Difference between revisions of "Talk:Air Burst"

Revision as of 00:24, 21 July 2008

Air Burst

If you have comments about the Air Burst set or its enhancements, please put your comments in this section to keep it separate from the prototype discussion below. Thanks! -- Sekoia 07:42, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Prototypes

This section is for discussion about the proposed prototypes. Check out the prototype page replacements:

• /Prototype for Air Burst
• /Prototype for Air Burst: Accuracy/Damage

(Note that the above are subpages of this talk page, not of the article itself. If you link to them elsewhere, keep that in mind.)

Once finished, the above prototypes will be used for invention sets and invention set enhancements. Feel free to add to the discussions below. -- Sekoia 07:42, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Page Size and Layout

added in 2 numbers for sales on the Dam/Recharge table. >.> These are going to be monstrous... Just the page size is scarry.. It'll be impossible to try and fill in all the info @.@. On that note though, we need something other than 'None' to put in the sale cell since it gives the wrong impression. I'd leave the purchase at None, or N/A personally (leaning more to N/A since that conveys it better). --Sleepy Kitty 12:20, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

Do not for a second think that this looks close to what I want to see. This page, right now, is way too big and has stuff that is useless. For example, the buy column is going away, because you simply can't, and the sell column is going away, since the selling prices are simply 100 * level (one line of text can say that well), and because they sell for so little, nobody is seriously going to be doing that. Most importantly, these tables are not going to stay the way they are. I'm expanding the templates so I can get the raw stuff, and I'll hack at it from that point. P.S. Saw you on Test in Talos' Wentworths (I was copying down the power effects for this set); you logged before I could /t you. ^_- --Lin Chiao Feng 12:39, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

I'll post in the forums when this thing is ready to be looked at. Until then, I'm not responsible for any holes burned in your eyes. ^_- --Lin Chiao Feng 12:48, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

Okay, folks. First cut. Start the gnashing of teeth! ^_^ --Lin Chiao Feng 14:18, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

I'm running at 1024 x 768. The 39-53 tables overshoot the page.. You could also probably use a {{clr}} between the second and third salvage tables.. it looks a bit odd to have one hanging in space. OH! and some of the salvage names are page wrapping inside the tables.. maybe an increase in cell size? --Sleepy Kitty 14:51, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

Right now, the only width controls I have on the recipe tables are 32% width and float left. When you run 1024x768, do you have the window maximized, and if not, how wide (% of screen) is it? I need to know so I can reproduce what you're seeing (FYI, I'm at 1600x1200). For me, the salvage tables are 3 across; nothing's hanging in space (which is why I don't have {{clr}}'s between the tables, just after the tables). I'm trying to figure out how to lay this out with CSS so it looks good for everyone. I think I may have to nail table width down to an absolute amount, as much as that bothers me, but I want to hold that kind of fine-tuning off until I'm sure the whole layout's not going to change in a major way. And I think the devs put in "Volume of the Obsidian Librum" just to make things wrap. Maybe I should change it to "Black Library Book"? ^_- --Lin Chiao Feng 15:18, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

Okay, I made the font size smaller for Accuracy/Damage, just to see what it does. Is it too hard to read? --Lin Chiao Feng 15:45, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

• That is entirely too small, IMO. I don't even have much eye trouble and I have to squint and get closer to read it.--Martavius 18:26, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

I think I fixed most of the layout problems. The tables should move down properly (i.e. not hanging) when the window gets narrower. We don't have to go to smaller type, but I'm leaving it there for the moment just in case people like it better. --Lin Chiao Feng 16:11, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

>< ack! Accuracy/Damage is to small, and yes, I have the window maximized. The salvage tables other than acc/dam now wrap fine. though the % tables still run off the screen by a cell (rather, #53 is partially off). as for the book, yes, the devs probably did do it just to taunt us >.> --Sleepy Kitty 21:04, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

the % tables still run off the screen by a cell -- yeah, I didn't fix that; the solution is 4 rows, and setting them to float like the recipe tables do so widescreen folks don't have huge gobs of white space. --Lin Chiao Feng 06:58, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

Its pretty monstrous in size, but a lot of good hard data there. One thing to think about would be combining the efefcts and costs into a single bigger table. Level - Craft Cost - Salavge - Effect1 - Efefct 2. That may get a little too cluncky looking with the few Quad enhancers around. Catwhoorg 04:46, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

That would put things solidly in too much information territory. More importantly, it's not how the information is used. When someone comes to this page, they're probably asking, "What good is Air Burst?" So the first section answers that by detailing effects (and showing that improvement tapers off rapidly after level 26, and levels 51-53 are the same as 50), and the second section shows set bonuses. At this point, if they haven't decided to go look at something else, they're saying, "Cool, how do I make one?" On to Recipes. Once they've got the parts and made the things, if they come back, they'll be looking at effects again. So, since there's no realistic point in time that the player wants to see effect vs. price, the tables are separate. --Lin Chiao Feng 06:58, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

