wiki rights revoked (in General)

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 20 2009 4:49 PM EDT

i don't think the wiki is the place for arguments or soapboxing.

i do think it is a wonderful tool to store information and help for the game. perhaps we could keep the arguments in the forums? i really would hate to see the wiki locked off or shut down.

i do also realize that we have a "strategy & comments" section where we can place comments. deleting others posts from this area because we disagree with them is likely going too far though.

if we force jon to address this we will very likely dislike his solution!

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] April 20 2009 4:52 PM EDT

As soon as two people disagree about a wiki entry, they should take it to the forums, like you said. Simple as that.

QBOddBird April 20 2009 4:52 PM EDT

As you said, we have a "strategy & comments" section for commentary.

I have little more to say on the topic than to agree with you there.

Thak April 20 2009 4:53 PM EDT

lol you gotta be kidding *rolls eyes*

QBOddBird April 20 2009 5:00 PM EDT

OK, so to address the issue that likely brought this thread up:

The Elven Stiletto hits a fair deal weaker than the Katana. However, against ToE and AC / combo of both teams, it should do better. This makes it able to specialize against certain teams - something consistently used when trying to rise thru ranks and maintain a 100% challenge bonus - while not having the cost of a VB. It's basically a temporary starting vorpal weapon.

The question is, SHOULD the generalization be made on its Wiki page that it should be skipped altogether and a katana be bought instead?

While that's true in general (higher base damage weapons are better than lower ones in general, period) it isn't true in every situation. I think such commentary belongs in the "strategy & commentary" section. However, if anyone can prove that the Elven Stiletto is worse than the Katana in all situations, not only would that be worth a wiki edit but it would be worth a couple threads to convince Jon that he's placed a worthless weapon in the game to trick newbies.

There's my opinion on the matter, and unless someone can convince me that such commentary belongs on the ES's page, I'm going to revert it back to the correct version in a few days and keep it reverted.

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] April 20 2009 5:04 PM EDT

''The Elven Stiletto hits a fair deal weaker than the Katana. However, against ToE and AC / combo of both teams, it should do better. This makes it able to specialize against certain teams - something consistently used when trying to rise thru ranks and maintain a 100% challenge bonus - while not having the cost of a VB. It's basically a temporary starting vorpal weapon. ''

THIS should be what the wiki says. It's the compromise you are looking for and should kill all discussion about the Stiletto.

Eliteofdelete [Battle Royale] April 20 2009 5:07 PM EDT

Elven Stiletto is a low cost, low ranks weapon.
Low ranks have no armor or very limited armor.
Therefore, Elven Stiletto sucks. :)

However, I guess if you want to look for the 3-5 teams that have a ToE or 150-250 armor and fight them you could do that.

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] April 20 2009 5:09 PM EDT

''Therefore, Elven Stiletto sucks''

In MOST situations. Not all. So you can't make a black and white comment about how it ''sucks, period.''

QBRanger April 20 2009 5:13 PM EDT

I guess one can make a case for the Two handed Flail while your at it. Heck, you can use it with a SoC and do massive damage. Would you recommend it to any other player-nope.

That is all I have to say.

QBRanger April 20 2009 5:16 PM EDT

And for those that actually read what I first typed in the wiki:

"Generally avoid. There are better weapons out there including the Katana. Worst case scenario, rent."

That is exactly what I typed in the wiki. I typed "this weapon sucks" as the reason for the edit of the wiki, but NOT in the wiki itself as information for others to base their opinions on.

Then certain people got their panties into a bundle and lost all control of bladder and bowel habits.

Now I have stated enough.

QBRanger April 20 2009 5:19 PM EDT

Sry one more post while my BP is 200/140:

"but it would be worth a couple threads to convince Jon that he's placed a worthless weapon in the game to trick newbies. "

Duh, that is what we have been posting in numerous threads in the past. And now the wiki is finally catching up. Have you not seen these threads about how the ES is a poor weapon? But since it really does not effect gameplay per se, it has not been a huge topic of conversation until others made it so. I would think Jon has better things to do, like try to fix the AoJ with the JKF among others.

But the ES is useless, especially with the NUB giving money to new players by the wheelbarrow load.

QBRanger April 20 2009 5:23 PM EDT

And this was the intial comment I first edited:

"Good starting weapon for any melee tank."

I really fail to see where I argued with anyone in the wiki. I was changing a statement to reflect almost all of CBs view towards this useless weapon. Others then got on their soapbox directly challenging me in both the wiki and the forums.

Is it better to let a new player see an ES for 7k in the auctions and snatch it up, thinking it is a good starting weapon? I think now. Therefore my avoid comment.

