Difference between revisions of "Talk:Set Enhancements with Special Effects"

Latest revision as of 08:54, 20 May 2012

Stealth Proc-120

The stealth IO Proc120s do NOT turn off when the toggle they are slotted in is turned off anymore. I don't know if this a wai or a bug. (All hell 17:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)); NVM, this was just the additional stacking from zoning with the toggle running All hell 17:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Winter's Gift Proc?

I just noticed, the Winter's Gift Slow Resistance piece is listed here as a proc, but the page for the piece itself states it's a global (And Mids' seems to agree). Can someone double-check that, and fix whichever's wrong? Billymailman 06:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Slow Resistance is always on... and is thus a Global. I have changed it on this page, but the terminology can get a bit murky. See this page for "clarification." —Thirty7 11:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Updates?

Are these IOs all up to date? I basically don't use IOs because I am lazy, so I haven't kept up on changes/additions. We should get the ATOs in here too but I'm not sure how to present them (since they're kind of weird), and possibly include the PPM of the SBE versions? (and also get the PPM for the SBEs on the actual page for the IO as well). Thoughts? ~ AGGE talk/cons 05:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have completely ignored everything here having to do with Enhancements pending results of our discussions on the Forums. However, those discussions haven't gone anywhere in a while, so... I have no idea what the plan is as of current. If I recall the page properly, it needs a bit of sprucing up and adjusting not just in terms of making it current. *shrug* I guess I hope that we reach a consensus on the Forums soon so that we can start to really get to work on the rest of this stuff. —Thirty7 09:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This page doesn't have anything to do with the enhancements update, because it's just a list of special IOs. Therefore, keeping it updated is separate from changing the enhancements/recipes/etc. to a new format. I just wanted to know from someone who keeps up with IOs if there's anything missing other than ATOs and PPM mechanics? Because if there is, this page is simple to update. I don't think it needs much "sprucing up" - just updating. ~ AGGE talk/cons 16:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, at the least it could use a few graphics here and there, perhaps in the Drop Pool column, and a visual indicator along with the set name? Also, I was merely commenting on why I have ignored/set aside IO Pages in general. —Thirty7 22:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Added in the special ATOs - towards the end had something happen so I'm sure I missed a formatting bit here and there - and I left out the damage scales. Marked them Exclusive since I listed the superiors separately. --Rajani Isa 03:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

For the moment, my only thought is that the article is currently about "Special IOs". Archetype Enhancements and Store-Bought Enhancements are not Invention Origin Enhancements, and thus do not belong in this article as it's currently named (though I agree that they do seem to fall under the intent of the article). So if they are to be included, the article will need a new name. The most obvious choice might be "Table of Special Enhancements", but I would recommend against that due to confusion with Special Enhancements. I also don't like "Table" being in the name of the article. Perhaps "Set Enhancements with Special Effects"? -- Sekoia 04:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care what the article is titled, as long as the data it contains is up to date. Feel free to move it wherever you feel it belongs. :) ~ AGGE talk/cons 05:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Set Enhancements with Special Effects" seems to encapsulate the idea well. I too was bothered by the word "Table" in the name as well as the ATO/IO thing. —Thirty7 08:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Thirty7, I noticed you reverted Rajani Isa's comments on the talk page [1] as well as their changes to the article [2], without giving a reason for either revert... were those accidents? I can't think of any reason why either needed to be reverted, and I especially don't think we should be reverting comments on talk pages like that. -- Sekoia 04:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I returned the talk page edit here, and reverted the reversion (with a couple tweaks) to the actual page. There was no reason to do either. ~ AGGE talk/cons 05:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I was on my phone and mis-tapped, both were complete accidents. There really should be a confirmation page or something for that, the [rollback] button was entirely too easy to hit and SOMEHOW I managed to do it twice in a row! I would have fixed it myself but stopped browsing right after that and didn't happen to notice it. Thanks for being hot on my trail and fixing those oopses. —Thirty7 08:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Accidents happen. Fortunately, the wiki makes them easy to recover from. :) -- Sekoia 08:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)