Before I go ahead and start an editing frenzy, I would like to have some community input on some changes I intend to do:
I would like to add the exact elemental stats to the mechanics section and possibly clarify the special effects section. Compared to the current system, that would be the more informative, with exact damage multipliers, proc chances and tech costs for each elemental multiplier.
As many of you probably already know, the details on special elemental weapons are misleading at best, false at worst. Elemental multiplier is often cited as damage multiplier, proc chances and tech pool costs are not explained for individual weapons, it's almost impossible to compare a legendary elemental weapon to its normal counterpart, etc. Yet exact data is readibly available. It should be on the wiki as well!
For example, my changes could look like this:
Example - Firehawk Mechanics BEFORE
The Firehawk effect comes from the acc5_Maliwan_Firehawk. Accessory. It is based off of acc5_Incendiary, but with much more damage, more tech, and less spread. For an explanation on how to interpret the information on the following table, please see the stat modifiers page.
Tech Level: +14
Tech Level: +6
Example - Firehawk Mechanics AFTER
The Firehawk effect comes from the acc5_Maliwan_Firehawk. Accessory. It is based off of acc5_Incendiary, but with much higher damage on elemental procs, more damage, more tech, and less spread. For an explanation on how to interpret the information on the following table, please see the stat modifiers page.
x1 Incendiary: 30% proc, 1.8X damage, cost 4
x1 Incendiary: 30% proc, 0.6X damage, cost 4
- Hard to argue against more complete and more through information! I would ask only that you create an account from which to make these changes, and that you look into consolidating redundant information, perhaps in Elemental Damage as you suggest. Dämmerung 18:33, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer to stay behind anonymous IPs, and I believe there should be no major problems with that, as per Assume good faith. I have already improved Elemental Damage to be more informative and hopefully more readable. However, special elemental weapons should have their own data on their own articles. This would enable easy comparison between a special elemental weapon and its normal counterpart. Adding every unique and legendary elemental weapon data to Elemental Damage article wouldn't be a good solution. - 126.96.36.199 18:45, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
- So I see. Thank you for that-- some very nice work there. Unsigned article revisions will always be held to a higher standard, but if Elemental Damage is representative then you certainly won't have any trouble with that. You might want to cite your methodology in your articles' talk pages. E.g., almost all of my Mechanics work is derivative of the Gearcalc sourcefiles (itself a piece of original research, and so subject to flaws), tested against the running game where it obviously is in error, and I've tried to cite same as my source. Dämmerung 19:00, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
As complete and as thorough and as correct as it would actually be, I can safely say that adding this information to the tables would make the wiki too cluttered. Mechanics as they are now, they give the proper amount of information to someone who would look for information on it. Adding exact elemental damage and tech pool info...etc. to every single page on the wiki is too much. We've already got a page noting all this, it doesn't need to be on every single weapons page. 19:13, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, elemental effects on some special elemental weapons work completely differently from their normal counterparts and Elemental Damage doesn't cover those - they would take too much space inside one article. I believe effects specific to only one weapon should be in the weapon's article. That would probably be the best for users looking for info on specific weapon.
- The current mechanics section tells you nothing about elemental effects, which are a major part of any elemental weapon. In fact, I have no clue why they're omitted! This is the reason I would like to add these 4-5 lines of "clutter" to all articles of weapons with special elemental effects. How would you suggest including this information? - 188.8.131.52 19:53, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Let's try it and see. I can see the value for accessories such as Firehawks. If it ends up generating a mess of redundant bloat for more ordinary accessories, we trim it back. No big deal. Dämmerung 20:01, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
I am going to have to agree with Dr.F. When it comes to mechanics, I think the average person just wants to know what part causes the weapons effect and maybe the info already listed. Without a greater understanding of the more complex mechanics those numbers dont mean anything. There would be so much more info that would need to be put into each section to make everything make sence. -- 22:27, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Should a wiki not be encyclopedic? There's already the E-Z-2-use version at the top of each weapon's page. The hairy slide-rule stuff resides safely down at the bottom. Complex mechanics understanding has to start somewhere, and having correct information on unique accessories could be one such somewhere. I agree that every not elemental weapon's page should be cluttered with this, but it does help show, e.g., how the Firehawk's accessory differs from a standard repeater's incendiary accessory. Put the standard data in Repeater parts#Elemental accessories, perhaps. Dämmerung 22:49, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
This is true. The main question is who is going to do add all this info and do the work required to make this happen. If DotTwoZeroFour starts this project, he will have to finish it. If he/she is willing to do what is needed and finishes what he/she started, i have no problem with the additions. Several people have made promises that were not kept. Do not start a project that you can not finish. That, is the problem at hand. Just ask Happypal how his experiance with the mechanics sections has been before venturing into this project. -- 23:09, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
- (The Evil Dr. F's Note - a fair point. happy did agree to this onus)
- these are not, in fact, mutually exclusive. i only disagree when the line betwixt the 2 fades and someone's extrapolation is expressed as a figure w/o the supporting math. quite honestly you can chart _all_ possible permutations of the weapon's instances as long as it doesnt crowd out the vitals. to address your (daemmer) question, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, wikia is a congress of communities. what each community chooses to express is a question of mob rule. i can only ask that what is most apparent be presented first. if the community wishes to change in favour of text only or even L3vi's "all 5's" it is my responsibility as bureaucrat to support that transition and make it as quick and painless as possible. however comma i might point out that borderlands.wikia is the 3rd return on any search behind only borderlandsthegame.com and wikipedia and has been for going on two years. 23:25, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
I'm still against it. The only reason the mechanics sections even work now was because of a compromise from the original idea. Like Dr.F said, the greater majority (read: 99%) of people that come to the wiki only want to know what goes boom and what goes zap. Someone who is interested into the fine levels of detail that is being proposed will NOT come to the wiki first(or at all), they will look into GearCalc or in-game debug info. Someone who is that well-versed in BL mechanics does not need the wiki for that information. We need to cater to the majority of people that will come here, and those are people who are interested in the information that's already listed. (Red text meanings, boss strategies, etc.) If we delve even deeper into mechanics, it becomes harder to serve the majority of our readers.
If the community decides to continue with this idea anyway, the original idea of a separate mechanics page accompanying each weapon needs to be resurrected. Someone who is that interested in mechanics will not mind an additional "click" to look for the information that they need. 00:14, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
I see, so the current weapon page layout is a compromise. I guess that explains why the mechanics section is there, but lacks vital information. So, would it be preferable to have all technical details about weapons moved to seperate pages, like in Hellfire/Mechanics or add few lines of information per page, as shown in my example?
I, for one, go to game wikias to find detailed information about games, stuff that wikipedia doesn't cover. In the case of Borderlands and elemental weapons, I had to stumble around forums and find tools like GearCalc, because the information simply wasn't here or wasn't represented clearly. I intend to fix this. - 184.108.40.206 02:24, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
- the hellfire mechanics page is a preserve for an example of what _not_ to do. and by that i mean demand something and then get more interested in EVE Online. as this is my forth time around this particular course i would much rather you add to the mechanics section(s) already present. gear calculator is linked on the Willowtree page and is supported elsewhere as noted there. 02:33, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
The mechanics page works well as it is. It displays vital information, but doesn't clutter up the page. Changing the wiki to *your* taste would be acceptable, if you were the only one that used the wiki. I don't see the need to add a ton of information to every single weapon article when it's not information that is often sought out by wikia readers. We've got pages that detail how elemental damage/tech pools work, this would just be a summarized copy of it, on specific weapons. Extraneous information isn't needed. 21:25, September 5, 2011 (UTC)