GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

Talk:Drop rate/Birthday Present

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Sandbox[edit source]

moved from Sandbox

proposed change for miniatures drop rate, combines level one and 2, columns can be selected and copied into word processor to tally totals easily The preceding unsigned comment was added by I EatClowns (talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

What this needs is some template work to do the tallies automatically. I'll get on it in 12 hours or so, if not, remind me. --◄mendel► 06:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This looks good but is very hard to edit, because it is almost impossible to count the columns. It is almost easier to make a petition-style count for them (who is going to add more than 1 of the same in one go?) that can then be tallied automatically. See Drop_rate/Birthday_Present/draft and Talk:Drop_rate/Birthday_Present/draft - give me some time to design something, meanwhile I am moving this over, please discuss there. --◄mendel► 17:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
i see what you mean about the counting, but at teh same time, it allows a person to enter all their mini's in one post and makes end tally simplified, the list also makes it a little more difficult to enter multiple minis without confusion. maybe a merge of some sort could be achieved. maybe breaking teh main chart down into 3 smaler peices, one for gold and green, one for purples, and one for whites, with a 4th chart to summurize teh data from teh other 3 from an overall percentage.--I EatClowns 20:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


also, just look how long all teh lists get so fast from multiple entries required. i have a idea change to try, but it will have to wait for a bit, im sure if we work together, we can make this work well, and maybe use positive changes to upgrade all drop rate information, but one step at a time.--I EatClowns 20:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Miniature Total Signature and Timestamp
Bone Dragon Prince Rurik Shiro Burning Titan Char Shaman Kirin
# # # # # # # [[user:~~~|]] ~~~~~
10 11 9 12 16 16 --I EatClowns 04:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Totals 10 11 9 12 16 16 --I EatClowns 02:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
% - - - - - - 100 --I EatClowns 03:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

starting from here, and have aseperate one for commons might be a way to go

New draft available (now with counting)[edit source]

Have a look. It is still possible to do several minis in one edit, it just takes more scrolling, but you don't need to spell the names right. I am goingto write instructions on teh page, but for now I'll just say here that you need to

  1. add your sig on a separate # line to all the minis, one line per present opened
  2. preview
  3. take note of the numbers and put them in the tally at the top
  4. preview
  5. take note of the computed total and put that in the tally at the top
  6. save

If someone forgets steps 2-6, the next person can easily do it, and it is easy to check whether the counts match. --◄mendel► 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The only issue i see with it is just how incredibly long that page would get--I EatClowns 04:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The page is actually not longer than the present page - one line per signature. There is less wikitext on it, too, so the 32k warning will come later. The sections themselves are really short, and they are easy to find. And the column is narrow enough to maybe put first and second year data side by side, but I don't think that is necessary. The page can always be split into three pages. --◄mendel► 04:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh ?[edit source]

[[user:~~~|]] ~~~~~ becomes [[user:- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage|]] 01:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC) for me.
The [[User: |]] part should be left out, to correct it. Besides, why bother with timestamps on a table? --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 01:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nvm.... Didn't notice the page was already changed (had this in an old tab... ) Ups. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 01:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Timestamps have always been there. I suppose it helps people remember what they added. --◄mendel► 03:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
the time stamps also let teh person updating teh table know how far back to go, makes it a lot easier--I EatClowns 04:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Draft is ready to go live now - objections?[edit source]

Any objections or other comments? --◄mendel► 04:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

my only objection is stylistic, ii just like to see dividing lines in a chart, just makes it easier to read. other suggestion would be to have names in 2 columns under the minirature on teh data collection, just to make teh whole white area filled out some, and save space.--I EatClowns 07:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You have raised issues that I had thought about myself, but dismissed. Here's why:
  • Indeed my design started out with dividing lines, but I feel it looks better without. The columns are quite short and visually distinct in my browser (i.e. everything lines up under the mini icon); if they aren't on yours, could you please upload a screenshot so I can fix that? I believe that the design would visually suffer with lines as the three tables have slightly different column widths at times, and the lines would not, erm, line up.
  • The problem with having two columns for each mini data section is that there is no easy way to have text flow from one column to the other, as in a word processor. Netscape 3 and 4 used to have a tag for that, but no current browsers or web standards support the feature. In effect, this means that users would have to adjust the column divider every second time something new gets added. Unless we do some really shady hacks with CSS or Javascript that move every alternate signature to the right and up, I don't see how we can do it without making the page harder to use. My "solution" to the length of the page (and the length of the table of contents box) was to make the section links that are in the tally tables; that was supposed to eliminate the need to scroll all over the page; in addition, the icon of the minipet is supposed to make the headlines more distinctive and your "stop" easier to recognize if you do scroll. Do you think people need to be made more aware of the section links?
--◄mendel► 11:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

more Suggestions[edit source]

