User talk:Dywypi

Welcome! May I extend my warmest welcomes and offer you any help you may need? Thanks for your contributions, mate!


 * ...First, you may want to check out our FAQ page.
 * ...There's a wealth of wiki documentation on the Help page, perhaps some of it may be of use to you.
 * ...Before you upload your screenshots, which we really appreciate, please read our file naming policy.
 * ...With the wiki's most recent update from version 1.17 to 1.19, we now have a section of buttons on the bottom of every edit page that should streamline and make template usage SOOO much easier... For some details about this, please see the help page for these buttons.
 * ...There's a really good  over on Wikipedia also, it should help you figure out what's going on if your new to wikis in general.
 * ...Don't forget to change your user preferences.
 * ...We pride ourselves on providing the best and most accurate information possible and are happy to reward our editors with extra privileges for making that happen. The first step in the promotion ladder turns off the CAPTCHA edit tests and you can check out the details  Here.

If you need help with something above and beyond what the links above can provide...
 * ...Someone is most always available! You can drop me a message on my user talk page (which I watch like a hawk), grab my other contact info on my user page, or ask one of the other system operators.

Again, welcome to the wiki - and I can't thank you enough on behalf of the community for your help in making us the best DDO site around Kobold worker 08:23, January 21, 2014



Rogue Dywypi (Contributions • &uArr; top &uArr;) 08:23, January 21, 2014 (EST)

Promotion
Hello, I started a motion to get you promoted to Admin. If you think you can cope with the additional responsibilities - or not - please say so here. Either way, thanks for your contributions! --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 11:05, June 30, 2015 (EDT)

CritFail;Fail;Success;CritSuccess
Don't worry too much about what words they use for now... I see the issue, I'll fix it next week with a new template. :) ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email ) 11:22, July 8, 2016 (EDT)
 * Okay, so I've started by making Roll result. It takes parameters of critical fail, fail lower boundary & fail upper boundary for ranges or a single fail value, success lower boundary & success upper boundary for ranges or a single success value, and critical success.  I know things like crit fail is 5 below the lower fail boundary and whatnot... I'll add calculations to the template when I have more time for things like that when appropriate.  I'll also make a template for "Suspected DC range" or whatever it is on the end to use the values entered in the Roll result template and calculate what the minimum needed is.  Then, at some point I want to go through and make a DC row to be able to put all the information on one line and not have to type so much (so don't worry about going around and replacing everything with this new template just yet  ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email ) 12:19, July 8, 2016 (EDT)
 * I wrote a proposed update to DDOip DC in the sandbox and would love to get your input Dywypi! :) I described the changes I made on Template_talk:DDOip_DC and made a testpage comparing the current tables to the tables with my proposed template update. This would merge the Roll result column and suspected DC range columns. Since you are the source of the majority of the trap DC data on the Wiki it would be pointless to move forward on this unless you liked and approved of the changes. &rArr; Kkoliver (Contribs • Message • Email ) 03:49, February 13, 2020 (EST)


 * Part of the problem with the current values for 'Traps and Locks' is that anything added before: U19, August 2013, is likely inaccurate. Because the Trap DCs where readjusted by the Developers. In fact any Trap DC values added prior 2014 cannot be trusted one bit, and SHOULD NOT really be used in any table calculation whatsoever!


 * The majority of 2014-15, I was trying to sift through a complete tangled mess with regards to broken and mangled tables, etc. It was clear most of the edits were poorly done or had been placed in the wrong rows, etc.


 * So basically any Adventure Pack quest released prior to Update 20 is likely to suffer from the same exact problem with outdated and effectively "worthless" Suspected DCs.


 * With the (proposed) Template demo; I don't like the space before and after the dash [Suspected DC range] it looks more like a calculation rather than an actual range. That may be partly due to my disability but it's a lot harder to read and takes far too long to process by my brain.


 * Not all Traps can have a Critical Success, e.g. Bear Traps and Spell Wards (as they are removed) as you are fully aware.


 * My answer with regards about possibly removing the [Modified Roll:Result] column, is I'm sorry but I disagree with you about that. I understand where you are coming from albeit it would lead to nothing but a headache for me. :-/


 * In fact, to be honest, I'd probably stop bothering editing the Trap DCs completely in future if that column was removed - full stop.


 * The concept of "red text warning" is reasonable, and possibly even a Suspected DC range calculation in the final column wouldn't be the end of the world. However, I'd simply stop bothering inputting and data in future if there wasn't a column (at least visual output) for the recorded: Fail/Success values.


 * Let's be honest, you can probably count the people on one hand that have made any significant amount of edits to the: 'DDO information project/Traps and locks/' and 'DDO information project/Spot and Search/' values within the last 5 years. So at least the newer quests post U20 and the F2P "Spot and Search" values are fairly robust.


