my list, then I'll leave it up for you. --Melon 12:36, 6 July 2008 (CDT)

  • Typo on my page, weaponmasters have 80 HP. I also double-checked upgraded ram, they have 95 HP.--QuantumNightmare 14:55, 12 July 2008 (CDT)
  • I looked over my old data from the f'c'le, all monsters have 90 HP. Unless something changed in the last few months, that should be fine. Have you noticed any other discrepancies with the data on the AFH page?-QuantumNightmare 18:56, 27 July 2008 (CDT)

Hobos

Based on a discussion with a dev team member, I am almost positive that the hobo names in Hobopolis are randomly generated. Because of that, making a new page for each hobo you encounter may be a bit superfluous. --Southwest 13:09, 17 June 2008 (CDT)

  • My bad, then. Sorry! --Southwest 13:13, 17 June 2008 (CDT)

probably a dumb question...

what are the 3 latest images you uploaded from in game? just curious (the marching color borders) --Noinamg 22:22, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

 

Howdy, thanks for helping to convert unwieldy HTML tables to the cleaner Wiki format. For future reference, IE renders totally blank cells without a border (e.g., peach pie), so you should probably make sure the conversion process you use isn't dropping   marks. Not that we care about IE users, but let's... pretend. --Bagatelle 05:50, 21 July 2008 (CDT)

  • Ah, shoot, forgot to check that. Some of the pages just had <TD></TD>, which were just wiped out. I'll run back through - should be pretty quick. The fact that I was trying to spell it &nsbp; likely didn't help either... --Ryo Sangnoir 05:56, 21 July 2008 (CDT)

In a vaguely related note, I've noticed that a lot of the tables on the wiki (especially those in html format) have excess "align=center" stuff in all of their rows. These can all be replaced by a single style="text-align:center" in the table definition (where the border parameter and such is). Assuming, I guess, that my Opera browser isn't rendering these two things the same when other standard browsers don't. In any case, not that big of a deal (I had already converted several tables before realizing this, in fact), but it does help remove some of the clutter from the tables. It does make the conversion process slightly longer, though. --Flargen 06:02, 21 July 2008 (CDT)

  • Thanks. I don't actually know anything about these tables - I'm just mimicking other pages.--Ryo Sangnoir 06:06, 21 July 2008 (CDT)

Nemesis text in Quest Log

What you found would be brand new. The Nemesis quest was originally a Council quest, not a guild quest, and as such any text about it would not have appeared under the Guild Quests section of the quest log. Nice find, btw. Looks like a certain something might be explained by this. That or you're the only person to have gone searching through the old stuff to find changes lately. --Flargen 17:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain it's new and mistakenly early rolled out - the second door text showed up for the first door; the third door text when the next part was the Lavatory Troll. And the stuff about the password isn't in the current (old) cave. Looks like an interesting quest, anyway. And thanks. --Ryo_Sangnoir 18:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Incidentally, did you go ahead and defeat Gorgolok, or did you run away from the fight? And in largely unrelated news, the issue with uploading images is a generic wiki issue. I can't get around it, either. Coldfront admins will have to rectify the issue. I've notified Jinya of the issue, at least. --Flargen 18:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and defeated him - I couldn't have gotten the complete text otherwise. His stats hadn't changed. Seeing as the quest will come out tomorrow or soon enough, I thought there was no problem beating up Gorgolok. Many others will have the chance soon, anyway. --Ryo_Sangnoir 18:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Did the Gorgolok text change? Because the Spaghetti Elemental had new bits. (Also an easy defeat, eight or nine rounds with spices.) I posted screen shots in the quest log talk page. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 20:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC) update: I see you changed the intro, but what about after the fight? Both changed for me. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 20:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't remember getting anything special after the fight. Obviously I can't check, but I think it was just the normal "You win the fight!" stuff. --Ryo_Sangnoir 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Monster Defense

What's your approach at determining monster defense?--Foggy 20:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Using the dwarvish war kilt, get a range of values. Find the value which works for all numbers in the range (the formula was discussed on User talk:Salien). Post this value. What's yours, and why do we seem to be getting different results?--Ryo_Sangnoir 20:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm doing the same thing, but I think with a different understand of MD. If I understand Salien's point, the correct range of values is CEILING(0.9*(INT(.95MD)),1) to CEILING(0.9*(INT(1.05MD)),1) where MD is 100 or less, and CEILING(0.9*(MD-5),1) to CEILING(0.9*(MD+5),1)? (With the fur, I got 18-20 from the kilt, and for the head 21-23).--Foggy 21:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I get the same values, so the calculation is where the difference was. I should probably stick the range of values I get on the data talk page, so that we actually have a data source for this thing and so others can check I have the numbers right. On the formula: from my understanding, the variance is always rounded down, so the (.95MD) should be rounded up.--Ryo_Sangnoir 21:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
        • .95MD is the variance (.95MD to 1.05MD or MD-5 to MD+5), and int would round it down.--Foggy 22:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
          • 0.05MD is the variance. 0.95MD is the lowest value, 1.05MD is the highest.--Ryo_Sangnoir 00:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
            • This all depends on whether you're looking at coded defense, or apparent defense. Do we know which the kilt reports? And the wiki has a defacto policy of recording the coded defense (the pre-90% one). Is one of you running some ML and not accounting for it properly? That's applied to the coded defense first; then the 90% is applied. If you're off by a small amount between each other then incorrect ML adjustment would seem a likely cause. Also, the other way to detect defense is with the damage dealt by unarmed strikes, as detailed at spading. --Flargen 01:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Ryo, that helps clear up a lot. I think I can definitely use that going forward. Flargen, both Ryo get the same results with the kilt (which does accurately indicate actual defense, using unarmed attacking as the confirmation). The question was what those numbers translate to.-Foggy 05:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
              • The kilt reports apparent defense - heading into combat with both the kilt and the unarmed strike technique returns the same defense values. We took the apparent defense values and tried to convert them into coded defense values but were using different formulae, hence the difference. However, for my HP and attack I have been assuming that the other dwarvish war gear report HP and attack. How the mattock works is easily spadable using spices, but I can't see any way to absolutely confirm that the helmet measures attack - I can only say it certainly seems that way.--Ryo_Sangnoir 10:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nemesi safe moxie

