Talk:DDO information project/Traps and locks

Spoilers
Could there be created a kind of "Spoiler Flag", which somehow marks information that people might want to avoid reading to preserve their own challenge and exploration? To the extent that ddowiki is filling in gaps in the manual / character-creation / feats-spells process, info is fine for everybody to see. But data like this, or "Walk 40 steps into Cult of the Six, search the left wall for a great chest" is of a different fundamental nature, and prehaps should be segregated. Maybe some small, italic boilerplate at the top of the page "This information may be spoilers" - 24.62
 * I was thinking of adding a dynamic spolier page feature, linking from anywhere to a page for the first time that is marked as a spoiler will ask the user if they really want to see it or not. For now, just use the tag at the top of the page or section whichever is appropriate.

Do we want (to save clutter) to remove all rows for a trap except one for a trap/lock that has been confirmed? Just do n/a for the roll/result/suspected dc and leave the confirmed dc? I just don't want to see like 17 lines for one trap. Also, could continually reduce each trap down to one row, modifying the suspected range as need be.Sonil 02:02, March 17, 2006 (EST)
 * I don't like that. I want all information we get to be catalouged so we can continue to average it in, and nothing is lost (possibly causing incorrectness). I think the information on this page should be catalogued like that one /magic is, THEN when we have enough information on a given trap, we can combine it into a single row and post that row on the appropriate quest's page (like a 'traps in this quest' table) - but STILL keep every single row of archived information here forever, so we can always check back, and add new info to the average. Does that make sense? I don't see this page as a place other users will be looking at - people involved in the project can post info here, then we can summarize/distill all the info in to the individual quest pages.

Reformat
OK, I TOTALLY refactored this page. Everything has changed - now just add your rolls to the appropriate row for the trap of the quest. Follow the existing format for new quests / traps / rolls - make sense? I hope it does. This should make updating this megatons easier in the future.
 * Looks good. Only one question, why are some of the quests indented differently than the healing elixir one?  Is that just because of how much space the column entries take up? Sonil 13:34, March 17, 2006 (EST)
 * Dunno what you mean by indentation - if you mean column spacing, thats all autogenerated. I could force it by defining column percentage widths, but that would defeat the point.
 * Look at Steal the Healing Elixir vs Quest for Ancient Daggers. Ancient Daggers table is indented more (centred?) Sonil 14:38, March 17, 2006 (EST)
 * What I see:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/SilverSide1895/27ef41dc.png
 * Nothing wierd over here...
 * I know what it is. The "contents" panel is pushing the Healing Elixir thing over.  With it hidden, it looks fine Sonil 15:32, March 17, 2006 (EST)

Critical Failures
I believe you get a critical when you fail by more than 6. So if a roll totalling 12 is a critical then the dc >18. -- koolkat 09:48, March 17, 2006 (EST)\
 * It's actually when you fail by 5 or more Sonil 13:30, March 17, 2006 (EST)

Merging 'traps' and 'locks'?
I was looking at this, and I thought - there's lots of redundancy in the design here. Why not have quests seperated by level, then all locks and traps for each quest under that quest, in two seperate tables? I would think that while you're on a quest you'd just want to look at that quest; rather than wanting to look at a list of all locks in the game. Am I right? Elliott Cable -  ?+¿  -  ‹·›  16:55, August 30, 2006 (EDT)


 * We want to separate them. Possibly on different pages if it can help make this page easier to read. The reason is that most people will just browse through the tables quickly and look at the DCs, and if you mix traps (disable device skill) and locks (open lock skill), you lose a lot of time figuring out what the average / min / max DC is for each skill at a given level. Tihocan 17:05, August 31, 2006 (EDT)


 * I'd have to agree to Tihocan. For one thing, the two skills are looked upon very differently. With a trap, you'd better succeed because a critical failure could lead to a quick end to a quest. With locks, you can, potentially, keep on trying until you hit a 20 on your roll, if you need it. The tables are starting to get large, as it is, with the number of traps in some quests and the fact that the DC's change based on difficulty level. Adding in lock DC's with the traps would probably make it even more difficult to read. Mcglonec 17:15, August 31, 2006 (EDT)

Adding Borders to Trap and Lock tables
I've been working on the Traps and Locks project for a little while, now. One of the things that I'm running into is that, as the tables get larger and larger with more data, they're becoming more difficult to read. Take a look at the quest Redfang the Unruled, for example. That quest has a lot of traps and I'm starting to get data in there that covers multiple difficulty levels. Is there any way that the "Trap DC Table" tag can be modified to include internal borders? I think that might make the page more readable. Thanks. Mcglonec 13:30, August 30, 2006 (EDT)


 * OK, so I'm trying to figure out what you mean... expand a bit... Elliott Cable  -  ?+¿  -  ‹·›  18:02, August 30, 2006 (EDT)


 * I'm just thinking that, as the tables get larger, it might be easier to read them if they have some sort of internal delineation, like this:


 * Anyway, that's just one thought. You could do something similar with lines running through the table or some other host of things. It's just that, as some of the tables grow larger, it's hard to comprehend all the information and ensure that the DC you read on the right-hand side corresponds with the trap you read on the left-hand side. I hope that makes sense. Mcglonec 21:33, August 30, 2006 (EDT)

Adding a section for hidden doors
Would it make sense to also add to this page a section on hidden doors and what level of search skill is required to find them? Or would it make more sense to have that information elsewhere? Mcglonec 17:04, August 31, 2006 (EDT)

Saving Rolls & Bonuses?
Do we want to continue saving the raw 1d20 roll along with the bonus for each roll? I mean, right now, we have things that look like this:

4+17:Failure

Then, the reader needs to add that together to realize that the modified roll was a 21 and that 21 isn't good enough to disable the trap. Granted, most readers can just consult the "suspected DC" column. Anyway, I was just wondering because all we really care about is the modified roll. Do we really care what the person rolled or what their bonus was when they rolled it? In many cases, we can't even tell which is which (such as the case above). Did I roll a 4 or a 17?

