User talk:M.

From MHWiki
Revision as of 09:32, 12 March 2009 by Grexx (talk | contribs) (Weapon Tables: reply)

Thank You!

A quick note of thanks for your contributions to the MHWiki.
Your work is appreciated by MouseHunters everywhere!
-- B.Rossow talkcontr 08:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the OOI statistics on the various Base Pages. Much appreciated :) -- Grexx 17:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope that they are all correct ;) _____m. 17:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Contributions

In recognition of the excellent contributions that M. has made to the MH Wiki.
  -- Grexx 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Some notable contributions:

  • Keeping wiki information updated and accurate.
  • Making sure minor but important details are not missed out, such as categorization, layout, formatting and such.

Radioactive Blue Potion

Hi M., I noticed you were the one who added the information about the Radioactive Potions being found in the Moz on top of the Lab. Edit here:

I'm curious where you got the information from, was it from your personal log? Or a guesstimate. Because based on the information we have from Dave regarding loot drop and frequency for Monster and the various other Lab mice, potions are not dropped in the Moz, only the Lab. -- Grexx 17:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Went to look through Dave's edit on Monster page, information found here: -- Grexx 17:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need to reword or refine this... I definitely know about Greater RBCC Potions being dropped by Vampires. _____m. 17:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, you're right. I never noticed the Vampire page. I've since rummaged through the old edits. The supporting info is here: I agree with you regarding the rewording of the text though. It could use with some clarification considering its not easy to come across. -- Grexx 17:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Weapon Tables

Before I forget again, if you haven't seen it, please have a look at the changes I've made to the table in MHWiki:Manual of Style#Weapons. The basic changes are adding a bottom and left margin of 20px and using the full names for the Bases. While the shortened names are quite amusing, it'll probably confuse most players so best avoided :P -- Grexx 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the margins do exactly (if I remember correctly it has to do with browser spacing) I am convinced it is only for the better :) ... I'm glad you did find my "inventions" amusing but you are right about the other players/readers but as I started the editing I did it mostly for my own comparisons ;] ... Since the tables should go to the respective weapons eventually and I need to fix this naming I would like to ask for your input regarding the "initial" sorting: shall I leave it as is meaning sorted by original power of the base (so Cake would go between Stone and Polar) or should I use the design on the Trap page (which I do not understand) or shall we switch to alphabetical??? _____m. 19:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The proper layout seems to call for the order in which they were introduced. Bases in that page seem to be sorted by their Trapsmith order with crafted or limited edition bases arranged by order of introduction at the end, while the weapons are sorted in alphabetical order. --Mikeyco 19:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The introduction order has no meaning to a new player, so should be avoided in this case. Sorting by power is not a good idea because every weapon page will have a slightly different order due to the effects of the power bonus. The most consistent in the end is still the alphabetical order :) -- Grexx 19:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I meant the original power of the base alone: wood 35, target 75, stone 150, cake 175, polar 200, salt 225 and exp 300... This is how it is sorted on my page right now and I think it makes sense. But I can agree on the alphabetical order as well.... _____m. 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies missed seeing that. Anyways we'll need to standardize the weapons, traps, etc related items for sure, and I feel the best solution would be using alphabetical order, since that doesn't assume any prior knowledge of the game and it's intricacies. -- Grexx 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you added fixed widths to several columns. Nice touch with the <br> in header names and linking them. Also, the Base Power column can be renamed to simply Power since you now have a Combined Power column. I changed some things around. The superscript tags might not be needed anymore, unless they're really needed to deemphasize or emphasize, depending on how a person views them, that column.

Base Power Combined
Luck Cheese
Birthday Cake Base 175 514 21% 5% 1 0No Effect
Dehydration Base 225 523 10% 5% 5 4Insanely Fresh
Explosive Base 300 633 15% 5% 1 -9Stale
Polar Base 200 540 20% 0% 5 4Insanely Fresh
Weapon Power Combined
Luck Cheese
500 Pound Spiked Crusher 250 314 Physical 10% 0% 1 2Very Fresh
Ambrosial Portal 1,025 1,060 Shadow 0% 5% 0 3Extremely Fresh
Ambush 3,000 3,187 Tactical 5% 0% 12 3Extremely Fresh
Arcane Capturing Rod Of Never Yielding Mystery 3,800 4,295 Arcane 12% 0% 18 -8Very Stale

--Mikeyco 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any more opinions regarding this matter? It's probably the only thing stopping progress on the standardization of the Base and Weapon articles. I'm not too inclined to edit them either without a finalized layout. --Mikeyco 06:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel that the power column isn't really necessary at all since the information is easily available when you click on the link. Just leave in the combined statistics, which is what players are really interested in. Keep It Simple! (as much as possible that is) -- Grexx 06:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
@Grexx: I added this column so the table can be sorted according to the Base Power. Sorry to hear you don't like it. :( Have you seen my version with superscript?
@Mikeyco: Maybe we would get more feedback if we implement one the new versions or even the latest version (if people are really contributing in the Manual (Bases Tables too of course).... _____m. 08:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not a matter of whether I love the table to bits or not :P The main criteria has always been how useful a particular addition/removal of an attribute is. So we have to look back at the "good to have" vs "need to have". It is good to have the power for sorting purposes, but how well does it gel with table, of which all other columns contain combined statistics?
Again that is how I look at the table, so if a reasonable number of players find it useful to have it in, then go ahead. It isn't much updating work anyway since trap attributes never change with the 1 exception of the BG. But my advice is to exclude it on the basis that it is not a "need to have" addition.
And for some reason lately we have been having important discussions in all the wrong talk pages lol. We'll need to do something about that! Maybe a cut & paste to somewhere else.. -- Grexx 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)