User talk:DiegoDeLaHouska

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search



User:Darqam/Dat Icons

Toxic Seedling map[edit]

I moved the map to this subpage. —Kvothe (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Why ? The page might be deleted at the end and we might just make an new image insted of File:Toxic Seedling map.jpg. Why do you always .. vrrr ! It might end up even as template based on the groups of those locations. Alright just dont link it to anything yet . Its not done .. its not finished. Alright ? --DiegoDeLaHouska (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
If you wanna test something and/or you know the stuff will get eventually deleted, you know you should do it in your sandbox. ~Sime 14:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey wellcome on wiki where everything will change one day. Its not in my sandbox because everyone who wants can join and add their own attempts. Even you can go into Kessex Hills yourself. If you get a new Ip then you know those nodes are in diferent places . Run around and make a screanshot of all of them before adding it into the map. I Cant predict future so yes I have no clue if you guys will want to remake it into image only or if we will want to make it a bit more complex and make a template from it showing just those specific groups of nodes depending on the one players will click on. I have no idea. --DiegoDeLaHouska (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


Hey. I've noticed you seem to be in the progress of removing the bindings from a few pages currently. I was thinking to do that as a bot task during the stream by ANet today (which is probably in like 5 minutes) and am currently preparing page counts and the changes for a bot request. Before i continue doing that however i wanted to ask if you want to continue to go through everything now that you started or if i could do what i can with the bot once i've completed preparation? (I'm missing a bit of old item data so i can't check for changes on 297 items but what i've found on changes concerns 593 items (this is possibly including some you already changed).) Nightsky (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to add that a note the food used to be bound would be nice. ~Sime 20:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
If you want toadd more go ahead and add it. Here for better way of looking over what I have done. And if zou have bots for it then sure use them. If it will work. --DiegoDeLaHouska (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I was only looking to remove the account bound parameter from them, not add a note they were previously bound. And while i'm generally not opposed to the idea of adding one, i would for example not know how to best do so on pages with multiple items on them. Additionally the way things are now changing it to also add a note and not only remove things would take me longer than i'd be willing to do now. So if anything i'd only be removing them for now but i'm still waiting on a clear response from DiegoDeLaHouska if they'd be fine with me doing that or if they want to continue doing it? With only removing that is, not adding anything. Nightsky (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Do as you wish. I looked at it just because nobody was touching it. If you will take care of it then sure be my guest ;) Wiki is ever changing and updates what I will do might last years or just minutes. Doesnt mater in any way to me anymore. --DiegoDeLaHouska (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Damage coefficent[edit]

The tooltip damage is calculated using your current weapon strength, your power, the damage coefficient and 2597 armor:

damage = (weapon strength * power * coefficient) / armor

So in order to get the coefficient we have to calculate the following:

coefficient = (damage * 2597) / (weapon strength * power)

While we know the damage (from the tooltip), the power (e.g. 1000), we do not know the weapon strength. However, if we link the skill in the chat, it assumes the unequipped weapon strenght of 690.5. Thus, we can calculate the damage coefficient.

coefficient = (damage * 2597) / (690.5 * 1000)
  • Example 1: Fire Spin has a damage of 1462, so 1462 * 2597 / (690.5 * 1000) = 5.4986 ~ 5.5. Make sure that your rounded coefficient actually gives the damage: (690.5 * 1000 * 5.5) / 2597 = 1462.36 ~ 1462.
  • Example 2: Flame Cannon with a damage: 17,540 from 20 strikes, first divide 17540 / 20 = 877, then 877 * 2597 / (690.5 * 1000) = 3.2984 ~ 3.3. Afterwards, multiply with the number of strikes, i.e. 3.3 * 20 = 66.0 damage coefficient!