AdminQBVerifex April 20 2009 5:24 PM EDT

Good lord people. You guys just make your own page called "(insert name here)'s strategies" and "(insert other persons name here)'s strategies".

Problem solved.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 20 2009 5:26 PM EDT

you had already created this thread though:

the wiki edit with your chosen subject line could be seen as overkill.

i think the best way of putting it is that if everyone who felt strongly about something in this game did the same thing with the wiki it would be chaos.

i am more disturbed by what i saw as people changing each others entries. strategies and comments by design should give you a place to state your strat or comment whilst respecting others to do the same. deleting others input out of there because you disagree is wrong.

QBOddBird April 20 2009 5:31 PM EDT

Damn dude, I thought you were gonna stop posting? Way to raise my hopes and then crush them all at once.

You should have read the ENTIRE sentence you quoted, as you only pulled the part that met your post's needs.

"However, if anyone can prove that the Elven Stiletto is worse than the Katana in all situations, not only would that be worth a wiki edit but it would be worth a couple threads to convince Jon that he's placed a worthless weapon in the game to trick newbies. "

Did you read where it says all situations? That means that if it ISN'T capable of outperforming the katana against AC/ToE/combo of both teams, then a thread should be made. Otherwise, it's simply one of the weaker starting weapons, but capable of specialization.

And now to finish off with a nicely worded insult such as yours. Please, certain un-mentioned person whom these two sentences are clearly directed toward, do the world a favor and remove your entire upper torso from your bottom-most orifice. My undergarments are hardly bundled, nor have I lost any control over my bowels or bladder.

Yeah, I can play that game too.

I'm not going to continue an argument over your entire lot of posts; I just wanted to address that one issue. I'm now going to go edit in that section that Bruno suggested. Thanks, and have a nice day.

(oh, and please, follow through with that threat of yours about not posting further. It would make my day ever-so-much better.)

Thak April 20 2009 5:39 PM EDT

"Reduces effective AC/Endurance by 50% on attack" basically decay for armour. Add the GoM and Cape for the nice PTH bonus all forged up you could take out someones AC np and coupled with your damage dealers those walls/tanks are now way weaker basically nullifying most of their armours effect and taking about max damage now.

just my 2 sense on it

QBRanger April 20 2009 6:20 PM EDT

By the same token then, why not suggest they use a mace with a SoC.

As in certain situations it may be even better then the ES or the katana.

Sometimes common sense needs to prevail.

It certainly lost its meaning with this discussion.

I find it incredibly stupid that people are railing that I changed the ES to reflect it not being recommending in ALMOST all situations. I was trying to save a new player from making a mistake and then others rail to high heaven that I am the monster of the wiki and should have my wiki privileges revoked.

What a bunch of freaking stupid muppets.

QBOddBird April 20 2009 6:21 PM EDT

Damn kid, nobody said your wiki rights were revoked, take a chill pill.

QBRanger April 20 2009 6:22 PM EDT

Read the topic of the thread. It seems that way to me.

Or was that sort of a Shock Type of thread title designed to stir people up?

Hakai [Aye Phelta Thi] April 20 2009 6:38 PM EDT

I read it as more of a warning to EVERYONE, not just you two, that if the deleting of each others' posts out of spite keeps up, we'll lose the wiki.

Zenai [Ministry of Pain] April 20 2009 6:57 PM EDT

You know what....everyone jumps at things every once in a while it happens, I've done it and I don't feel to good about it when I do. Attacking the situation does not always work in the way you may want it to, sometimes it just backfires. Firing comments back and forth when you are mad/frustrated only makes things worse in the short and long run. The better thing to do would be either Compromise or just Let It Go. It's less stressful and tiring to deal with :)

Cube April 20 2009 7:18 PM EDT

The Elven Stilletto is worse in all situations.

How you ask?

At low levels there are no ToE, high AC teams - 1. due to the ToE being useless, especially at very low levels and 2. due to the Net worth limit it's impossible to have viable AC down low.

At high levels, use a VB.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 20 2009 7:20 PM EDT

i chose that title to make a point that if this continues, we will likely end up with the two options stated in the original thread: wiki deleted or closed to player edits.

i was in no way asking for anyone's privileges to be revoked. i also posted no names.

as for the weapons, i agree that some need boosted while others need deletion.

for the purpose of this thread though, i could care less about the items and just wanted to say:

please stop using the wiki for soapbox issues for fear of losing it.

ResistanZ2 [The Knighthood] April 20 2009 7:22 PM EDT

I agree with Dudemus. But at the same time I know I wouldn't want to be a new player, going to the wiki getting some ideas about strats, then up wanting to get an ES, thinking it would rock, cause it sucks.