We could make the columns narrower visually by either setting a width for them, or by disabling the section edit linkss at the far right and placing our own section edit tags (next to the mini icon, for example). The numbers in the tally tables could be clickable so that you can edit the table by clicking on one. (They could still be colored black.) Who'd like that? --◄mendel► 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Had you considered splitting the article into individual years? It would be much easier to scroll through and add to the tallies, then the summary tables could be included back into this page. We'd then put an edit link next to each year's table that goes to that year's subpage. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the good doctor hit the nail on the head with that idea, and as for java stuff, my cousin is a web designer, i can ask him if its something that the community is trully interested in adding, but if teh article is split into 3, i think it would be fine--I EatClowns 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
None of these suggestions need Java or Javascript.
If I understand that correctly, we'd then have 7 pages: 3 with the individual tallies, 1 (the main page) with the aggregate (3 tallies transcluded), , and 3 for the drops (1 tally each transcluded), right? --◄mendel► 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No, just 4 - 1 for each of the 3 years with the tallies and summaries (exactly like the current page, but for a single year) with the summary table wrapped by <includonly>, then this page includes all 3 of them (which, obviously, would only include the summary from each). —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I bow to your superior template-fu. This may mean that I still have sleep to catch up on. You will have better luck if you wrap the summary table with onlyinclude, or the drop data with noinclude. --◄mendel► 00:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
pssst, it's includeonly, not onlyinclude --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 00:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You fail. Since MediaWiki version 1.6. --◄mendel► 01:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, mendel's right - I always get those two confused. <includeonly> specifies a portion of the page that only shows up when it is included, it doesn't show up on the page itself. <onlyinclude> specifies that only certain parts of a page should be included, but these parts still show up on the page. <onlyinclude> is the inverse of <noinclude> - if you have a page with parts A, B, and C, wrapping part B with <onlyinclude> is the same as wrapping parts A and C with <noinclude>. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... Mkay then. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 01:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've got the split pages ready to go, only one more thing needs to be fixed: the mini names in the tally table need to be updated to link to the subpage (possibly make them edit links, even?), and I'll let mendel take care of that since it's his template. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you haven't been watching RC enough. Since you announced the split, I have already updated the template to take a page= parameter; all you need is fill that out (do 'not use PAGENAME) for the subpage it is on, and teh section lonks will adjust. --◄mendel► 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"Teh section lonks"? XD I remember seeing that edit now, must've forgotten about it. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm, now the gray "TOTAL SUM (computed)" message shows up on the parent page. Not sure why that's happening, the code doesn't look like it should be doing this. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
See my sandbox. REVISIONID seems to be null when double included :( ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 02:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, purging the server cache of the page(s) does the trick. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 05:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Colors[edit source]

In the tally section, why are the green ones gold and the gold ones green? :P ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lies and slander! Er... um, must've been your imagination, yeah. >.> Actually, I'm surprised I didn't notice that... but mendel wrote the template, so it's all his fault. :PDr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 05:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I was sleepcoding when I wrote that. --◄mendel► 11:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Warnings[edit source]

Users editing the tally is a direct consequence of the split. People don't see the signatures when they first view the page, hit the edit link and update the sum. Why do we require the signing, btw? In To Dye For, it works without. --◄mendel► 06:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I just updated each tally based on the signatures. At least a couple of people in each one had increased tally without signing, and others had signed without increasing the tally. Because of this, short of trawling the history, you can't tell how many people have actually contributed; if one person signs and tallies, it's indistinguishable from one person signing (no tally) and another tallying (no sign) in which case a contribution is lost. Because I went by the signs I believe we just lost some people's input, however in no case did the sum total go down so it was less than the gain. Ezekiel [Talk] 00:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Peope updating the sums without signing could be people who adjust the tally for others who have signed but not done the sums, but you probably thought of that? --◄mendel► 02:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know I just raised the tally for some who didn't, but the issue was that there were more tallied than there were signed. So that can't've been the case unless there were others who changed the tally and didn't sign themselves. Ezekiel [Talk] 02:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the idea was to go by the signatures, and since they are on numbered lists, it should be simple to check if the sums match. So that's what we do. :-) --◄mendel► 05:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My List[edit source]

I don't feel like editing the main page for this, but since I've opened quite a few presents now, I might as well share my data:
3 First-Year: Fungal Wallow, Hydra and Necrid Horseman
9 Second-Year: One Gwen, Two Elf, Two Wind Rider, Juggernaut, Thorn Wolf, Harpy Ranger, Hecket Warrior
5 Third-Year: Freezie, Nornbear, Cloudtouched Simian, Irukandji and Roaring Ether
One green, 4 purple and 12 White on 17 presents, seems like I got lucky with my Gwen but not much else. 83.101.56.19 18:30, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it for you. Lazy... lol, xD —N Segick 04:29, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Actual percentages[edit source]

The tables here look a bit biased in favor of the colored minis from the tables on GWW, like the 13% for Janthir (I wish it was that high :P). I've been trying to figure out the exact % drop rates of each mini, and here's my guesstimate:

Color All Qty Each
White 80% 8 10%
Purple 15% 3 5%
Gold 4% 2 2%
Green 1% 1 1%

This makes sense in the way that each mini of a higher color has about half the chance to drop from the more common color below it, correctly justifying the rarity. It looks like it also more closely matches the research tables with the larger (hopefully more accurate) data pools, like the 198-item first Bday set here. What do you guys think? RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.png 21:59, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking about that a few days ago, after I created the 5th year page, and I came up with the exact same numbers you did. It actually matches my personal experience pretty well - 76% white, 17% purple, 5% gold, and 2% green over 42 presents. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 22:15, May 1, 2010 (UTC)