Since the new update is up and running some of the rods and one wand has changed into new versions. Is it safe to replace loot items 1:1 just by changing links like Quagmire Rod -> Terra Rod for every monster?
--wilk 10:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In the terra rod case I think it is safe, however I doubt orc shamen and merlkins drop wands of decay now. Necromancers might as well drop necrotic rod, which could have been taken off from fire devils and witches. Although, priestesses do drop hailstorm rod, and I guess ice witches do so too.
17:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The table that says 'range' and on every rod '3' should be removed because its all the same, just state it in the text above. or is it there with a reason?
It has been there since before the update which changed them (they previously had different ranges); if you can think of something better to replace it, I would not be against it. -- Sixorish 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The range has been replaced by weight now. -- Sixorish 04:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it necessary the damage should be the average damage and not the damage range, or the damage range behind it between () brackets? I can imagine it is used for calculations, and should be only one number but otherwise I want to test and add damage ranges for rods. ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 15:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing if you do add damage range for them someone will edit it after using for example hailstorm rod on a fire elemental hitting it 90 instead of 72. I think it might be hard for some people to understand that the damage range is hits on neutral monsters and not weak/strong monsters. Still you could test it. Would be great to know the damage ranges.
Nevaran 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then maybe add the data in the notes. This is what I found out, 83 hits with a necrotic rod on a rotworm gave an average of 29,72 damage (atm it is set to 30). Also, 39 hits on a frost troll (supposed weak to death) gave an average of 34,05. This would mean the frost troll is 15% (14,57% in my calculations) weak to death damage, wouldn't it? Another question, how much test would be required to get accurate data? ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 16:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
To be statistically accurate you should have at least 1000 hits. However, when the range is so small I'd say 100 hits should make it pretty accurate. Just look at the 83 hits you made on a rotworm. The average damage is the same as the average damage on wiki already (rounded up of course).
Also I saw what you put on necrotic rod about max on a monster weak to death. It all depends on how weak the monster is. Your number there is if they are 10% weak. There are monsters that are more. When I tested Hero I got it to 20% weak even if someone seems to have changed it to 15% now. I haven't hunted heroes in a while so CIP can have changed it.
Nevaran 17:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see the max and min and average damage in rods and wands pages
Kwigon the sharpshooter 18:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I have tested all rods on neutral monsters. At least 100 hits with each. These are my results (the average damage is rounded to the nearest integer):
Snakebite Rod: min 8, avg 13, max 18
Moonlight Rod: min 13 avg 19, max 25
Necrotic Rod: min 23, avg 30, max 37
Northwind Rod: min 23, avg 30, max 37
Terra Rod: min 37, avg 45, max 53
Hailstorm Rod: min 56, avg 65, max 74
Springsprout Rod: min 56, avg 65, max 74
Underworld Rod: min 56, avg 65, max 74
If someone can change the template for the rods and add min and max damage to them it should be a nice feature. However as I said before people might not understand that it's hits on neutral monsters so they start changing it to hits on weak monsters.
I haven't tested the wands yet, but I assume they do the same min/max/avg damage as the rods with the same level requirement.
Nevaran 12:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow terra rod damage sux XD am guessing cip lower the damage when springrod was introdused.
Kwigon the sharpshooter 17:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
if people editing the page is that much of a problem just protect the page, its not like there will be much usefull changes made anyway foggy 17:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Change of the avg. to min/max.
It's impossible to sort the wands (or even the rods) by the damage now. Dmg↓ won't work right.
Kleiner Druid 12:19, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
We can't have the best of both words here. It's why we also have a "ratio" parameter on every creature page. Although ratio is derived from exp and hp, DPL cannot be used to output expressions of variables (afaik) so somebody long ago decided we should have a variable which is essentially (exp/hp) rounded to 3 decimal places.
There are four options:
- Forget the support for averages, this list will be unsortable
- Revert back to the old system, we'll lose a lot of data
- Add an "average" parameter to every article, use that for this page
- Go back to using list templates instead of DPL, as templates will be parsed before the list is rendered. We will have to manually update the list.
-- Sixorish 20:13, September 29, 2011 (UTC)