Year of the Dragon: Through May 28th, claim free Expansion Pack (excluding Vecna Unleashed) or a Greater Elixir of Discovery! Speak to Xatheral in the Hall of Heroes. edit

Thank you for your patience while we continue to upgrade DDOwiki to the latest MediaWiki LTS version. If you find any errors on the site, please visit the Discord chat server and let us know.

Game mechanicsNewbie guideIn developmentDDO StoreSocial Media

ChallengesClassesCollectablesCraftingEnhancementsEpic DestiniesFavorFeats


Please create an account or log in to remove ads, build a reputation, and unlock more editing privileges and then visit DDO wiki's IRC Chat/Discord if you need any help!

User talk:Dywypi

From DDO wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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 Introduction over on Wikipedia also, it should help you figure out what's going on if you're new to wikis in general.
...Don't forget to change your DDO wiki 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 18 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 Cool Face

Kobold worker 08:23, January 21, 2014

Rogue Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 08:23, January 21, 2014 (EST)


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 (ContributionsMessage) 11:05, June 30, 2015 (EDT)


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 • Message) 11:22, July 8, 2016 (EDT)

  • Okay, so I've started by making {{Roll result}}. It takes parameters of |cf=critical fail, |fl=fail lower boundary & |fu=fail upper boundary for ranges or a single |f=fail value, |sl=success lower boundary & |su=success upper boundary for ranges or a single |s=success value, and |cs=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 Wink ShoeMaker (Contribs • Message) 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. Kkoliver (ContribsMessage) 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).

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 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! :) Kkoliver (ContribsMessage) 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 "trap disarming" or finding Secret doors. Is traditionally using the Search skill, that actually reveals the door, and Secret Door [Search DC] values do actually increase.

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 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 a 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 it's 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! :) Kkoliver (ContribsMessage) 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: Trapping DC rule of thumb?
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 it's 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.

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 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. :) Kkoliver (ContribsMessage) 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. :-)

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 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! Kkoliver (ContribsMessage) 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 Trap Specialists 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 Traps...
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. :-)

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 07:22, March 17, 2020 (EDT)

I think that with the upcoming patch notes you pointed out, maintaining a Spot column is important. If the secret doors indeed follow the formula that the Spot DC is 5 less than the Search DC than that Spot data will give insight into the Search DC. Therefore, I split the Suspected DC column into a Spot and Search columns as you suggested and I think it vastly improved the table. However, I disagree with you on omitting the Casual row. The Casual difficulty is a thing that some people play and the DCs are different from Normal. The data also gives some insight on the Elite DC when there is a lack of other information. I really appreciate you giving me advice on this dywypi! This template is coming out much better than it would have without your input. Kkoliver (ContribsMessage) 22:31, March 18, 2020 (EDT)
I received a PM from the relevant DDO Content Designer (a week back) that basically explained what had happened with the erroneous code regarding static Spot values for: Secret Doors. Plus how he discovered Spot never scaled – I cannot go into details in public. Interestingly, the reason he recently became aware of the "bug" didn't involve looking into Secret Door DCs at first.
Therefore, like I had deduced from testing several years ago; it's now been confirmed no Secret door (currently) will have a Spot value greater than DC: 1. Of course when U46 appears the Spot DCs will scale as they were always meant to have done from day one. When I was on the Lamannia: U46 Preview 1, the Secret Door Spot values seemed to scale correctly.
It is mostly about being practical and pragmatic rather than idealistic; like I mentioned, it could be considered reasonable to have Casual [Spot and Search] for the first four Heroic Levels.
Although after that (for Heroic) [Spot and Search], you are just mostly wasting your time and effort having Casual. I'm certainly not going to be doing any testing for [Heroic] Casual past those the four Starter Levels.
I'm pretty certain nobody has done any recent Heroic Spot/Search Casual testing past those four levels either... With the exception of maybe: 1 Secret Door – you tested. With those Level 17s you possibly duplicated the 'Normal' row data anyway? Because there were no 'Fail' values whatsoever for Casual – making those Casual values redundant anyway. (There is no valid Heroic Casual evidence basically).
It's not a case of whether somebody plays "Heroic Casual" past Level 4; so much as the Search values are so low on 'Normal' anyway. That you'd have great difficulty creating a Rogue Character that would fail the Search DCs. You'd nearly have to purposely sabotage your "Build" and not invest in Search, etc.
With Epic there might be a slightly stronger case for (Spot and Search) Epic Casual. Albeit any of those Epic Causal values will have been added by me anyway (pure curiosity reason). If it was a classified as an Epic F2P Quest, I'll have likely added either: Epic Normal or Epic Casual values.
  • Aside: I personally fundamentally have no interest whatsoever in ever considering testing (Spot and Search) at Normal or below unless it is an F2P Quest. So it’s unlikely you’d see any contributions from me within; Heroic for Normal and below for none F2P quests.
Therefore, for the Heroic Quests and Epic Quests, which don't already have "physically tested" Casual (Spot and Search) values, you'd be still better off: removing the Casual rows. Essentially; ALL Heroic Quests past Level 4 don’t require Casual rows for Spot and Search.
Yes, it would take a bit to edit out again, but the vast majority of those Casual values are just predicted from Normal values. They have NOT actually been tested. It's just (our) assumption (educated guess) the Casual DC will be equal or lower than Normal. The Epic Casual that I tested of course will be valid (and worth keeping like you mentioned).
A future DDO Wiki Editor could always add Casual rows if they ever decided when testing a specific quest (individual quest-by-quest basis), but having them as default does nobody any real favour, etc.
Hopefully, you can follow the main logic even though my grammar and ability with written communication is rather weak due to my disability. :-)
NB: I'm only talking specifically about 'Spot and Search' tables with regards to 'Casual' currently.
Furthermore we'll now have to address: ;-)

