Talk:List of Equipment

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Equipment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
  • Opinionated research if possible
  • Neutral point of view when appropriate
  • Humour
  • Verifiability
  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Do not bite the newcomers
  • Respond in a mature manner
  • Be welcoming
  • Maintain civility at all times

Right-hand column numbers

What exactly are the numbers in the far-right column for? I know they aren't for the equipment's rating (like +20 or -2), so are they for the amount of hero's that had that piece of equipment the last time a scan was done? --Palotheas (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2015 (BST)

Palotheas, I can't be 100% sure, but since this page's data was originally populated by a scan of the Godville universe (as it says in the intro, "This data was derived from a recent (2014-06-13) scan of over 49k heroes."), I strongly suspect that the right-hand column figures show a count of how many of each piece of equipment were found during the scan. So, when the scan was run, 811 of those ~49,000 heroes had a 1-up mushroom as their talisman, but only 522 heroes were carrying a 128-bit encryption shield. So on, and so on.
As such, it's not really useful data (especially now that those counts are a year out of date), but it does potentially give some indication of how rare each item is. (Or, if the system doesn't have a concept of rarity, and considers the hero equally likely to come across any piece of equipment, then I suppose the counts would instead show how new the item is, to the Godville universe.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
And, here we are > 3 years later, when those counts have been removed from (I think) all of the other previously auto-populated list tables on the wiki. I'll most likely remove them here, too, because they really are useless at this point, and becoming more useless by the week as new equipment is added to the list (necessarily, without corresponding counts). So, at some point soon — possibly tonight — I'll finally pull the current table into an editor and run a quick replacement to remove that unnecessary third column. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Tick.png Done The third column is no more. Also did some other cleanup. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorting

See my note about sorting at Talk:List of Artifacts, which also applies to this table. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Durability

I'm sure im not the only one thats noticed durability numbers don't always match up with what you see in game, but they're always close. So does durability have a random number in a range? RNG? I feel like I'm wasting time correcting number. Probably half a dozen in the last couple weeks. If it is not random and indeed--I just literally happened to find incorrect info--so be it, but I somehow doubt it.

So... what to do about it?

--The Smurf (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Durability have a range I think. Since there is a game mechanic that makes durability go up or down sometimes, I have no idea is Equipment have a fixed starting value. I usually try to put the lowest durability found but maybe putting the range like [lowest number ; highest number] would be more appropriate. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Durability Conflicts

Some equipment on the list that have a valid article link show wildly different durability values on the article page compared to what is on the list. Many of the durability numbers in such articles were added in 2014, with few, if any, content edits since.

See Shield of dreams. The article says +28 and the list +67. It’s a possible range, but seems unlikely.

Is there a standard way to handle this conflict? Use both numbers as an range? Don’t worry about it for now?

This is the kind of nit-picking detail I enjoy checking and that irks me when two sources don’t match up. I realize it is hardly the most important work needed to be done on the wiki, though. Thoughts? -- Bibliophile (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha, I'll give you my first thought: I realize it is hardly the most important work needed to be done on the wiki, though. Pffft, who cares, if it's what you enjoy 😆 If all of us only do the "most important work" here we'd never have any fun... That's not what it's here for! 😉
As for a standard way to handle this conflict, no. I'd take WardPhoenix's thoughts over my own on this as he's spent a lot more time and effort thinking about equipment durability than I have (roughly ∞:0 ratio), but my feeling would be to 1) use your best judgement; 2) prefer evidence you find yourself over evidence from other people; and 3) prefer recent data over old.
There's plenty of reason to believe that equipment may have been re-levelled over time, especially upwards. High-level equipment has been on the Ideabox Wanted Content list for literally forever, and the population of high-level heroines and heroes only continued to grow over time. It would make a lot of sense to me if, at some point in the last few years, with an undersupply of cool and awesome sounding equipment ideas coming through the Ideabox, they decided to do a re-spec of the entire catalogue, adjusting equipment levels up and down for a rebalanced spread. I doubt it would happen often (sounds like a pretty fiddly and tedious job to me, after the first few hours of it at least), but I can absolutely see it as possible.
As I think about it a bit, I think I'd add 4) prefer the numbers in the list over numbers in articles/infoboxes. That column in the list is, I think, newish (added by WardPhoenix in fact, if I recall correctly), and the list is less likely to get an edit from someone who just thinks they should put in something there, which is definitely a thing that happens with blank fields in infoboxes.
Also, I guess I'd add 5) prefer shrinking the ranges over growing them. It's much easier to find evidence in future that extends the range again, than to find evidence in future to shrink the available range.
So, yeah. Use your judgement, be bold. My hope is that ultimately all this data we have on equipment durability ranges will resolve itself into a pattern: I suspect that, like pet taming level ranges, beastie health ranges, and various other in-game collections, all equipment has a 'base' level with a predictable durability range. So eventually I expect we'll be able to go through and regularise all the equipment durability ranges across the board. -- Djonni (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah a lot of durability added in current articles are really old and I often suspected that some were mere placeholders. And having conflicts between data is sadly the everyday of the Godwiki (looking at you Omnibus List and other Lists).
I also noticed that some middle leveled Equipment seemed to have a high-level version (saw the exact same piece of Equipment at ~+50 and ~+150) so I am not that confident about some ranges myself, though I tried to update the list via Pantheons of Creation and Destruction (which can only be filled by active players)
My wild guess would be, as Djonni said, that each equipment have a basic range (more or less few levels) and some Equipment have atleast two ranges, probably because high-quality Equipment is lacking -- WardPhoenix (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Djonni and WardPhoenix! This type of “tidying up” update work is also fairly easy to do on my phone. I need a new computer (still researching!), so I’m doing mobile edits for now, which isn’t ideal for trying anything too complicated.
Both your comments confirm a bit of what I suspected about the equipment values maybe changing over time and that the List values are likely newer. My initial instinct was to use the List value, but I wanted feedback from people who have been working on this longer than me 😁
Agreed that creating a huge range isn’t ideal unless I (we) actually know it still exists. Personally, I think using the List as the more “authoritative” source is a good idea since it is being more actively updated with what current info can be found in the game. I usually have just been updating the List value based off my (heroine’s) own equipment. But checking those Pantheons is a great idea, especially to try to find equipment that have no values at all.
I‘ll use the List value in articles unless the article has been updated recently. Some article infoboxes have nothing filled in except the equipment name, so I can easily update those with equipment type and durability. -- Bibliophile (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of using the pantheons for research, all the short-term pantheons are useful. I'd say that the Mastery, Wordcraft and Arkeology would be most useful to zero-in on the highest-level gear, and junior duellers and construction would both be useful for the lowest. -- Djonni (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Equipment Clean Up

