Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg
Some of the problems have been caused by people changing information on Wikipedia that was (roughly) accurate and putting in incorrect info. For example, I know that Entropedia used to say that Feffoids did 65%/35% (close to what Jimmy B has found), as I copied that info into my own spreadsheet, but at some point someone must have changed that to 50%/50%. I think it would be worthwhile to keep a 'master list' somewhere on EF, with links to the research, as a back-up to the Entropedia info. |
Perhaps there's some way we can have a data lock on verified data entries on wiki? Or is that too complicated to work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg
That 'master list' should also contain notes about the mobs where we are confident that the info we have is correct, and those where we think the info is wrong, or is completely missing.
|
We have a list of ones we think may be significantly wrong on wiki on the armor decay thread:
Daikiba, Atrox, Formidon, SEG, Warrior, Feffoid, Longu are the ones mentioned so far, but I dare say there's more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg
The notion about mobs doing integer values rather than %s of each type looks sound, and explains the differences that Witte noted between maturitires, but we shouldn't allow that to distract us. It looks like the %s should still work as a rough guide, in the main (hopefully Jimmy B's Feffoid testing will bear that out). It's going to be much more useful to find a rough answer on Osseocollum, for example, than it is to work out the exact damage values on every single maturity of Longu.
|
Yes, absolutely. I'd say in general the main thing is to get the exact form for maybe two maturities of each mob and then move onto the next mob. The rough percentages are more important than the exact numbers for all. We can fill in the gaps later when we've got indicative percentages for all mobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg
I think it's correct to assume that in most cases the variation between maturities will be small, and that all maturities will do the same damage types, but it's already been proved here that this isn't always the case (Attacker Generation 1s do different damage types to higher generations). I think we can consider this to be an exceptional case, but there may be others so we shouldn't rule out the possibility.
Great work on the testing and discussion so far. |
Interesting, what's the story with the Attackers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witte
What I can do is add damagetype columns to the maturity chart, and fill them with the currect damage times percentage data. Only drawback is when certain percentages are found to be false, each maturity needs te be edited.
|
I'd say leave em blank until filled in.
The only difficulty I see that causing is in the way parts of wiki calculate things like the effect of armor on how hard a certain mob will hit you. But presumably that can be done using the old method, perhaps with an override if the damage distribution for a given mob maturity isn't blank?