Table size reverted to normal. If someone wants smaller, they can set it in their browser. Any other comments before I push this to main? Yes, I'm going to break effects into 4 tables each to narrow them. --Lin Chiao Feng 06:58, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

>.> it just struck me as funny.. the talk page is so much bigger than the actual article.. Anymew, ignoring the cells over-page prob, I was glancing through and noticed that the general arrangement of the page was a tad lacking.. not the tables, but how things are set up. (Assuming "Protoype" will become "Overview" in real version) It might just be me, but maybe some of the more general info should be closer to the top and the tables below. I mainly mean the " Set Bonuses" section, and maybe the information part of "Recipes" (the first two lines, leaving the bit about the tables). I'd suggest this to make those seaking some quick info not have to strain their eyes to locate it amount all the stats ^^ --Sleepy Kitty 12:09, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

Yes, it's like those Warner Brothers cartoons, where you have a pill in a box that says "Just Add Water." One drop of water and POOF, a piano. I fixed the first effects table set up right; tell me if it works. On larger screens, it will put two tables per line, so it doesn't waste space. Since Set Bonuses was having a bit of an inferiority complex, getting smooshed in between two huge sections, I moved it up to the top. And lastly, I changed "Prototype" to "Air Burst" because that's how it will look on the page; I don't see the point in saying "Overview" when it's pretty obvious it's an overview. --Lin Chiao Feng 19:58, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

o.o actually, I think the reason that we use overview instead of the name for that is because it reads "Air Burst" and then right below it another "Air Burst", to reduce the redundancy a bit, even if its with something kinda generic. o.o I'd personally use something other than Overview if we ever think of a better term or name to put there --Sleepy Kitty 20:09, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

Sorry for the confusion: The real page will not literally have "= Air Burst =" in its wikitext. I put it there to take the place of the actual page heading. --Lin Chiao Feng 20:43, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

I may be a purist, but I think you might want to think about each enhancement having it's own page. This would create 4 pages linking from the synopsis of this power. Each page would have the ingredients/cost table and the percentage enhanced. It's more links to follow, but it makes each page smaller and gives a more manageable amount of information per page. --storyteller@fuse.net

And it disperses the information so you can't make comparisons, and increases the page count by 4-6 times. And if you want to see the information one enhancement at a time, it's all in the window you get at Wentworth's, so we'd just be duplicating the work Cryptic already did. Sorry, I don't see the benefit. --Lin Chiao Feng 20:43, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

And one more thing: You'd have to have redirect pages for Air Burst:Dam/Rech, Air Burst:Damage/Recharge, Air Burst:Damage/Recharge Reduction, Air Burst: Dam/Rech, and Air Burst: Damage/Recharge Reduction, all pointing to Air Burst: Damage/Recharge. And any other variants I forgot. That way lies madness. --Lin Chiao Feng 20:47, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

Template Conversion

Okay, something freaky happened when I converted all this to templates. See above. I can't see anything in the wikitext to make it just give up template substitution at that point. I'm wondering if it is some limit being exceeded on the server, causing the template subbing process to get aborted after a point. TonyV, please see if there is some error message coming out in a log somewhere that says what happened. Feel free to postpone that until after the server move, since that may well fix it. So close! --Lin Chiao Feng 07:17, 27 April 2007 (PDT)

It's a known Mediawiki issue. If you do a view source on the page, you'll find an HTML comment at each spot where a template failed: <!-- WARNING: template omitted, pre-expand include size too large -->. You'll also find this comment near the end:

<!-- 
Pre-expand include size: 2096845 bytes
Post-expand include size: 90076 bytes
Template argument size: 55992 bytes
Maximum: 2097152 bytes
-->

There's more on this at Wikipedia:Template limits. They added a limit on transclusions to keep page loads down. I'm sure there's some way to change the limit, but I didn't see any easy answers. -- Sekoia 11:22, 27 April 2007 (PDT)

Drat! Black flagged on the last lap! Guess I'll have to figure out how to collapse stuff. --Lin Chiao Feng 15:39, 27 April 2007 (PDT)

Okay! I got the pre-include size from 2025307 bytes down to 259595 bytes. Now I'm off to figure out what to do next. --Lin Chiao Feng 21:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Enhancement Effects tables

I really don't see the point of all the identical Enhancement Effects tables. They're based on level and exactly the same for all same-schedule single-effects, the same for all double-effects, the same for all triple-effects, the same for all quad-effects.