I just thought it might be cleaner to replace the individual rolls with the modified roll value. If others feel it's a good idea, I'll go through and make the changes on the page.

Mcglonec 10:12, September 1, 2006 (EDT)
 * Makes sense. Only reason I started putting in X + Y: Failure was because that's how it says it in the combat log. Sonil 12:23, September 1, 2006 (EDT)
 * Agreed. Though sometimes it helps spotting mistakes ;) Tihocan 13:02, September 1, 2006 (EDT)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll go through and modify the numbers to clean up the page a bit. Mcglonec 13:23, September 1, 2006 (EDT)

Breaking up the page
This page was becoming far too large for its own good. It was very difficult to edit and I was getting warnings from the wiki that some browsers might not be able to edit a page that large (it was approaching 37 kb). So, in order to make the page smaller, I've broken up the varying level quests into their own pages, and this page becomes a "master list" that will connect all of those pages. When we have enough information, we may be able to include some additional information on this page, such as "lowest confirmed DC by level" and "highest confirmed DC by level".

Hopefully, this change works well for everyone. Just keep in mind that, if you want to see when trap/lock info is updated, you'll now have to watch all the other pages, rather than just this one.

Mcglonec 10:48, September 3, 2006 (EDT)


 * I think you did well. Maybe you should have kept these new pages under the Information project prefix, but I don't think it's really a big deal. Good job :) Tihocan 15:55, September 8, 2006 (EDT)


 * Good point. I've moved the pages to keep them under that prefix. Mcglonec 18:59, September 8, 2006 (EDT)


 * Cool :) Tihocan 14:47, September 11, 2006 (EDT)

Making assumptions based on quest difficulty
Does anyone else think it would be safe to make some assumptions about trap and lock DC's based on quest difficulty? By that, I mean can we assume that a given trap would have a DC less than or equal to the DC of the same trap on a harder difficulty?

As an example, take a look at The Mystery of Delera's Tomb. I ran this quest last night on hard difficulty and, while I succeeded at disabling every trap on my first try, I often rolled lower than I did when I had run the quest on normal difficulty. If you take a look at the second trap listed (Cold trap near first shrine), you can see that I rolled a 44 when I played through the quest on normal difficulty. Unfortunately, that doesn't really tell us much about the trap as anyone can probably guess that it's not going to be among the most elite traps in the game. However, last night, I played this quest on hard difficulty and rolled a 29 on that trap and succeeded in disabling it. If that trap can be disabled with a roll of 29 on hard difficulty, wouldn't it seem fitting that it could be disabled with a roll of 29 (or less) on normal difficulty? I just wonder if we can safely make that assumption. Based on all of the data that I've seen so far, it would seem that all traps have higher DC's with increasing quest difficulty.

A good example of increasing trap DC would be The Sunken Sewer. I ran that quest a number of times on all difficulties so that I could compare the DC's. I even used crummy tools and removed my DD bonuses so that I'd fail more often, making it easier to find the true DC of the traps, so the numbers for that quest are pretty good. In most cases, you can see that the trap DC's steadily increase from one difficulty setting to another. Look at the second trap in the list (Spike trap just after locked gate, south wall). At normal difficulty, this trap has a DC of 22 or less. At Hard, the DC is between 24 and 27. At Elite, all I know is that it's somewhere below 38 (but presumably above whatever the hard DC would be). So that example would seem to be a good indicator that trap DC's only increase with increasing quest difficulty.

Locks, on the other hand, don't seem to have increasing DC's. Again, look at The Sunken Sewer. There are two locked gates and, while I don't know the exact DC's of either lock, it certainly appears that the DC doesn't increase with the quest difficulty. Locked gate #2 seems to have a DC of about 16, regardless of quest difficulty.

I just find some of this information to be very interesting. If lock DC's really don't vary based upon quest difficulty, that means we actually have less data to track in those cases (as we won't care what the quest difficulty is). However, I'm still not certain this is really true so I'm not quite ready to jump on that one, yet.

However, with the traps, I think we've got enough information to say that trap DC's increase with quest difficulty. I always expected this to be the case, and I think most people believe it to be true. If that's the case, can we put an upper bound on the lower difficulty traps at whatever succeeded on the higher difficulty traps? For example, can I say that the second trap in The Mystery of Delera's Tomb, on normal difficulty, has a DC less than or equal to 29, because 29 succeeded at disabling that trap on hard difficulty? I think it's safe to say that, but I thought I'd bring it up.

Mcglonec 10:10, September 12, 2006 (EDT)