 * The rest of the original values added prior to U20 (or copied over), I wouldn't really trust with a bargepole. The problem is; it's hard to tell what "outdated" values were added before that Update, etc.


 * So 'Spot and Search' values for F2P quests should be a in a fairly reasonable place (a lot of the rest of the older values I simply distrust).

&rArr; Dywypi (Contribs • &uArr; top &uArr; • Email ) 14:06, February 14, 2020 (EST)


 * Thanks for taking the time to give your opinion Dywypi! :) I agree with almost all of your feedback and will take another stab at redesigning the template with your input in mind. I dislike the extra spaces as well and only included them for the rare circumstance where the second number is negative. I will remove them for the next iteration. Also, I will add back in the second column into the table. This column will be generated by using the roll result template within my template. This will allow the recorded values to be easily seen without having to enter the values in two places.


 * As for the old values values being unreliable before 2014 I completely agree. Do you think we should remove any values uploaded before U19? It wouldn't be very hard because we could just check the timestamps of the edits. My opinion is that it's a high priority to remove possibly incorrect data because it sheds doubt on all the data. I could do this as part of the transition to the new template if/when that happens.


 * Thanks again for the feedback! I'll let you know when I finished the next version which hopefully will address your concerns! :) &rArr; Kkoliver (Contribs • Message • Email ) 18:55, February 14, 2020 (EST)


 * Some of the old outdated historical data that people entered into the Wiki tables prior to Update 20, will of course be correct because the suspected Trap DC "Success" range can be anywhere between; twenty numbers.


 * Albeit for any values entered on the boundaries, e.g. Critical Fail, Fail and Critical Success, values (prior to U20) won't likely be reliable.


 * I don't know by how much on average the Developers adjusted their Trap related DC "difficulty curve". Although the lower level traps had DC increases and higher level Traps decreases. I'd suspect the Traps starting in the teens had their DCs decreased.


 * NB: For Secret doors the [Spot], [Modified Roll:Result] is mostly pointless, I'd probably support the removal of that column with: Secret Doors. I know there are several; compulsory to progress, 'Secret doors' that have negative Spot values. Although from testing its looking like conventional Secret doors, should not have a Spot DC higher than: 1! The odds are if a Character doesn't have a Spot skill value of at least 1, then they are not likely devoted to "trapping" or finding Secret doors. Is traditionally using the Search skill, that actually reveals the door, and Secret Door [Search DC] values do actually increase.

&rArr; Dywypi (Contribs • &uArr; top &uArr; • Email ) 05:04, February 20, 2020 (EST)


 * I finished the next version of my proposed template, DDOip_DC/sandbox taking your suggestions into account. The new version of the template automatically generates the roll result column based on the observations inputted. I'm glad you stressed the importance of that column because seeing the actual recorded observations makes the calculated DC ranges much easier to accept. Also, it serves as a way to double check the suspected DC values that have been entered manually. For example, if you succeed with a 20 on Elite then obviously a 20 would succeed on the lower difficulties. However, without the column showing that 20 success on Elite, it would be confusing where the range on Hard came from. As it is now, the suspected DC column should be able to be exactly recreated using only the information in the roll result column.


 * I think we should see what the state of the tables are after ignoring all the information from U19 or earlier. If we properly take advantage of all the consequences of an observation we should be able to get reasonable ranges even with the limited data. I mean just from an one disable device fail of 20 on Hard you can know that the DC is 21-24 on Hard, 21-? on Elite, and ?-24 on Normal. Not only that, but its likely the trap DCs are just following a formula and if we could figure some out we would know all the DCs for every quest that uses that type of trap.


 * As for the Spot and Search tables, I'll probably edit the existing SpotSearch_DC template in a similar way to the DDOip_DC/sandbox template. I don't agree though that the roll result column for the spot checks of secret doors should be removed. If it is true that the spot DC is always 1 (which seems very possible) then it should be easy to fill in the data for that. However, I feel like I've failed spot checks on secret doors before so I'm not convinced that there aren't at least a few cases where it isn't just 1.


 * So, what do you think of the template? The demo tables I created using the template can be see on the Template:DDOip_DC/testcases page. Do you think it is ready to be put in the actual disable device tables? As always, I appreciate any feedback! :) &rArr; Kkoliver (Contribs • Message • Email ) 03:08, February 21, 2020 (EST)


 * One of the DDO Dungeon Design Developers told me personally, that they generally just set the default Quest Level DC for all Traps within a quest. So as a rule of thumb a certain Quest Level will have all the same values. If there are any "major outliers" in a quest; it's because a specific Developer has intervened and manually edited the trap DC value by hand.


 * Refer to:


 * An example of some weird (Search) values: Dream Conspiracy that quest clearly has issues and likely manually edited by a Developer. Albeit for some reason it probably also failed to scale when they readjusted the "difficulty curve". The "74" looks like a reversed "47" LOL. For its Elite setting; it [Search] was likely meant to be either 54 or perhaps 64 if the developer wanted an extra tough DC and not ever meant to be 74 for Elite.


