Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of Equipment"

From GodWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tags: mobile edit mobile web edit
Line 171: Line 171:
:::::: Yes, the "rowspan=2" looks good! 👍🏼 I also like the altered table formatting from {{u|Djonni}} up above.  The floating index no longer looks like it is almost covering the right edge of the durability column. It's a subtle change, but more readable, IMO. --[[User:Bibliophile|Bibliophile]] ([[User talk:Bibliophile|talk]]) 00:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
:::::: Yes, the "rowspan=2" looks good! 👍🏼 I also like the altered table formatting from {{u|Djonni}} up above.  The floating index no longer looks like it is almost covering the right edge of the durability column. It's a subtle change, but more readable, IMO. --[[User:Bibliophile|Bibliophile]] ([[User talk:Bibliophile|talk]]) 00:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
{{outdent|::::::}} {{m|Dome}} Equipment table widths changed as discussed, in [https://wiki.godvillegame.com/index.php?title=List_of_Equipment&type=revision&diff=123963&oldid=123944 this edit.] As ever, if this causes any unexpected issues, please either undo the edit or let me know and I'll change things back. This should make it a little easier to read the table as you fine folks begin to implement the <code>rowspan="2" |</code> solutions for equipment with multiple durability ranges. 👍 -- [[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 07:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:27, 7 December 2020

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)


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


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)

Equipment with multiple durability values

I decided that it's probably time we come up with a standard way of writing about equipment with multiple durability ranges, or at the very least, to decide whether such equipment exists.

For example, my own hero is currently using a shield called "iron curtain" with +40 durability. A clanmate (a god named SBFH, if you want to check my sources) has a hero using a shield with an identical name, with +151 durability. I could not find any other examples of the upper range, but I also couldn't find enough heroes wearing similarly-levelled gear to decide that SBFH was some kind of outlier. As for the lower range, in addition to my own hero, I found two others, in the range of +40 to +41 (one god was named Codbro, and I don't remember the other's name).

It might be possible that the single example I found of the iron curtain's upper range is something that the hero bought a while ago, and hasn't replaced since a recent update which may have changed the equipment's range of levels. (+151 was the durability value found on the wiki when I started my research today, which is why I assume that may be part of an old range, and the +40 to +41 values would be a newer, post-update range.) The only reason I doubt this, is because it seems unlikely that the devs would reduce the durability of equipment. It's a well-known fact that the devs have plenty of low-level equipment, but are severely lacking in high-level equipment (according to a forum post: https://godvillegame.com/forums/redirect_to_post/2297?post=189162), so it seems unrealistic that they would worsen this imbalance by reducing the level on at least one piece of equipment.

I'm getting super side-tracked here, but the point is, I think we should come up with some kind of standardized method of listing items with multiple durability ranges. I tried my attempt at this, on the "Iron Curtain" that I've been using as an example, but my attempt looks clunky, and takes up 3 lines on my device. It would probably take up a 4th line, if I had been able to find a second value for the upper-range. I'm not sure if it looks any better in the browser version of a game, but my attempt certainly looks awful on the android version.

Another possibility i came up with would be to add a separate column for each each durability range, but that would mean lots of blank cells for equipment that only has one range. Alternatively, we could make a separate row for each durability range, but that sounds like it would look even worse. Maybe a better option would be to remove the plus symbols from durability values, and just have the default be a positive number? That would look like "40 to 41 or 150 to 151" for positive numbers, and "-10 to -8 or -2 to 1" for negative numbers and/or ranges that cross zero. Now that I write it out, that option would probably still be three unsightly lines on the mobile version of the chart. So maybe some sort of standardized shorthand would be better, such as "40-41:150-151"? The standardized shorthand option seems like it might be okay, once people learn what it means, but I can't come up with a way to make negative values look reasonable, unless I change the "-" to some other character. Before I sink any more time into this idea though, I should probably give others a chance to share their thoughts, in case I'm completely wasting my time or something like that.

