Topic on User talk:Ickputzdirwech

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Adding a topic so I can drop short message here rather than keep spamming your talk page.

Template:Floor Table Row has been updated to add cleaning time factor - its intentionally not handling missing CTFs because they should be on every page.

Also your edits to Hex carpet, Mindbend carpet and Morbid carpet contradict the body. Body says "Unlike regular carpet, <NAME> carpet has a cleaning time of only 100%. " Quick look at the .xmls implies you're right and they were updated to 200% at some point, but the body should be fixed (and the change added to history) but I don't want to step on your toes while you're editing.

Also Reported totemic board's lack of burned version.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Actually it looks like they might have missed all the ideo floors and then updated them later - the plates also have a similar disparity.

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

I wondered if I should add them to all pages or just to those that have something else then 1. Will do that next.

I figured I'll do the infoboxes first. Rewriting the Summary and Analysis sections always quite some time and it might be quicker doing them all at once and copy/pasting a lot.

Thanks for reporting it!

You mean the Animalist slab etc.? I tested them and since they are placed on top of floors, they should be replaced by burned floors.

By clicking "Reply", you agree to the terms of use for this wiki.
Harakoni (talkcontribs)

No I was talking about how the spikecore plates say 100% in the body and 60% in the infobox, hex tile has the same. Iirc all the ideology floors just had 100% at first, I vaguely remember reporting it or talking about it. It looks like all the ideo floors were later fixed

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

Ah, ok, sorry. I‘ll go over the pages again and update the summaries. There is also a property in the xmls (I mostly work with them) that defines wether a floor can be colored. Should that also be added to the infobox?

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

I think the Template:Weapon Quality Table/Melee is now full featured for replacing the other two templates and its now all reliant on the row template as opposed to the mess it was previously. Thank you for doing so much of the work. Would you mind going through and check things and make sure I didn't break some edge case?

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

I did find a calculation issue regarding the cooldown but I think I created it myself when I edited Template:True Melee DPS Calculator. It's a bit funky because Template:Weapon Quality Table/Melee/Row actually just reuses the variable from Template:True Melee DPS Calculator (simplifies a lot!).

I also took you by example and created Template:Weapon Quality Table/Ranged/Row in order to simplify that one as well. Added a hard coded list of ranged weapons without quality while I was doing it. So every case should now be accounted for.

I also finally figured out how to make individual toggles. The issue where the spaces in the names.

What do you think about moving the template? The name doesn't really fit the bill any more.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Yeah I'm on board with moving it, and was planning on it when I could think of a good name.

  • Weapon attack table - odd for ranged weapons portion as its not really displaying attacks
  • Weapon variant(s) table - Mostly correct except for things like thrumbo horns
  • Weapon display table - generic and not really descriptive
  • Weapon summary table - slightly less generic but pretty accurate?
  • Weapon stats table - bit generic but most accurate?

You're ofc welcome to pick one and move as you wish. Ideally we could have the heading be the same as the template name to minimize confusion, but I also think your idea for optionally changing or suppressing headings is a good one too. I think it is implemented on one of the table templates, but icr which.

Edit: Re the recode tag for headers - do you want to be able to suppress each of the 3 separately or is all 3 at once ok? Same for optional renaming - rename just the Top one or the subheadings as well?

Edit2: I forgot to say, excellent work with the individual toggles and the rest of the changes. The template is so much better than it was, thanks to you.

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

Two more things:

1) Should we make the melee template work for pawns as well? After all they have attacks like melee weapons.

2) In Template:Weapon Quality Table/Melee there is some commented out code in the control panel section. Did you want to add toggles for individual materials?

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

EXAMPLE IMAGE Thoughts on dropping the DPS and AP down to the "second row" to avoid all that extra white space and to match the melee table?

The ones that don't have rows would stay the exact same.

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

fine by me. Just wasn't sure if it makes sense content wise. But I guess it really doesn't matter.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Yeah idk that it makes sense, but the extra white space on the table looks bad and the skinnier the table the better for smaller screens. Also means that most tables will be the same width, and that means that you copy and paste screenshots or swap back and forth between them with less difficulty, but that might only be relevant to me because I do send them to newbies on the discord lmao

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Wouldn't it just be the dps x melee hit chance? Might be easier to just do that outside the template.

