User talk:Yatsufusa

talkative skull

You added talkative skull to Once per ascension items. Are you sure? The display case numbers for it make me wonder if it is harder to get a second one than just ascending again. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 23:26, 29 August 2012 (CEST)

• I'm not sure anymore... When I asked someone about the familiar (hatchling), he told me he only got the hatchling the first time he choose Check behind the first one and got substats thereafter. At first I thought players would get one per ascension, because I didn't see any reason to deny us further hatchlings while doing additional Zombie Slayer ascensions. But now that I went to look for the exact machanics, I still can't find any evidence that would support that believe. I admit that I have jumped to conclusions and I'm as sorry for the mess as I am thankful for players like you who pay close enough attention to notice such discrepancys. (Needless to say: I'll take more care in the future.) It seemed natural to me to work that way after they fixed the limit for the FDKOL tattoo purchase. I'm removing it from the Once per ascension items-list until someone actually states that he managed to get a second talkative skull. The display case numbers didn't arouse any suspicion to me, because the Display Case Database went down shortly after the challenge path was implemented (and still is). --Yatsufusa 05:06, 30 August 2012 (CEST)
  • i would say that once per ascension is right, with the proviso that you have to get the noncombat which is not guaranteed. there is a small chance that you'll get 25 combats in a row, which means that you'll miss it. perhaps the confusion with the dc database is that peopple who've ascended a lot already (i.e. speedrunners) are more likely to choose "leave the skulls alone" to not waste a turn. but that is pure guesswork since i know less than nothing about playing this game slowly, let alone speedily. --Evilkolbot 13:57, 30 August 2012 (CEST)
    • ok, so that's now, apparently, was right. seems the bug has been fixed and the duped skulls removed. or was i only dreaming that someone had four? --Evilkolbot 14:01, 30 August 2012 (CEST)
  • Just to be sure, I checked the Skull, Skull, Skull Adventure in a later Zombie Slayer Ascension: No further skulls after you've already got one. Bugger! --Yatsufusa 02:19, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

Uses

This is meant only for those that have a "recipe" of sorts. Cocktail/cooking/pasting/etc of those lines, as well as some things like usables, also go in it. However, using it in a NC to get something else is not grounds for it, I believe. Besides, we already listed all of those in the Notes section 2 lines down — Cool12309 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it somewhat helpful. And the items are a "recipe" in the noncombats they're used in, so why not?--Cannonfire40 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• It pretty much looks like a recipe of sorts to me. I looked at the definition in the Established Standards before making those edits, because it seemed odd that those items weren't already added. "It is just a list of links to items that are created with <the lime> as an ingredient." seemed very fitting. The Crimbojito lists, the Staff of Holiday Sensations under Uses and I have even seen items used during quests listing their use in that section, so it doesn't seem to be a really narrow defined section. Also having a very clearly defined use and not listing it while there's already a list of all the items that require this item seems counterintuitive. It's good that there's an elaborate description in the notes section, but that's not where you would look first if there where other sections to choose from. I think of it more like a reversed Obtained From, that completes the chain if there is no When Used section.
• Either way, in these particular cases it made for a better overview as well, because before my edit, the main uses for the bone flour and the eau de mort were somewhat obscured. I don't like ordinary pages that look like they are aimed only at a certain kind of player. It's okay for advanced or strategy pages to assume a well informed and observant reader, but not on an item page. An item page of an item, mind you, that has such a high mall value, because of that very use I underlined. Do you know what I mean?
• Should you guys choose to update the definition to be narrower I would advise you to add a clear list of cases where that section is applicable and maybe rename it as well. --Yatsufusa (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned Posts

There's a template for that. — Cool12309 (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks. That's almost identical to the one I used before: {{subst:unsigned|username|date}}. x) --Yatsufusa (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

average adventure gains

• the "advmin" and "advmax" parameters are, indeed, very cool. are you absolutely sure that the adventure gains follow the simple distribution suggested by the "ave" output, however? do you have the consumption data to back it up for every item you've changed? for example, the average of five and six is indeed 5.5. the average adventure gain for a sample containing fives and sixes, though, could be very different. if it's mostly fives then it could be so close to five as to make no difference. i'm not objecting to your edits, just making sure you have the evidence to back them up. --Evilkolbot (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think I know what you mean, but unless TPTB tell us straightforward how everything works, there will always be things we have to derive from what we see in the actual game. To my best knowledge, every time a consumable is consumed the actual adventure gain will be determined by random(smallint_min, smallint_max); so getting 55 fives and 45 sixes would be nothing more than random differences – or at least as random as a machine can generate it. What concerned me more during my edits was missing data in the form of results I would expect. For example I'm fairly sure that wasabi pocky, tobiko pocky and natto pocky all grant 6-8 Adventures as well as 6-8 of each substat, but I don't have first hand data that proves this. When those gains get added, editors usually just insert/add the very numbers they got instead of writing "?-13-42-?". I've come to terms with the fact that most consumables still need spading, even if they are known for years, so I take all of those pages with a grain of salt. That being said, checking the numbers in the wiki still beats guessing by far and tagging every single consumable with {{NeedsSpading}}, would most likely result in those tags staying there until our sun becomes a supernova.
    I generally check for missing italics in texts and sometimes even try to hunt down data where there is none, but I have my limits. When I notice I'm getting numbers from something new that goes outside of what the wiki knows, I update that page. But honestly: Usually I only eat and drink the spading-wise boring stuff that everybody uses, because it gives the good adventures. When I consume food or booze that might need checking, it usually ends with updating the adventures, because there are just too many variables in substat gains for me and I never know which way everything gets rounded. --Yatsufusa (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)