I think I have like... one saved somewhere. There have been a few formula releases, but they were usually things that were fairly obvious/very simple.

Well, the damage formula thing was my hope.

But I think everything else, like stupidity's % chance to tick, etc could be made available!.

I'm glad we have a taker! :-) I tried volunteering for this myself but I guess Esty didn't get my e-mail.

I'd like to see some fleshing out as well. One thing that might be interesting, for instance, to say, supplement the lore, would be a "Monster Manual". There are a lot of interesting creatures in Lusternia that don't exist elsewhere, and it might be fun to catalog them--lots of the Skarch critters, things like Grues and Aethercreatures, etc. Most people can't take the time to look at a creature while it's hitting them, for instance. Having potential fans look at this and say "wow, look at all this stuff, I wanna play" could be good.

I'd like to make a suggestion.

I don't know if it's possible, but you should have a feature on the website where people can "edit" the current article, and submit it to some private section of the wiki. Then you can look at proposed edits and submissions and approve them to be merged into the public article.

I've seen it done on some wikis before, so if the one Lusternia is using has that feature, you should make use of it.

I'll keep my hopes up for formulas, because I love me some theorycrafting, but well it seems the admin are pretty strong in not giving in. Shame though, but I can understand why.

That said, I think 'obvious' numbers are still good to have, they may be so to us folk who have played a while, but new players will be greatly helped by the wiki so having that sort of thing in there is certainly not a luxury. And who knows, some of us older folks may become forgetful and want to look things up :D

daganev:

I'd like to make a suggestion.

I don't know if it's possible, but you should have a feature on the website where people can "edit" the current article, and submit it to some private section of the wiki. Then you can look at proposed edits and submissions and approve them to be merged into the public article.

I've seen it done on some wikis before, so if the one Lusternia is using has that feature, you should make use of it.

There isn't such a feature on Mediawiki (that I know of), but you can always pm me with suggested edits! Just include the page and part info when you do so.

Can I actually give you formulas or are those not allowed. I assume admin wont give them but I can tell you some of them if we can post.

Malarious:

Can I actually give you formulas or are those not allowed. I assume admin wont give them but I can tell you some of them if we can post.

I'm not sure how well those fit/belong on the wiki. They could well be outdated or incorrect.

Eventru:

I'm not sure how well those fit/belong on the wiki. They could well be outdated or incorrect.

Tsk, to assume I would not retest before releasing. And to think my formulas are outdated.. have you seen the wiki! It is presently a little outdated. But as I did not actually get a no......

Malarious:


Tsk, to assume I would not retest before releasing. And to think my formulas are outdated.. have you seen the wiki! It is presently a little outdated. But as I did not actually get a no......

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't give 'no's or 'yes'es unless I know that answer for sure. In terms of what the wiki is intended for, damage formulas feel pretty inappropriate. Worse, if your theorycrafting is flawed, and we have a bunch of bugs because of it, I'm going to give a gaggle of ephemerals switches and send them after you. Personally, I think it's better off not being on the wiki. Mana costs, power costs, endurance costs, etc, sure. Theory-crafted formula, not so much.

I find myself agreeing with Awsometru more than I am comfortable with these days.... But with any kind of reference material, having confidence in the accuracy of information presented as fact is crucial.

I would LOVE to see the afflictions page get a good looking at. We have soooooo many keeping them all straight is a nightmare. Then when you add questionable data it just makes things worse.

(for example vomiting blood doesn't make you bleed, much less give heavy bleeding as cited in the wiki. Just occasional minor damage on a tic. It's a BC aff and they don't normally have bleeding attacks so I was told the bleeding is 'internal' and that it's not a bug and that i should shut my whore mouth*)


*it's possible that those weren't the exact words used

Enyalida:


There isn't such a feature on Mediawiki (that I know of), but you can always pm me with suggested edits! Just include the page and part info when you do so.

http://www.mediawiki...n:Approved_Revs
or
http://www.mediawiki...ion:FlaggedRevs

Both look like they might allow this, the first seems to add a little link to the history page that would let someone with adequate privs to set the edited article to the revision shown when someone views the page. The second is more complicated than that though.

There are 788 extensions that allow people to do all sorts of interesting things with wikis, the Special:Version page shows what a wiki is running. Looking at the Achaean, Aetolian, and Imperian wikis they have the required extensions for nice templates with variables, like having the skills tables being a template that is filled out rather than copypasta'd, with all the nice benefits of that.

As an aside, wikipedia runs... well this many extensions to do everything it does.
http://en.wikipedia....Special:Version


Edit: Estarra would need to add in these and I'd definitely suggest getting the extensions that the other ire wikis have cause they're just very nice.

Also, I'd suggest more categorisation with a reminder that categories can be categorised. So like... Aeromancy could be categorised as "Aeromancer Skill" which could be categorised as "Guild Skill" which in turn could be categorised as "Skill" which would have under it "General Skill" and "Trade Skill" as well. Maybe "specialisation" too for aeromancy. "Aeromancy Skill" would probably be also categorised under "Aeromancers" and so on.

Things are a bit weird for druids, wiccans, and warriors which might lean towards archetype skill categories which also could make tertiaries easier, but there is also a slight issue for guardians and bards in that not all guilds of that archetype have access to the same tertiaries.

Llandros:

I find myself agreeing with Awsometru more

I'm not Eventroll anymore? Uh oh.

Eventru:

I'm not Eventroll anymore? Uh oh.

You'll always be Eventroll to me.