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

Yeah, I was just thinking that ideally things like manipulation could be calculated automatically. On the other hand the template is already very complicated as it is.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Are the other images for the sarcophagus gallery old? The proportions seem to be off

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

Yea, I noticed the difference as well, that‘s why I didn’t replace the image in the infobox for now. I will check the game files as soon as possible.

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

I just checked the files and ingame and the shorter images are the current ones. Which raises the question: were did you get the longer version from? :-D

Harakoni (talkcontribs)
Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

Thanks for letting me know! I noticed to the long loading times as well but since I could get the preview to load I assumed it would fix itself after a while. I suspect I need to reduce the number of #ask calls, since the template include size is fine. I will try to fix it later this morning.

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

As far as I can tell the issue is the "Preprocessor visited node count" of Template:True Melee DPS Calculator. I tried to reduce it but I managed only a minor reduction (about 5%), not nearly the -50% that is probably needed (wasn't all for nothing though, since I found two calculation errors while editing). I therefore scrapped the material toggle for the Template:Melee Weapons Table. I kept it on Blunt weapons since that table is significantly smaller.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

I think I managed to cull another ~20%, care to take a look and make sure I didn't break anything?

Template:Q can add a lot (each one is a var def and an #if by default - its neat and easy to use, but it is more to process) so i pulled out all of them except those that used a default value and replaced them with #show and there were a couple of minor things. We could potentially cull the remaining Q's as well but I'm not sure if we'd actually save anything given they'd have to have a very similar logic to for the default anyway.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

I figured out a way to simplify Q that probably made that a little redundant, but it also worked on the existing ones so all up, including your work we dropped it by about 27%.

EDIT: Swapped the last of the Q's and it did actually cut it down a bit further, despite the changes made to the Q template. Calling or processing the variables must be a significant factor. Final measurement is a 31% reduction.

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

Great work! I can't see anything broken by the changes and especially the improvements to the Q-Template will speed up the whole wiki. I don't want to know how often that template is called.

Regarding the changes to Template:True Melee DPS Calculator: do the combined bluntAndQualityFactor and sharpAndQualityFactor really make a difference? I don't understand why that would be the case.

I think the templates could be optimised enough to activate the material toggle in the preview I get a Preprocessor visited node count of 569,262/1,000,000.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

> I don't want to know how often that template is called.

Its on something like 1300 pages... yeah its a lot. Glad to know that nothings broken - I've been looking and haven't found anything either. It'd have to be a weird edge case that relied on the variable somehow I think, but I've never seen anything like that.

> do the combined bluntAndQualityFactor and sharpAndQualityFactor really make a difference?

It was most a test to see how much of a difference a small difference would make - that same extra var call and multiplication was done what, like 20 times if every one fired? Iirc it was a couple of percent different. Not huge, but not nothing. Nothing I could see was pulling those values out to use, and I didn't really see a use for doing so either, but if you disagree you're welcome to revert that bit. Whatever you need. The vast majority is from changing it to #show/fixing the defaults.

> I think the templates could be optimised enough to activate the material toggle in the preview

Fantastic! Its 100% something that'd be great to have. We just gotta make it work first.

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

I did some further improvements to Template:True Melee DPS Calculator (among other things I realised we only needed four attacks for weapons). And compared to pre 13. Nov. 23 it runs about 40% faster Test case: {{True Melee DPS Calculator|Longsword|Gold|Good|Human}}.

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be enough. Strangely enough, the preview of Template:Melee Weapons Table loads if I activate the material toggle - but after I save I can't load the page.

> do the combined bluntAndQualityFactor and sharpAndQualityFactor really make a difference?

>>It was most a test to see how much of a difference a small difference would make - that same extra var call and multiplication was done what, like 20 times if every one fired? Iirc it was a couple of percent different. Not huge, but not nothing. Nothing I could see was pulling those values out to use, and I didn't really see a use for doing so either, but if you disagree you're welcome to revert that bit. Whatever you need. The vast majority is from changing it to #show/fixing the defaults.

I looked at it again and I think I understand now, why it makes a difference: the number of variables gets reduced by one and more importantly the multiplication of these to values is done only once. Thanks for the explanation!

Reply to "General Chat"