Djonni, thanks for the huge clean up of the List of Equipment. I wanted to mention that I've currently been working on a similar "equipment project" to figure out if equipment on the list is still accurate, along with any durability changes. I haven't gone through every line you changed yet, but so far what you eliminated corresponds with my findings. (The following is an explanation of basically what I've been doing. Just so we are all on the same page.)

Originally, my goal was to discover if any listed equipment lacking any durability (and sometimes weapon type) actually existed. I've found a surprising number of them! Blank values just irritate me 😂 Then I noticed suspiciously similar equipment, but I could only find evidence of one "version." So, I decided be more efficient and combine my equipment "investigation" with my on-going durability updates.

My method has been to print out (yes, very old school 😉) the List of Equipment, then write down the durability of each weapon of any active heroes I find (i.e., in a guild or only a few days old if in pantheon but not in a guild). Reading things on paper gives me a different perspective than viewing on a screen, too. I tried Google site search for some equipment; that has its limitations but was somewhat helpful.

Results (so far):

  1. Noted old equipment and dupes/mistakes that you already cleaned up.
  2. Found other equipment I suspect are dupes/mistakes that you didn't remove.
    1. One example is "pair of surgical gloves" vs. "surgical gloves". The latter has durability range and I seen several times recently, but nothing for the first "pair of" entry.
  3. Found equipment with missing durability and new/unlisted equipment, which I've added as I find them.
  4. Many updates for durability. In an effort to add fewer individual durability updates (especially for same equipment), I will be updating by letter groups.
  5. Some equipment definitely have two tiers of durability currently. WardPhoenix mentioned noticing this in a different section above.
    1. Vortex cannon and rock-immune scissors are example of my own heroine's equipment with durability the low to mid +60s. I've found examples of the same equipment with ~ +160 in much higher level heroes. There seem to be distinct clusters.
    2. Some equipment only seen at high-levels (at least +100 durability) have a large range but less distinct clusters (so far).

Unless anyone has a problem with it, I plan to continue "surveying" heroes to find missing equipment, durability updates, and the durability listed each time I find the same equipment. While not the most sophisticated method, it works well enough. As always, thoughts, questions, suggestions are welcome 😊 --Bibliophile (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless anyone has a problem with it, I plan to continue: Please Bibliophile, continue, continue! Continue! 😃
I'm very glad you started this talk topic, for a couple reasons. Firstly, I usually document my investigation whenever I remove anything from a list, but with the large edit that you're talking about, I obviously didn't do this. So I'll explain my methodology for what I removed, and what I didn't. In a moment.
Because before I do that I want to very clearly and loudly thank all of you who have spent a huge amount of effort in this list in the last year. This begins, of course, with WardPhoenix, who began the extensive work on this list, updating and investigating durability in a systematic way before it was cool. Bibliophile and Lakefire Arrow also deserve a big shout-out, along with a large cast of occasional, but regular, contributors: Dream Summoner, Almighty Kaity, and others. In all my Godwiki time I've never seen this list in such good shape, and I've rarely known any part of the game that has had so much effort applied to it, so consistently, and by so many committed investigators, than the List of Equipment has had this year. It's brilliant, and impressive, and I really hope that it's fun in a super-nerdy way for everyone 🤓
So. My main goal with the big edit was actually not about this list; I was trying to burn as much dead matter out of Omnibus List#GV-Equipment as I could. But improving the quality and accuracy of this list obviously goes hand-in-hand with that. I went line-by-line through both lists side-by-side, looked for discrepancies, dupes, and just generally suspicious entries based on informed intuition. I used the usual tools to try to evaluate the existence of any suspect entries: forum search, godwiki text search, historical crosswords, and other external tools. However, I had one extra investigation tool that I've never had before when digging into Equipment like this: I opened a window with a slice of the list's history including over 300 separate edits dating back to January, shortly after WardPhoenix first added the durability column. This allowed me to rapidly and easily confirm items that had had confirmed sightings by trustworthy investigators this year. (I excluded the earlier contributions to the durability column from this list, as I believe that many of the first entries on the list were pulled from the information on articles, rather than from contemporaneous data. Not sure about that, and I figured the data from January was solid enough.)
This slice of the page history was, frankly, the most accurate source I had available for investigating. So, again, a round of applause for all those who have contributed to this. 👏👏👏 Now, if Bibliophile or anyone else notices that I removed something I shouldn't have, please don't hesitate to return it. I was reasonably conservative in what I removed, but definitely don't guarantee that I didn't remove something that shouldn't have been removed.
There's interesting points in your post above, Bibliophile. I don't want to monopolise the discussion any more than I have so I'll give others a chance to discuss stuff now, but I'm watching and reading with interest 😊 -- Djonni (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)