--Tolkyria (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Drop rate - from 0 to ... 60? in many, many seconds[edit]

On the Box of WvW Supplies/Drop rate page you added helpful data on 25 April, 2021, but the number of boxes given was 0, which makes the evaluating odds of drops errant. Do you know how many boxes you opened for this data? If not, would it be okay with you if I linearly extrapolate your data to estimate the number of boxes you opened and use that number? Thank you for your consideration and your many contributions to the Wiki! Jesself (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

21-28 or so. --DiegoDeLaHouska (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Marking images for deletion[edit]

Please leave a link to the duplicate when you mark an image for deletion. E.g. {{delete|Duplicate of [[File:Awakened Chest 2.jpg]]}}. —Kvothe (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Objects that share models[edit]

You recently changed Descendant's Chest to use File:Chest long yellow.jpg instead of File:Descendant's Chest.jpg. However, Decendant's Chest.jpg was already a screenshot of this chest in situ; replacing it with a screenshot of a chest that shares the same model but not the same location does not improve this article. If anything, it makes the less helpful. Perhaps ensuring that each of these articles has a screenshot of the chest in its location context is not a high priority. However, where these images already exist, I ask that you not throw them away. -- Dashface User Dashface.png 05:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what ? No. We are sorting those images and if its messing with your personal project then Im sorry but we will not stop in doing it. You know we cant even delete any images just mark them for those who do have those powers to judge. Both images shows the same model so there is no reason to keep both just because its showing few more pixels of wooden floor around it. I would understand if the image would show more around it like we have from chests in raids or any other guides. But both of these images are just images of the same model with nothing around it at all. --DiegoDeLaHouska (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Diego that the current image doesn't really show much of anything around the chest so there's no need to keep it around. Nonetheless, there is a previous version of the image which does a better job at showing the room it is in, but of course there is the tradeoff that the chest itself is smaller. I believe the wiki prioritizes getting larger/clearer pictures of the model rather than showing what is around the object. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
One wants me to clean the image from all links so it can be easily deleted. Another one doesnt want that. There are 2 options really. Join in and help us with those images. I can even make you a special category where we will always add those we consider as duplicates so you can talk about them with others all day long . Or the other option would be to get out of our way. Its up to you :3 --DiegoDeLaHouska (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
My objection here is that effort is being expended to make our documentation worse. This is about objects for which we already have the images of the subject in context. The benefit of a clearer image is less than the benefit of having an object it its original context. (This is also an issue with the Shared Models Project, but at least most of those models aren't stationary and could be seen in a variety of contexts and locations.)
There's a 1997 episode of Seinfeld that might help explain via a metaphor: George sees himself in the background of a family photo from a 1989 beach trip Kruger keeps in his office. George fears he will be fired once Kruger recognizes him from the photo. Kramer suggests sneaking the photo out and getting George's image airbrushed out. However, the clerk mistakenly airbrushes out Kruger instead. He takes a [replacement] photo of Kruger, but finds a mole on Kruger's shoulder. George suggests Kruger see a dermatologist about his mole, but Kruger reasons that because the mole looks the same in the 1989 photo [not knowing that it has been replaced], it cannot be harmful."
Today's wiki screenshots are tomorrow's wiki archaeology. When models or locations change, or are suspected to have changed, we can compare the screenshots to find out. It's difficult to know how many mistakes have already been made here with the Shared Models Project.
In addition to this: The Descendant's Chest article is the perfect place for a screenshot of a Descendant's Chest. For posterity, one day when the chest can't be visited, this is what this corner of the world looked like. Anyone who visits the article isn't going to benefit more by seeing a screenshot of the same model somewhere else, even if that screenshot shows the model more clearly.
I don't have the energy or inclination to fight you to the ends of the earth on this. But I want you to seriously reconsider these kinds of image replacements, especially where the work has already been done. -- Dashface User Dashface.png 08:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I wonder how big is the population of people interested in seeing objects in their original locations in the case they get removed/changed. The vast majority of the userbase has a more pragmatic approach to the wiki. Some cases that come to mind are how in the festival pages, the tables listing the avilability of activities are being updated to "guides" of stuff to do and farm (which are really nice @Sime!). Personally, when I helped create chests in Drizzlewood Coast, the first thing I did was look up chests to see if I could simplify work by reusing their high quality screenshots and it took a bit of digging around to find one with a good one. Now that they're all in the same category it'd be more convenient for possible future chests. As for indicating location, as I mentioned in Discord, a more explicit way would be either with coordinates (similar to the NPC Coordinates project) or with a map screenshot, especially those chests with the same name but various spawn locations. In my opinion, while it's charming having unique screenshots with a bit of their especific scenery, in practical terms the Shared Model project is more suitable. Myriada (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)