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 05:40, April 7, 2020 (EDT)

  • For the DDO_information_project/Traps_and_locks page, there's no reason to keep it like it is. Keep the information about the template on the page and ditch all the transclusions. The TOC is enough to send users to each level. If you want to look at all levels at a glance, you could perhaps only include the suspected requirements for each level in the main page. Faltout (ContribsMessage) 06:45, April 7, 2020 (EDT)
I applied and quick and dirty fix to the transclusion issue on the DDO_information_project/Spot_and_Search but that page needs to be redesigned at some point. I'm not sure if the suspected values belong there at all. Also, you were correct about the casual observations for the Level 17 quests. I intended to input known values but forgot the "k" in the parameter names so they came out as observations. This has been corrected.
As for the casual row on every quest, I don't see any reason to not include it considering it takes little to no effort to maintain that line and if someone wants to find the casual values there is no barrier this way. Not only that, but sometimes a multiclass or low intelligence trap [specialist] may have to skimp on one skill or another and having casual data may help assist this. Finally, I am considering the possibility of automatically calculating the known values within the template. For example, inputting a success on Elite should automatically propagate down a success on Hard, Normal, and Casual. As of right now this needs to be manually done but I think there is a way to avoid this. However, this would almost certainly require each trap/secret door to have the same number of rows. I'd rather the casual row exist on every trap than no trap at all. Kkoliver (ContribsMessage) 19:24, April 9, 2020 (EDT)
  • I'm not quite sure how you'd automatically calculate the Trap: Spot and Search values?
Since the DDO Developers can manually edit the DCs anyway for specific traps or Doors (if they so choose to make a trap especially tough, etc.). In most cases when the Search DC doesn't change from; Normal to Elite, that's a scaling bug, etc.
Mines deployed by NPCs and Bear Traps tend to adopt the correct default Quest Level base DCs. However, it's quite common in newer Heroic content that also have Legendary versions, that the rest of the Traps in those quests will have higher DCs.
Plus Hard and Elite setting 'Spot and Search' for [Traps] do NOT scale consistently. For example, Levels 1–7 the difference between old [Trap] default [Search] increments. For Hard: 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2 in contrast for Elite: 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3. Then you'd have to consider; Normal and Casual or newer content. The quest 'Against the Slave Lords' is probably the first major; throwing the spanner in the works...
Also it's unlikely I'd be testing many Heroic quests over Level 16. Because by then the odds are I'd have more than enough XP to Level to 20, and wouldn't be able to lower my base Spot and Search skills enough anyway. Furthermore I'm not VIP, so cannot usually access all quests. I'm mainly indifferent to Casual being present after Level 4, but god knows who is ever going to bothered finding most of those Casual values rather than enjoying playing the game. It's bad enough there's hardly anyone contributing to finding the: Spot and Search values anyway. It (all Spot/Search DCs) could be likely be done for all "fixed place" Traps in couple of months for Heroic Elite if there were some other contributors. :-)
Yes, the new main "Spot and Search" page needs some modifications I agree. The term "to find everything" isn't all that helpful, it's far too narrow and only focuses upon outliers.

