Talk:Effectiveness

Harpy

I once changed the Effectiveness of Shadow traps for the Harpy Mouse from Normal to Very Effective which is actually only an educated guess if not assumption. I just found the note at the bottom of the table stating: "Shadow traps have been noted to be of normal effectiveness against Harpy mice." which –together with the normal effectiveness of the ABT– makes me think there might be a point to this. Does anybody know more or for sure? If not I would be willing to throw some Gnarled on my Clock for a confirmation.... _____m. 13:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So is it Normal or Very Effective? It is quite contradictory at the moment. Would be good to confirm either way, since the Harpy is only found in the Lagoon, so it can't be both. If it is confirmed shadow traps are of normal effectiveness against the Harpy, then the 1 liner under exceptions should be removed. Would probably be faster to just pose the question on the forums. I'm sure there are some players back there with a Shadow trap. :) Also, once confirmed, please update the Harpy Mouse article too. It currently lists shadow traps as being very effective. -- Grexx 15:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the revision that marked Shadow against Harpy as Normal [1]. I'm thinking it should go back to Unknown/question mark, since it's being questioned. I tried asking on the forums, but no definitive answer yet. -- Camomiletea 20:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unknown Effectiveness Levels for new Mice

I think this issue is cropping up very often so I'll be listing down some guidance as to how to approach it. Firstly there are 2 types of new mice in general. Firstly new mice in new locations, and secondly new mice in existing locations.

New mice in new locations is pretty straightforward. Since no one knows anything about them, effectiveness should generally be unknowns, other than the general trend that trap types are always very effective against the corresponding mouse types (ie Tactical traps very effective vs Tactical mice), exception being for physical mice. Assumptions made in this case should be marked clearly with an asterisk (*) to denote that it is an assumption and not a confirmed effectiveness level.

One thing to note is that it is sometimes possible to extrapolate the effectiveness of a trap type to a certain mouse type from previous locations, but experience has shown that the developers toss in some odd attributes that make this a very unsafe choice. A good example would be that Physical traps are of normal effectiveness against most Tactical mice in the Training Grounds, except for the Assassin. A "best guess" that all Physical traps work against all Tactical mice in the location would thus be wrong. Most editors would agree, on the MH Wiki in general, we are quite firm about accuracy of information contained within. Thus unless you have personally confirmed the effectiveness either through your own profile or seen on others, avoid any best guesses. A history check will turn up many instances when this has been tried and thereafter reverted due to inaccuracy.

Next, new mice in existing locations. Mice added to existing locations tend to be of the same general type as most other mice in the location, and are mostly added for more flavour and variety in-game. They are typically not essential for game progress, and less likely to have unexpected resistances against non-related power types. Thus it is somewhat safer to make an educated guess on the effectiveness levels using the other similar mice in the location, although it is still not encouraged.

Finally, if you do not have the slightest idea what the location/article is about, but wish to partake in the excitement of entering new information "first", and are filling in effectiveness levels based on pure speculation, please stay far, far away from editing this page. When in doubt, leave it as an unknown (?) rather than filling in something that would very likely be 100% wrong. -- Grexx 10:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Colors

Hey, I looking at the chart, and I personally feel like it would be more useful to have the "Less Effective" / "Very Effective" / "Normal" messages colored than the mouse type. This would make it easier to differentiate, and the mouse type isn't as important when figuring out how to catch it when the other information is there. Chessmonkey 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've made a modified version, and would greatly appreciate comments. It can be found here. Feel free to edit it (with edit summaries please!) if you can see anything that could be improved. I think it's overall much improved from the current version, and would like to roll it into the official page. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 07:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

When I created the chart I actually had a template with the addition of colors for the different effectiveness types, but decided it was a little too colorful. There's 2 ways to look at the chart, the current format is centered around the respective mice with 1 color, while adding shading to the effectiveness shifts the focus to trap effectiveness and merges both views into one.

The main reason why I avoided more colors, is that with the sorting ability, you can easily sort by mouse type and trap type to arrive at the desired information, so I was trying to avoid adding complexity to the chart.

That said, it doesn't really matter either way since the information essentially remains the same. If people find it easier to read with more colors, go ahead. But do watch out for mixing colors. When I did the chart I ran it through a color check site to make sure that it is colorblind friendly. Don't have the link at the moment but it would be a good idea to do a check. -- Grexx 09:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the table with the colors for effectiveness better than the one with mouse power types. Please do check your colors as Grexx commented. -- Camomiletea 14:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I put it through a color blindness checker and didn't see any problems due to the various types of colorblindness, so it does not appear that is something that needs to be adjusted. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to double check if you used Vischeck's colorblind checker, it doesn't seem to read properly certain types of color tags. You can have a look at User:Grexx/Sandbox, under the Color Test section and run it through http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php. I've got stored results here, not sure how long it will be up though. You might want to adjust the Yellow Red Orange Green colors to be more distinct.

What actually led me to do color testing was when I first canvassed for suggestions on the mixed colors, someone actually complained that the colors were the same. Not sure exactly how accurate the site is though, since I'm not colorblind myself. -- Grexx 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually used the checker at http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ , and it seems to have rendered the colorblind versions correctly... I can readily tell they are not the colors I can usually see. Anyway, all the colors seem quite distinct, and I think I'll be rolling out the changed version tomorrow, unless any objections come up. Also, should we be adding the calm clearing mice? DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 05:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm colour blind (partially, anyway) and the page seems fine to me. All colours easily differentiable to me. Also, I believe all hte CC mice have been added and the list is now effectively (pun? wow) complete. --Shinnok 06:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So, I got really tired of the Hydro color, I changed it to a more 'actual' color. If one sees hydro they think water... which is blue. and changed the Shadow to the what used to be Hydro see for yourself (I've checked with the color blind site)

From	To	And	From	To
Hydro	Hydro		Shadow	Shadow

other colors for easier comparison

Arcane

Hydro

Tactical

Forgotten

Shadow

Very Effective

Less Effective

--Yandhand 1:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)