Demigod April 20 2009 7:37 PM EDT

"i could care less"

Bad Dudemus! It's "couldn't care less." I have a coworker who says it the wrong way on a daily basis... drives me nuts.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 20 2009 7:40 PM EDT

you are correct in that i could not care less! ; )

i guess i could care more though...have you met bast?

QBRanger April 20 2009 7:41 PM EDT

I did not use the wiki for a "soapbox" moment.

As I stated before numerous times, I was making a strategy comment designed to stop new players from using such a pathetic weapon.

As Cube posted so well, the ES is worse in every situation with perhaps maybe one situation that may possibly never occur ever in the CB universe.

But in all reality, the ES is a bad choice for a weapon. Even for starting tanks.

My very first edit to the wiki posted that. "Generally avoid. There are better weapons out there including the Katana. Worst case scenario, rent." No soapbox moment there. I did put a comment in about it sucking as to why I edited the wiki, but that is not seen unless you retry to edit it.

However, others took it upon themselves to reedit my post and then start accusing me of using the wiki as an opinions board.

The reality was quite far from that.

And the title of this thread appears to be nothing more than a desire to inflame people and start yet another pointless thread. Just read the title "wiki rights revoked". When I read that, I thought there was a major problem and a changelog coming. Perhaps something milder would have been far better and would not have started arguments in this thread.

Let us all try to do better next time.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 20 2009 7:47 PM EDT

"put a comment in about it sucking as to why I edited the wiki, but that is not seen unless you retry to edit it."

you can also see all wiki edits done recently on the main wiki page when you click on the "help" link. this is where i saw it first. when you see it that way and go into the entry and cannot tell what else was changed, then it looks quite antagonistic.

if you thought that, as your post implies, no one other than those editing it would see that then perhaps it wasn't as soapboxy of a moment as i thought it was and i apologize for that.

the timing with the other thread you created though sure seemed too much to be coincidence.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] April 20 2009 7:49 PM EDT

quit arguing and go look at my thread :P.

QBRanger April 20 2009 7:56 PM EDT

After I visualized all the crappy weapons in auctions and made my post, yes, I was reminded by someone about the wiki.

So I then edited it.

Why is there so much hate for doing this? For trying to make a new player not spend money on a weapon that before my edit would seem to be a passable weapon.

It seems to me that the edits following mine were the antagonist ones. Towards me. While my post, if antagonist, was towards the useless weapon and the attempt to prevent others from wasting money on it.

I guess no good dead goes unpunished. So much for me trying to help new players. Let us just let them flounder and spend money on useless items/weapons until they figure it out for themselves.

QBOddBird April 20 2009 7:57 PM EDT

If someone would help us out, Titan and I are trying to get a little testing done to see if the ES's vorpalness just isn't enough to counteract its small damage output. We need a small non-BL tank. I'll pay x-fers, BS fees to try it at x10 and x20, and will repay BA cost to buy back the BA you lose testing.

QBOddBird April 20 2009 7:59 PM EDT

Ranger, if I say I'm sorry I edited your post, will you stop whining?

If so, I'm sorry. If you're just going to keep making self-righteous posts about how you can't do anything for the good of CB, though, then jeez, cry me a river but keep it under the bridge and out of my sight.

AdminNightStrike April 20 2009 7:59 PM EDT

I reviewed all of the recent changes to the ES wiki page.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the change Ranger made, and there's no question in my mind that it's there to help players make a smart, informed decision. I see nothing about a soapbox, nor anything that implies intent other than trying to keep the wiki as a reliable information source.

As an aside, there's nothing unique about Ranger's comment on his wiki change. People, myself included, have been putting things like that in wiki change comments for ages. What matters is what goes into the wiki itself, and I see no issues there.

Conversely, the current page does in fact imply that a new player should consider the ES when there really is no reason to at all.

QBOddBird April 20 2009 8:10 PM EDT

NS - if you feel the Elven Stiletto is entirely useless, even as a temporary weapon until one can afford a Vorpal Blade (for a specialized strat,) then why has it not been changed yet? I didn't think Jon would intentionally put in traps for newbies.

If it isn't even useless as a temporary weapon until a VB purchase, then certainly, my edits were useless. However, despite it being generally less useful, I did think it could have _some_ use - otherwise I did not think Jon would have added it after already having the Katana here.

Either way, I'm getting some tests done to check it out even against 200AC (beyond what a newbie should ever really face) and I want to see just how bad the weapon is. I hate going by "this weapon sucks and I said so so its true" and would much rather see the numbers, myself.