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 05:57, May 7, 2020 (EDT)

Administrator offer[edit]

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 • Message) 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 (ContribsMessage) 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 • Message) 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 (ContribsMessage) 09:23, November 21, 2016 (EST)

2021 update: Wanna be an admin? Let us know. DDO wiki talk:Administrators/promote/Dywypi -- Cru121 (ContribsMessage) 16:33, June 1, 2021 (EDT)

  • I'll gracefully decline the latest offer.

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 07:13, June 30, 2021 (EDT)


You can now simply wrap spam pages in {{ Spam | content... }} to flag them for deletion and comment out the content all in one shot. Thanks for your hard work! :)  👟 ShoeMaker (Contribs • Message) 👟 10:30, January 4, 2018 (EST)

DDO Info Project[edit]

I see you've been combating an IP editor trying to add epic information to the heroic tables. I've protected that particular page, so they'll need to make an account and get confirmed to edit it again. *cough cough* If you were an admin, you could protect pages yourself *cough cough* ;) Please join us on the Discord chat server!  👟 ShoeMaker (Contribs • Message) 👟 08:46, December 20, 2020 (EST)

Reduce file size tip[edit]

One of the ways of reducing the file size of PNG files is to reduce color depth. I am using a great free image viewer/editor called IrfanView. But I would assume other editors have this option. Cru121 (ContribsMessage) 12:19, February 28, 2022 (EST)

  • I wasn't looking (wanting) to reduce colour depth, which can lower picture quality. Nor was I aiming to get the best: Lossless PNG compression ratios. 24-bit is perfectly fine and should be used (retained) for the majority of PNG quest maps. That is the case: even if your eyes cannot easily tell the difference. Furthermore the Wiki a lot of the time will be presenting its own generated image "thumbnails" anyway, which "defeats" the compression objective slightly. I was just performing; better optimised LOSSLESS compression, on few large 'Original file' PNG maps. Thus, I didn't want to reduce: bit-depth or file colour integrity. Hopefully that explains things better. It's for when you want to actually view the PNG original directly; it's simply just using a better lossless compression algorithm.

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 04:44, March 1, 2022 (EST)

  • OK! Reducing colors indeed often means lower quality. In some cases, imho, the cost-benefit ratio is in favor of reduction; but different people see things differently. Just making sure you're aware of the option... which you are :) Cru121 (ContribsMessage) 06:34, March 1, 2022 (EST)

"NB: I haven't access to the quest"[edit]

Out of curiosity, why don't you have access to the Haunted Halls? Considering that it's currently free with the DUNGEONCRAWL code. Just wondering. Cru121 (ContribsMessage) 10:21, April 4, 2023 (EDT)

  • Obviously I'm speculating, but could it perhaps be that none of their characters are at the right level just now? From memory, you need to be level 26 just to get in. PurpleSerpent (ContribsMessage) 11:17, April 4, 2023 (EDT)
  • Neither of those two scenarios but the result is essentially the same: no access. I purchased the quest years ago, I even made that hosted map and directly contributed to the walkthrough, recorded DCs, etc. It just relates to my main system and the unsupported fossilised software it's currently running on. Later this year I'll likely upgrade, and then be able to get back in there. :-)

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 16:28, April 5, 2023 (EDT)

A Note on Yellow[edit]

It is true that the "yellow" colour the wiki uses isn't the most yellow, but I believe that's intentional. Yellow on a white background is famously tricky to read, especially for those with visual impairments, while the current orange stands out a bit more. (Even then, for an orange, it's pretty close to yellow.)