When I spaded out the Spagh Demon, it seemed that although no level of moxie was completely safe, with moxie much lower than his attack he would always hit, while with much higher moxie he would only hit about 1/3 the of the time.

So I'm not sure if the edit you made to A Volcanic Cave is useful... it's technically true that there is no completely safe moxie level, but there is a level that's useful to aim for. I guess what's important is that folks reading the page understand that. --Starwed 17:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I can really only speak for the Spagh Demon, and I didn't run careful tests, but I'd guess that it works something like this: There's a chance of an automatic hit, otherwise a normal attack is rolled. (So the threshold would be normal safe-moxie, related to monster's attack power.) This is very slightly backed up by the fact that fumbles were rarer than they should have been at very low moxie levels. I'd simply put "special" instead of infinite for the safe moxie.
Some of the other monsters (such as the sauceblob) work with completely different mechanics, so I'm pretty unsure about them :). --Starwed 14:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Monster Defence / Template:Test

Um, sorry for butting in, but this might work:

{{#ifeq: {{#expr:{{#expr:0.9*{{{defense|''unknown''}}}}}}}|Expression error: unrecognised word "expression"|{{{defense|''unknown''}}}|{{ceiling|{{#expr:0.9*{{{defense|''unknown''}}}}}}}}}

This way, if defense is anything other than a number, then the innermost #expr returns Expression error: unrecognised word "_____", so that the outer #expr returns Expression error: unrecognised word "Expression" (since it doesn't understand the word "expression").

I would have tried it on Template:Test, but you seem to be busy, and I didn't want to interrupt. --Deus Ex Machina 11:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Hah, that's great. Well thought out. Thanks :). Yeah, multiple people trying to edit the same page gets awkward. Leaving messages is good. And thanks for the explanation. There are multiple test templates, try Template:Test2 or Test3 if someone's using one of the others.--Ryo_Sangnoir 12:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Next gen frat boy

Thanks for moving that, and presumably fixing links as I type this. I think I was the one responsible for it being in the wrong place in the first place (before I became an admin, at least). Never did remember to get around to fixing it. --Flargen 12:41, 7 August 2011 (CEST)

  • Oh yeah, links, forgot about those - thanks for the reminder. I left the ones on talk pages as is.--Ryo_Sangnoir 21:33, 7 August 2011 (CEST)

Monster Stuff

How do you know when a miss is really a fumble? When a hit is really a crit? And how do you know when something is a special? — Cool12309 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2013 (CET)

  • I too would like to know how to figure out whether a miss is a fumble. -- JaAchan (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The way that always works is to use a Baby Bugged Bugbear, who can convert a critical into a fumble. The way that almost always works is to have the monster's attack be higher than your moxie by more than 10. In this case, the monster always hits you normally, and any miss is a fumble.--Ryo_Sangnoir (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
      • As I don't have a Baby Bugged Bugbear, is it ok if I put new message under miss? Or I would you prefer I put them on the talk page or so. -- JaAchan (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
        • You could use the second method instead. But sure, put them under miss.--Ryo_Sangnoir (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

New Editor Seeking Help

Hi there!

It appears that some kind of glitch is preventing me from updating / reverting

This file
to the 13:35 version.

Whenever I try to change / revert the current chart with line intersection to a new one without intersection, the old image file will somehow override the update.

As you can see from the most recent revert, there is a comment "Reverted to version as of 13:35, 15 August 2015". However, the most recent version is different from the 13:35 version.

I need help with this. Please help. Thanks in advance.

EDIT: Weird. When I linked this image on your talk page it showed fine. But when I viewed the file page it shows the old version. If you go to User talk:JaAchan you should see the old version. What might be causing this?

--Archmage Warlic (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • The cause is /probably/ the wiki caching images, and displaying an old one to you. Try giving it some time, that might sort it out. Possible things to try are:
    • clearing your cache, restarting your browser
    • doing a null-edit on the image page (hit edit, then save)
    • purging the image page (add ?action=purge to the end of the URL)
  • but I've tried those and none have worked. Give it time, or ask an admin to help. Ryo_Sangnoir (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be the case. The issue only appears when you use direct link [[image]] or framed image. Just changing the image to Thumbnail (like the one on your talk page above) or Frameless eliminates the issue. I was a little worried when the issue persisted even after I tried with different browsers. Thank you very much. --Archmage Warlic (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)