 * A lot of the new content that has 'Legendary' versions seems to have a slightly higher Search DCs on average. Sometimes its noticeable because the Trap's [Search] DC will be around 4 DC higher than average, but if there are Bear Traps those still use the same default quest level value.


 * The only standard generic "detectable" Secret Doors you should fail Spot Check on are those with negative values or ones that cannot ever be detected via Search, e.g. scripted to open at ambushes or kills, etc.


 * For example take a high level none Rogue Hireling into Korthos Village and 'The Collaborator' quest; it won't detect the Secret Door because the 'Secret door' has negative Spot values! Take that same hire into something like the "Waterworks" quests. Or even into something Epic like Level 30 'The Mask of Deception' and it will have no problem detecting any of the (none negative) Secret Doors, etc.


 * You can come across some bugged Secret doors occasionally like: Creeping Death (Epic) that in some cases are already in 'revealed' state, and that's without even using your Search skill... You can still actually use Search and get it to register on the score sheet with a high enough DC, but the Secret door itself was never in the correct "none revealed" state in the first place.


 * The Secret door in: The Weapons Shipment, might have "something weird" going on with its Spot DCs. But, that's about the only Secret door that sticks in my mind as being peculiar.


 * Regarding the Tables; when using a script to output the suspected ranges, i.e. [Suspected DC range] column, the dash for those figure range(s), you should ideally be using is the: en dash (U+2013) and NOT the minus dash (U+002D), the latter might be used in a telephone number.
 * An example of the en dash being executed for a range of numbers: 1–20.


 * I'll assume the calculations are working correctly...


 * One concern and this may be partly due to my cognitive disability but having things like: (Critical) Success: 50 (63). Totally overloads my brain, it actually short-circuits. The word "(Critical)" is on the far left whereas the actual 'Critical' value itself is on the farthest right. In other words it's not helping regarding any visual processing impairment, etc.


 * However, for: Locks, Secret Doors, Spot and Search, there shouldn't be too much of an issue, i.e. there is no word relating to: Critical. Although of course the numeric figure is more important than the word. Therefore to be honest I find it easier, to digest having the number preceding the word like the historic version, as it's similar to the in-game simulated dice roll (text). Though like was said its Disable Device DCs, where things get complicated and not the other Fail or Success values.

&rArr; Dywypi (Contribs • &uArr; top &uArr; • Email ) 12:14, February 25, 2020 (EST)


 * I've updated the DDOip DC/sandbox template again to display the number first and have to admit it looks a lot cleaner! I also took your advice and used the en dash which was another big improvement. I think I'm to the point where I'd say this template is ready to use! Is there any other final recommendations before I implement this template into the live data tables? After this template is finalized, I'll start playing around with SpotSearch DC and take a deeper look at the oddities with secret doors you've pointed out. :) &rArr; Kkoliver (Contribs • Message • Email ) 23:48, February 26, 2020 (EST)


 * The tables DO NOT need to have strong emphasis applied to the en dash itself; as it just distracts the eye (and brain) from the important part, which is the actual number(s).


 * Furthermore it's not really structurally Semantic having the: B (bold text style) element, applied to the 'en dash' for values within [Modified Roll:Result] or [Suspected DC range]. In another life; one of my main specialities was primarily focused around x(ht)ml, structure, semantics and web accessibility.


 * Additional attention shouldn't really be drawn to the en dash unless the numbers themselves are also emboldened. Other than that "peculiarity" regarding the application of BOLD to the dash, it's looking reasonable from a casual glance. :-)

&rArr; Dywypi (Contribs • &uArr; top &uArr; • Email ) 13:42, March 6, 2020 (EST)


 * Sounds good, I'll unbold all the dashes and then start putting the templates into the actual tables! Thanks for your advice Dywypi! &rArr; Kkoliver (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:21, March 8, 2020 (EDT)


 * Now that I've actually seen several of the 'Spot and Search' tables converted and filled with data layout; I've made a few new observations, etc.


 * During the last five years period; we've only really managed to get most of the [F2P] Heroic "Spot and Search" values for Traps (and Search values for Secret Doors). Plus a reasonable amount current [Trap] DCs for Elite or Hard Spot and Search values. Plus a few odds and ends but that's about the only thing that has been achieved.


 * As I mentioned prior, Secret Doors won't likely have a Spot value greater than 1! Therefore it's probably not advantageous adding in the Spot value. Within the Secret doors table [Suspected DC range] column. You'd be better off just placing the suspected Search value for Secret Doors. Also that column would likely lead to confusion when the layperson sees let's say; Secret door: 30:Success for Spot and Search 9:Success.