This isn't just the Crystal Discs, by the way - we do similar things with the quest difficulty template, {{Xpcolors}}, and that's everywhere. PurpleSerpent (ContribsMessage) 09:40, October 13, 2023 (EDT)

  • Yes, I am fully aware about Web Accessibility and have been since last century and I do have a disability. I knew why it was likely done. Typically a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 between the 'relative luminance' of text and its background colour is recommended for normal text. However, that's oversimplified and doesn't address everything, for example:
Darkorange (#FF8C00) is clearly orange and the one that is currently used on the Wiki. I personally wouldn't consider "darkorange" as yellow looking. It's like a mind trick on those few Quest pages; it's really "orange", but the text tells says the words: I am "yellow". ;-) And I obviously know 'goldenrod' (#DAA520) is actually a (deep yellow) touching brown rather than really golden-yellow.
All is fine (apart from the silly DDO Wiki spam filter erroneously blacklisting those 3 perfectly safe external hyperlinks). :-)

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 17:47, October 13, 2023 (EDT)

  • Fair enough. (You clearly know a lot more about the subject than I do, so sorry if the explanation came off as condescending.) PurpleSerpent (ContribsMessage) 20:36, October 13, 2023 (EDT)
  • No, it didn't come across as condescending. I was just illustrating because the text itself is named "Yellow" (on those 'The Path of Inspiration' pages) and had a small size and presence (against white), your mind could be tricked into thinking it was a different shade, i.e. an optical illusion. Perhaps on a small handheld device, with a poorly lit screen, that text colour might not be as obvious to distinguish either. If you are not affected by Colour vision deficiency, and are using a desktop monitor, you shouldn't have an issue distinguishing that (#FF8C00) is a deep orange. The background here might be making it look lighter, but if you viewed those links it's easier to see the colour itself.

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 05:17, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

  • {{Xpcolors}} is based on the in-game color for hard (it was pulled from the game client using Instant Eyedropper) FTR.  👟 ShoeMaker ( Talk • Contribs • Patrol • Moves • B • D • I • PP • UM • UR ) 👟 21:32, October 21, 2023 (EDT)

Your tampering with talk pages[edit]

I strongly believe that it is not your right to manipulate other editors' posts on the talk pages. I think you're crossing a line here. I feel insulted!!! Corgrind (ContribsMessage) 15:00, January 17, 2024 (EST)

  • Please accept my apologies. I believe at least one of the Signatures were in the wrong order, which made it very confusing as to whom was saying what.
PS: If you want to rollback the Page "Talk:Festivult" to the version; feel free to do so, that's up to you.

Dywypi (Contribs⇑ top ⇑) 16:44, January 17, 2024 (EST)

  • In this particular case, the edit was probably justified. Since both you (Corgrind) and Highlander had put your signatures before the text of your messages, it was very difficult to tell who had said what - it looked like you'd said both of Highlander's posts, for example.
On the other hand, since general wiki etiquette rules against modifying other users' talk page messages unless the post is causing some kind of issue elsewhere (such as replacing typed links to the forums with T:Forums, as you've been doing, which is necessary to make the link work properly), it would probably have been a good idea to check with Corgrind and Highlander before moving things around. PurpleSerpent (ContribsMessage) 17:37, January 17, 2024 (EST)
  • I do not mind and I am sorry for the format issue. I don't tend to comment much so I was not aware. Highlander (ContribsMessage) January 17, 2024