Topic on Talk:Lizardskin

First I want to touch on this. No need. This is an editor-to-editor discussion only. You've done absolutely nothing egregious and so the mod hat stays off here. We'll get a third opinion if we can't resolve something together. OK?

First I want to touch on this. No need. This is an editor-to-editor discussion only. You've done absolutely nothing egregious and so the mod hat stays off here. We'll get a third opinion if we can't resolve something together. OK?

No, it won't be. Thats the point. Because even the worst club's (wood/plasteel) worst attack (the handle poke) still has enough AP (11.7%) to completely ignore a legendary lizardskin shirt (9.7% Blunt armor). Thats not an opinion. That is a fact. Even the AP of melee attacks of ranged weapons (typically ~13% AP) completely ignore anything less than a legendary lizardskin ''duster'', with some of the bigger weapons (~18% AP e.g. the minigun) ignoring that too. The cases where there is any improvement are vanishingly rare, and even when they are there, the bonus to protection is tiny.  

No, it won't be. Thats the point. Because even the worst club's (wood/plasteel) worst attack (the handle poke) still has enough AP (11.7%) to completely ignore a legendary lizardskin shirt (9.7% Blunt armor). Thats not an opinion. That is a fact. Even the AP of melee attacks of ranged weapons (typically ~13% AP) completely ignore anything less than a legendary lizardskin ''duster'', with some of the bigger weapons (~18% AP e.g. the minigun) ignoring that too. The cases where there is any improvement are vanishingly rare, and even when they are there, the bonus to protection is tiny.  

Thats what the analysis is for. Judgement calls. Because players use the wiki to not just get the numbers but the context and value judgements. If players want to know what the numbers are and make their own judgements, the numbers are on the page and they can skip the analysis. If they want to know what textile has the best blunt protection, they can compare the numbers on the page or on the big table on the leathers page or the textiles page where they can easily see how it fairs against everything else. But the Analysis is for putting that information into context, especially for newer players.  

Thats what the analysis is for. Judgement calls. Because players use the wiki to not just get the numbers but the context and value judgements. If players want to know what the numbers are and make their own judgements, the numbers are on the page and they can skip the analysis. If they want to know what textile has the best blunt protection, they can compare the numbers on the page or on the big table on the leathers page or the textiles page where they can easily see how it fairs against everything else. But the Analysis is for putting that information into context, especially for newer players.  

This is also a judgement call. You are making a recommendation. And that would be totally valid, because that is what the Analysis is for. Literally the '''only''' issue is that its just not particularly accurate because unless they're taming monkeys its not going to help them much if at all, and if it means they take lizardskin over something with better sharp, then they're making things worse for themselves in both of those roles generally.  

This is also a judgement call. You are making a recommendation. And that would be totally valid, because that is what the Analysis is for. Literally the '''only''' issue is that its just not particularly accurate because unless they're taming monkeys its not going to help them much if at all, and if it means they take lizardskin over something with better sharp, then they're making things worse for themselves in both of those roles generally.  

I don't particularly appreciate the implication that this is a powertrip. The wiki does not have many active editors, with most making very small contributions very occasionally, burning bright and short, or editing in periodic bursts. General day to day is mostly left to me and I only have so much time to verify new edits and correct mistakes they add. The only reason this conversation has gotten all the extra time the original edit didn't is because I value editors like you and want to address your concerns. Which I seem to be failing to do.

I don't particularly appreciate the implication that this is a powertrip. The wiki does not have many active editors, with most making very small contributions very occasionally, burning bright and short, or editing in periodic bursts. General day to day is mostly left to me and I only have so much time to verify new edits and correct mistakes they add. The only reason this conversation has gotten all the extra time the original edit didn't is because I value editors like you and want to address your concerns. Which I seem to be failing to do.