Maybe an admin with the ability to edit the game code could fix it or something. *grin*

AdminNightStrike April 20 2009 8:29 PM EDT

I've been in Hawaii without a computer for a long time (still there, just I finally got a replacement laptop), so I don't really have the background to answer your question. All I can comment on is what I reviewed just now.

I would however say that even if you found some corner case scenario where the ES works great, it doesn't invalidate the change that Ranger put in. "Generally avoid" says it all. Like so many other items in the game, you avoid it unless you're an experienced player trying to do something esoteric (AS with 2 minions comes to mind, or any strat that JW puts together...) "Generally" doesn't mean "always", so your search for 1 far out scenario to justify listing it as viable for the average player is probably not the best course of action.

You construed a lot that wasn't there in Ranger's edit, most likely because of some prior arguement between the two of you in some thread that I have yet to read. I'm not surprised he reacted the way he did. I *am* surprised that you jumped on him, however. That's the kind of thing novice does, not you. You're supposed to be the calm collected one that posts questionably PG pictures of boobies. In fact, through most of this thread, I thought it was novice talking, and I was waiting for your post of a hand on a mouse that looks like something entirely different (I still can't find that pic..)

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] April 20 2009 8:41 PM EDT

Sweet frigging lord almighty I can possess people now!

QBOddBird April 20 2009 8:47 PM EDT

I never wanted to list it as viable for the average player, but that it did have a use as a specialized strat weapon. However, like you said and like testing shows, it doesn't have a use for squat. Maybe Jon could fix it a little bit if he ever makes that Elven Set?

Just for you:

(here's hoping the next image host I've chosen actually likes me and shows these)

QBRanger April 20 2009 10:38 PM EDT

I think he will fix it the day he makes Steel Brigs useful.

Except for Tournament characters that is.

QBRanger April 20 2009 10:42 PM EDT

And OB,

I do not care that much you edited my post.

I care that you think I was using the wiki as a soapbox for my own personal agenda. My rational for changing the ES part was to help the new players avoid this weapon.

I had thought, via the past posts I have read/contributed on the subject, it was well accepted this weapon was garbage.

I guess that is what I get for assuming. At least we now all agree, via recent testing, that it is a bad choice for all but perhaps T characters.

QBRanger April 20 2009 10:47 PM EDT

And I do now see where the confusion was. It was in my comment's section where I stated "it sucks" or something similar.

However, I knew that the wiki page would never show that and just used something to put in the comment section as without any comment, you cannot make an edit.

From the wiki itself:
Page cannot be saved until the following are fixed:

* 'Reason for change' may not be empty.

I guess that was an inside joke that the community took to be something else.

For that I really am sorry if I offended anyone.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 20 2009 10:54 PM EDT

the only reason i saw it was the hopeful streak i have makes me check the wiki edits daily to see if bug fixes have been done. ; (

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] April 21 2009 5:19 AM EDT

"I didn't think Jon would intentionally put in traps for newbies."

Tulwars? ;)

Well, they're not 'bad' weapons in the sense they actually penalise you, like a DCM. But there's nothing good about them. And you could do much better *without* one.

So maybe it's still a trap in one sense. ;)

lostling April 21 2009 5:58 AM EDT

i lose count of the countless newbies who try to upgrade weapons that shouldnt even be around... Example soft leather armor or scythe... As i said long time ago... Make the low end equip not so low end... Ie special abilities or perks... Or you might as well delete the lot of them

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 21 2009 8:08 AM EDT

soft leather was removed, now we just have leather armor.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] April 21 2009 8:32 AM EDT

Congrats, Nov!

AdminNightStrike April 21 2009 11:25 AM EDT

pictures no workey....

QBOddBird April 22 2009 10:13 PM EDT

This thread is still here if anyone wants to dispute that particular wiki page. There's no need to continue reverting back and forth when you can SIMPLY post here and say, "I think it should/shouldn't be this way." We worked it out once, we can do it again.

Also, do you guys think the Wiki should have a page to explain the Rolling Bonus theory? Every time it is brought up, there are misconceptions, questions, comments, etc. and it would be easier if we had a page to refer to this idea rather than re-explaining it once a month. There are lots of various posts on the topic, and I would not mind taking the time to put together a page of them...

Wizard'sFirstRule April 22 2009 10:21 PM EDT

putting 500k or so NW into leather armor set is alright, you can throw it onto a mage or an enchanter and it works for ages until you need something like NSC or Corn. DCM/Tulwar on the other hand, is disgusting.

Demigod April 22 2009 10:41 PM EDT

"do you guys think the Wiki should have a page to explain the Rolling Bonus theory?"

I say yes. Is there really a downside to it? It just might become part of a short-lived editing war...
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002jC3">wiki rights revoked</a>