TheKolWiki talk:Current Projects
Are talk sections to be cleaned up of outdated comments or are they left for posterity? I was reading the trophy talk and saw a few comments I could remove and shorten the page.--Vysion 16:15, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
- "just to be clear, i meant don't edit other people's talk, or rather don't alter or delete what other people have said in talk. it's just courtesy. sorry for the bluntness and the confusion. --Evilkolbot 02:55, 18 August 2007 (CDT)"
Element damage dealing weapons
The sugestion of using the crossbow should be replaced with the new obsidian dagger since it hits for all the elements
The crossbow will work for all monster elements. It's also stronger. Plus, if we want prismatic items, the yohohoyo is even stronger than that.--Gils 13:18, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
Most of this page should probably be moved to either spading or elements, as I doubt this is really a current project.--Foggy 08:50, 8 November 2007 (CST)
Om nom nom nom.
A few times i've seen this odd consume message, no mention of it here. what is it? a script i have messing around with things, or something actually from the game? see here.
Monsieur 06:03, 15 February 2008 (CST)
- see Can Has Cyborger. yes, the search function is a bit crap if you need to search for something that has less than four letters. and no, this wasn't the best place. can't think where better, though, save, er, Discussion?. --Evilkolbot 06:20, 15 February 2008 (CST)
We should figure out the average percent an item would drop in each individual zone, so let's say I make up a zone where, on average, there is a blue blob and a red blob that you encounter 50% of the time. Each blob has a 50% chance of dropping a blob of their color, so the red blob drops a red blob, vice versa. Then, each has a 50% chance of dropping a purple blob.
The project I am proposing would be simply figuring out that you would find a red blob 25% of the time, a blue blob 25% of the time, and the purple blob 50% of the time, so really, following in the footsteps of Yiab's Item Hunt, with accurate spading information this is now possible.
If anyone has any questions on what I am proposing, drop me a line. Boggerbead 10:54, 5 September 2008 (CDT)
- So are you suggesting that we multiply the odds of that monster appearing by the odds of the item dropping to get a "chance of getting this item to drop per click in that zone" number? If so, Transcendent Olfaction renders this somewhat useless. --Melon 14:38, 5 September 2008 (CDT)
- Not everyone has a Manual of Transcendent Olfaction, in fact, from what I know, very few people do.Boggerbead 11:03, 6 September 2008 (CDT)
shouldn't we add "pulverizes into:" in every equipment page? it would clear up a lot of misconceptions.--The ErosionSeeker 21:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll second that. Judge Omega 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Fourth'd. I was thinking about this too the other day. What about adding a functionality to the equipment template that automatically generates its smash yield? something like: Smash=reg/dgrim/epic/ur/sea/sugar/brick, where 'reg' auto-calculates based on power or whatnot, and the rest show the other results (epic/ultimate wads, depleted grimicite, sugar shards, etc). If that functionality is possible, it would save a shitton of time when it comes to editing, and future equipment. --Erich 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Potion page changes?
Inspired by a discussion in /hardcore, I propose the following question:
Should the pages for potions (and other items that when used, give an effect) show the effect given? For example: The Serum of sarcasm page shows the effect given is Superhuman Sarcasm, but it does not give-away the actual effect.
One suggestion was to add the actual effect to the "Notes" section of the potion's page. Here are the Pros and Cons so far:
- Saves the end-user from clicking through to load another page.
- Streamlines information.
- Coldfront may need the further page-loads to generate advert metrics. They are providing a free site, after all.
- Providing this information could be construed as "spoilers".
Please note this is not an argument against "effect" pages. For my part, I am willing to donate either time or cash if this idea catches on. --Sharif DelMonte
- You should try Discussion instead.--Toffile 18:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record: Discussion#Displaying Effects in a More Convenient Way. --BagatelleT/C 23:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)