 * Nobody that is sane; is going to volunteer test the majority of Secret Doors on Elite to see if there is actually a single bugged Secret Door somewhere in DDO, with a Spot that is higher than 1.


 * The values of Spot and Search will nearly always differ for Secret doors. Unless both: Spot and Search have negative values, i.e. (mandatory secret doors) or perhaps if they are within a Level 1 Quest.


 * Basically Spot is mostly irrelevant and not helpful being there for that final Column with regards to Secret Doors.


 * Furthermore I wouldn't recommend adding Casual to the rows past say Quest Level 1 and 2.


 * The first two levels in DDO are trainings levels. So it makes sense offering [Casual] Spot and Search for those two levels. At a push, you could almost understand if Level 4 had Casual. After that you're just making 25% more unnecessary work for yourself for no real practical benefit.


 * The difference in Search values for Traps between Normal and Elite is generally significant enough. Of course there will be some outcast Trappers that play Heroic Causal regularly. Though to be honest if they cannot achieve the Normal DCs they really have some much more serious issues going on regarding Trapping...
 * For example traps on Level 5, on Elite has a Suspected Search DC of 20 and on Normal a suspected Search DC of 8, i.e. 12 in difference. By Quest Level 11, you're taking nearer 18 point of difference from Normal to Elite.


 * About the only other thing that stuck out; is you've ended up repeating the words Spot and Search in the 'Traps' final column [Suspected DC range]. Is that a limitation of how you've done the template?


 * As we know for Traps that aren't "bugged", their Spot and Search value should be equal. Therefore in the cases where we have determined the exact Spot and Search value, i.e. Bold text for both. There is no need to repeat the words. What I'm basically saying it's a little cluttered and harder to follow when the values don't match.


 * If you were to insist on having two values in the [Suspected DC range] column for Traps (Spot and Search) then you should possibly consider splitting that column further. For example: adding another row table header below [Suspected DC range] that was split into two to columns; one for Spot and one for Search. Therefore it would allow two raw values to appear under that split column, without needed the words Spot or Search for each row.


 * It's very clean when there is just the bold final figure and to be honest the only reason we have Spot values is for double-check, and for fallback when we're lacking enough Search information. Most Rogues aren't Wisdom based. So generally can achieve a low enough Spot value to "Fail" the Trap's spot DC under certain scenarios. Whereas their native Search skill; is likely already high and cannot be easily lowered enough to fail the Trap Search DC requirements. :-)


 * That I think basically covers most of my casual observations regarding the recent: Spot and Search Table changes. :-)

&rArr; Dywypi (Contribs • &uArr; top &uArr; • Email ) 07:22, March 17, 2020 (EDT)

Administrator offer
Hey there! It's been some time since you declined on DDOt:Administrators/promote/Dywypi despite the nomination being successful. As the only one who objected, not based on your ability or capacity as much based on the fact that almost all the active editors at the time where administrators or above and I didn't see the need to add more, I've noted that things have changed and some of our more active administrators aren't editing as much here. That being the case, I'd like to offer to nominate you myself for the permission set as I think it would be beneficial to the wiki as a whole. Being where-as you declined the previous offer, I thought it prudent to ask you if you'd be interested here first. :) ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email ) 11:37, July 31, 2016 (EDT)
 * Thanks for the reoffer although there probably is less "administrator" activity; it still looks as though, the DDO Wiki is still going from strength-to-strength. I'm still quite content in my old ordinary casual robe; so I'll gracefully decline the second offer. Dywypi (Contribs • Message • Email ) 07:07, August 2, 2016 (EDT)
 * We can discuss it here. Having the Administrator bit does not require you to do any extra or more complicated work, it just shows you as a trusted user and gives you a few more tools to be able to edit through protected pages, protect pages, delete pages, and a bunch of other stuff you may or may not ever do. I'd like to see you with the tools, even if you have no intention on using them as I'm sure you'll find it handy from time to time to have a little more access. ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email ) 10:27, August 2, 2016 (EDT)
 * Perhaps you should reconsider the adminhood offer so that you can combat spam effectively. DDO community need you! -- Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 09:23, November 21, 2016 (EST)
 * I'd still support you being an admin. You could kill those perversions of nature instead of just blanking the page... Come on... You know you want to... All the COOL kids are doing it. :D  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 15:54, December 12, 2017 (EST)
 * Ah, you were referencing: https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Source:NetHack_3.6.0/src/pray.c#line1823. Correct, I have no love for those pitiful, undying spamming miscreants. Currently, I'm still quite content; so I'll gracefully decline the offer. &rArr; Dywypi (Contribs • &uArr; top &uArr; • Email ) 03:57, December 25, 2017 (EST)

Spam!
You can now simply wrap spam pages in ...page content... to flag them for deletion and comment out the content all in one shot. Thanks for your hard work! :) &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 10:30, January 4, 2018 (EST)