So... Any thoughts, advice, or ideas? --Almighty Kaity (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Almighty Kaity! You're not wasting your time 😊 It has been something I've been pondering since I've noted and recorded (just on paper so far) more equipment with two widely divergent values. As you described, I've found heroes currently playing that have equipment X but different durability at very different hero levels. Often I just have found one very high-level value, but still....Even some of the current ranges we have, such as +108 to +160 (sneakers of suspicion) seem way too large to me.
I've started calling this the "2-tier" problem. I tried some of what you did and it didn't look great on my iPhone but wasn't totally horrible either. Eventually, I thought about using a semi-colon between the tiers since that is often used as a shorthand. So some options would be: +50 to +60;+149 or 50–60;149 or +50 to +60;+149 to +150 (No space between semi-colon and next tier). I previewed the view with semi-colons and it didn't seem to break any other wiki code. As far as I could tell.
I'm ambivalent about dropping the plus values because it shows up that way in the game, but the plus or minus values wouldn't work if only using en-dashes between the numbers (50–68).
I had nothing to do with designing any of the tables, so this other idea might screw up something. But I also wondered if two tiers would look better if the percentage of the column values were slightly changed. Reducing the percentage of the first column and using that amount extra to increase the 3rd column. Does that make sense?
I totally agree about deciding on a standard shorthand, but not sure what adjustments would be best.
As an aside, I was diagnosed last week with a serious medical disease. I might be slower to respond to comments and not be able to work as much on the wiki as I intended in the next months. Nevertheless, I AM still interested and paying attention to all these equipment (or other) conversations. Will help as much as possible...just maybe less quickly. 😊
So, yeah, sorry to bog down your ideas with my last paragraph! I hope others will chime in with thoughts on solutions since this is definitely a real issue. --Bibliophile (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
So, there's one possible approach to this which is a little bit technical, and probably requires you guys to become a little more familiar with the nitty gritty of wikitables 😊 But if you like, you can show the distinct quality ranges as partial rows in the table. This approach appeals to me for reasons I'll go into a little below, but here's an example:
Equipment Type Durability
Iron crown H +14 to +17
Iron curtain S +40 to +41
Iron fist W +21
The important part of the code is this:
| rowspan="2" | [[Iron curtain]] || rowspan="2" | S || +40 to +41
| +151
Putting rowspan="2" | immediately in front of the contents of a cell makes it, as you probably guess, span two rows of the table. (colspan=n | does the same for columns.) So, the table format stays fairly consistent, easy to read, and (to me, at least) very clear that we believe there are separate and distinct value ranges for some of these equipment items.
I leave the choice in your hands, but one reason this approach appeals to me (aside from aesthetic advantages) is that I think it resembles what's going on under the Godville hood. I think that, in order to fill out the too-empty high levels of equipment, the devs have had to make duplicate entries. In other words, I think the database that holds all the equipment has two separate entries called "iron curtain", each with a different quality range. As they find and approve more and more cool high level gear in the ideabox, I'd say that the duplicate high-quality entries will slowly be removed (so that, eventually, there'll only be the mid-level iron curtains appearing in the game).
Of course that's just an educated guess, but that's how I'd design it if I was the developer.
As for the question of column widths, I agree that it needs some adjusting. The columns widths have to be specified in order to ensure that the columns on every table on the page line up precisely, but we should probably move to having the columns specified in rem units rather than percentages. In fact, I wonder if it wouldn't be smart to limit the total width of the table; on mobile it's fine, but on desktop the gap between the equipment name on the left and the details on the right actually make it a bit hard to read (it's too easy for the eye to slip from line to line as you look along a row). We should probably also take out all the unnecessary [Collapse] links (it was me who put them in in the first place, and I should've listened to WardPhoenix when he pointed out they were a bit pointless 😁.) I'll have a bit of a play with the formatting.
As a side-note; we wish you all the best, Bibliophile. As we always say around here, real life comes first, and we all wish you as much health and happiness as your diagnosis and circumstances allow. 🤗 -- Djonni (talk)
Please take a peek at Special:PermanentLink/123912#Equipment table formatting on all of your available screens and devices and let us know if you think this would be a good change, or suggest another approach. It's a shared sandbox, so you can open for editing, try things, preview them, etc. Feel free to save a new version of the page for discussion as well, if you have a better (or different) idea, the link above will always point to the same revision, and I can change any links you post to always point to the correct revision as well, so we can all see and discuss a few different ideas.
Hopefully this goes without saying by now, but please don't hesitate to politely say "that's a horrible suggestion, Djonni" if you think so. I'm hard to bruise. 😉
Last thing: I should've added this link in the above note, but for more information on how those rowspan="n" and style="css" properties work in wikitables, see mediawikiwiki:Help:Tables#HTML attributes. -- Djonni (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I second [[User:|Djonni]] suggestion there, looks neat. --WardPhoenix (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The "rowspan=2" definitely seems like the best option so far. And on a side-note, I'll definitely be spending some time on that second link, for the sake of seeing what other formatting witchcraft I can learn. --Almighty Kaity (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the "rowspan=2" looks good! 👍🏼 I also like the altered table formatting from Djonni up above. The floating index no longer looks like it is almost covering the right edge of the durability column. It's a subtle change, but more readable, IMO. --Bibliophile (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tick.png Done Equipment table widths changed as discussed, in this edit. As ever, if this causes any unexpected issues, please either undo the edit or let me know and I'll change things back. This should make it a little easier to read the table as you fine folks begin to implement the rowspan="2" | solutions for equipment with multiple durability ranges. 👍 -- Djonni (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)