In this page there are three (big) tables for Accuracy/Damage, Damage/Endurance and Damage/Recharge, and the three tables are exactly the same.

I'd put a single header for identical tables: one header for "Accuracy/Damage, Damage/Endurance, Damage/Recharge" with the table for all three once. Then a header for "Damage/Range" with its own table below.

I personally think having all those tables in every single article does not add much. I'd keep the tables in a separate page and let visitors mix and match. This would be the format (not bother to fill in data because it's just an example):

SINGLE-EFFECT
Level  SchA  SchB  SchC  SchD
   X      %     %     %     %
   X      %     %     %     %

DUAL-EFFECT
Level  SchA  SchB  SchC  SchD
   X      %     %     %     %
   X      %     %     %     %

TRIPLE-EFFECT
Level  SchA  SchB  SchC  SchD
   X      %     %     %     %
   X      %     %     %     %

QUAD-EFFECT
Level  SchA  SchB  SchC  SchD
   X      %     %     %     %
   X      %     %     %     %

And at the top of that page, a small description on how to use the tables: first (obviously) use the table according to the number of effects your IO has; a level 38 Dam/Acc/End/Rech would use the Quad effect table. Then list what aspects are Schedule A, which are Schedule B, etc. In this case, all four aspects are Schedule A. So, go to the Quad-Effect table, look the % at Level 38 for SchA, and apply that % to all four aspects. If you have a level 24 Endurance/Defense, use the Dual-Effect table and look at the % for SchA and B at level 24; apply SchA to Endurance, SchB to defense.

It forces the visitor to do some work (look stuff up in a table) but in return you freed 90 pages of carrying a dozen tables (big sets have 6 IOs, with 3 tables for each IO to show the % at each level that's 18 tables!). Leandro 10:16, 27 April 2007 (PDT)

We already have a page that has the by-level %'s, Invention Origin Enhancement Scaling. It only gives the single-effect strength, but gives modifiers to figure out the dual, tri, and quad strengths. Perhaps that page could be modified to work with what Leandro's suggesting. I agree, though, I'd rather see all the schedule-based percentages go on a single page than have them on each individual page. -- Sekoia 11:05, 27 April 2007 (PDT)

My design goal is that figuring out what an enhancement does for you should not be as difficult as figuring out your taxes. The visitor has a question, and wants an answer with the fewest steps needed to get there, and shouldn't need to open a lot of tabs or windows to figure it out. Of course, with Enhancement Dysfunction, I guess there's no chance of things ever being that simple. I'm not comfortable with telling people to open two more tabs (Invention Origin Enhancement Scaling and Enhancements) just to find out how good the enhancement is at level n versus level k. I'm all for collapsing the tables down so long as the observed patterns stay the way they are, i.e. I'd feel more comfortable with this if a dev said, "IO effects follow the same schedules as other origins."

Leandro, I like your ideas about collapsing the tables. I don't want to combine enhancements into literally the same section, because I want to enable links such as Air Burst#Damage/Accuracy, but I think there's an even simpler middle ground that would have two lists: one for range, and one for everything else. The main question I see people having when looking at IO sets is: "What is the best way to use these?" which is a very complex question that touches on comparisons with SOs, replacement rates (I'm betting every five levels will be unworkable unless you're never in SG mode), all or nothing, what ED will let you have in the end, etc.

Another thing: has anyone looked for a pattern in crafting inf costs? All the enhancements in this set have the same costs, with different salvages, but is that true for all sets?

My next revision will probably have to wait until Tony's jumped servers. I just saw that there was no commentary on this layout for a week, so I figured it was time to ship it. --Lin Chiao Feng 15:39, 27 April 2007 (PDT)

Take a look at the Collapsible stuff thread I started a while back on the forums. There's a way to show/hide information on a page. Perhaps the %'s can be included on a page, but be kept automatically collapsed/hidden by default -- and if a user wants them, they can show them. That way it's all on one page if you need it, but it's not gargantuan if you don't. Possibly a good compromise? Unfortunately, most people who responded to the basic idea when I pointed it out for contacts didn't seem to be much of a fan of it. :/ -- Sekoia 16:00, 27 April 2007 (PDT)

I think that may well be it. But that would need TonyV's support, since it means putting code in MediaWiki:Common.js and possibly MediaWiki:Common.css. In the meantime, I have to see if the table templates can be changed to not invoke the 2 MB expansion limit. If not, it's a moot point. --Lin Chiao Feng 22:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Single-Enhancement Page Format

First cut. I didn't change the templates, so some extra columns are showing up with things like {{{5}}}; please ignore them. --Lin Chiao Feng 21:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)