Talk:Main Page - Revision history

WitchDoctor: q.r

2015-12-09T00:05:42Z

q.r

Lywzc: Add a new section

2015-12-08T12:48:57Z

Add a new section

Widus at 15:39, 21 May 2014

2014-05-21T15:39:02Z

Elly: Reverted edits by Fosamaxattorneys (talk) to last revision by Elly

2012-12-13T16:59:50Z

Reverted edits by Fosamaxattorneys (talk) to last revision by Elly

Fosamaxattorneys: /* Mathematical Analysis Policy? */

2012-12-13T16:36:57Z

‎Mathematical Analysis Policy?

Elly: Undo revision 61477 by Fosamaxlawsuit12 (talk)

2012-12-07T23:31:27Z

Undo revision 61477 by Fosamaxlawsuit12 (talk)

Fosamaxlawsuit12: /* Diablo III Monsters */

2012-12-07T14:38:06Z

‎Diablo III Monsters

Elly: Undo revision 50050 by Xiaoqun (talk)

2012-05-10T16:51:55Z

Undo revision 50050 by Xiaoqun (talk)

Xiaoqun: /* sdfew */ new section

2012-05-08T13:07:10Z

‎sdfew: new section

Elly: Reverted edits by EleanorKay (talk) to last revision by Elly

2011-11-12T18:43:50Z

Reverted edits by EleanorKay (talk) to last revision by Elly

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:05, 9 December 2015
Line 58:		Line 58:
	==Clean up Articles==		==Clean up Articles==
	I think it is a disaster to mix old information with new information. Things in old patches should not be in the same page as things in new patch. Anything that has been removed from the game shouldn't appear on this wiki. Because those information makes the articles hard to read. At least they should be kept in another articles with obvious sign to show it is not the newest information if anyone is interested in the history.--[[User:Lywzc\|Lywzc]] 20:47,8 December 2015		I think it is a disaster to mix old information with new information. Things in old patches should not be in the same page as things in new patch. Anything that has been removed from the game shouldn't appear on this wiki. Because those information makes the articles hard to read. At least they should be kept in another articles with obvious sign to show it is not the newest information if anyone is interested in the history.--[[User:Lywzc\|Lywzc]] 20:47,8 December 2015
		+
		+
		+	I quite agree and would be willing to try and help at least mark things that are outdated. As soon as I can find the right template... I knew it once, but forgot it. [[User:WitchDoctor\|WitchDoctor]] ([[User talk:WitchDoctor\|talk]]) 00:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:48, 8 December 2015
Line 55:		Line 55:
	==Diablo III Monsters==		==Diablo III Monsters==
	The animals category should be renamed beasts.--[[User:Brokenstorm\|Brokenstorm]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (CEST)		The animals category should be renamed beasts.--[[User:Brokenstorm\|Brokenstorm]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (CEST)
		+
		+	==Clean up Articles==
		+	I think it is a disaster to mix old information with new information. Things in old patches should not be in the same page as things in new patch. Anything that has been removed from the game shouldn't appear on this wiki. Because those information makes the articles hard to read. At least they should be kept in another articles with obvious sign to show it is not the newest information if anyone is interested in the history.--[[User:Lywzc\|Lywzc]] 20:47,8 December 2015

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, 21 May 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	== Achievements ==
		+	What happened to the achievement links, such as the one below. They do not display anything anymore?
		+	{{achievement header}}<achievement type="single">Cut off the Head</achievement>)
		+
		+
	Cant edit this page. Just wanted to say, that the Wizard should be added to the main page with the other 2 classes.		Cant edit this page. Just wanted to say, that the Wizard should be added to the main page with the other 2 classes.

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 ::::1. You need to get the piercing effect to trigger
 ::::2. You need to have a target in line with you and the target behind the target.
-:::Then, and only then, you'll get an increased damage bonus. So this skills has a [http://fosamaxlawsuits.pbworks.com Fosamax Class Action Lawsuit Blog] requirement that isn't just numbers, and thus, in my opinion it'd be wrong to say that this skill averages on 350% Weapon Damage, because it don't. There are also some reports that when it pierces the first target, it'll apply the damage to that target again, giving it a total of 280%, but I'm not too sure about that until I see some hard proof. But that's just me. But all in all, calculations are probably good, as long as there arn't too many if/then involved in the calculation. --[[User:Grapz|Grapz]]
+:::Then, and only then, you'll get an increased damage bonus. So this skills has a requirement that isn't just numbers, and thus, in my opinion it'd be wrong to say that this skill averages on 350% Weapon Damage, because it don't. There are also some reports that when it pierces the first target, it'll apply the damage to that target again, giving it a total of 280%, but I'm not too sure about that until I see some hard proof. But that's just me. But all in all, calculations are probably good, as long as there arn't too many if/then involved in the calculation. --[[User:Grapz|Grapz]]
 ::::Here's a video of Hungering Arrow.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzTv2rBoSYc&feature=player_detailpage#t=2m10s]  At 2:11 it pierces a zombie at the top of the screen.  At 2:12 it turns around and attacks it again.  So it remains guided even after piercing.  @Brokenstorm: Simplification in case where 0>y<1?  Don't you mean 0<y<1?  And even so, how could the pierce chance be negative or greater than 1?  @TheWanderer That formula says you have a 100% chance to hit once plus a 95% chance to hit again plus a 95%*95% chance to hit again plus a 95%*95%*95% chance to hit again etc....  On to infinity.  It comes out to 20 hits on average.[[User:Strill|Strill]] 06:24, 22 September 2011 (CEST)
 :::::Yes i meant 0<y<1, and of course pierce % will always be between 0 and 100%, I was just telling where the 1 + 0.6 /( 1 - 0.6) came from. @Grapz the skill is homing so it will always hit something if it pierce, even the same target as Strill pointed out. @Strill 95% is for the golden runes, is 60% without. --[[User:Brokenstorm|Brokenstorm]] 07:54, 22 September 2011 (CEST)

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 ::::1. You need to get the piercing effect to trigger
 ::::2. You need to have a target in line with you and the target behind the target.
-:::Then, and only then, you'll get an increased damage bonus. So this skills has a requirement that isn't just numbers, and thus, in my opinion it'd be wrong to say that this skill averages on 350% Weapon Damage, because it don't. There are also some reports that when it pierces the first target, it'll apply the damage to that target again, giving it a total of 280%, but I'm not too sure about that until I see some hard proof. But that's just me. But all in all, calculations are probably good, as long as there arn't too many if/then involved in the calculation. --[[User:Grapz|Grapz]]
+:::Then, and only then, you'll get an increased damage bonus. So this skills has a [http://fosamaxlawsuits.pbworks.com Fosamax Class Action Lawsuit Blog] requirement that isn't just numbers, and thus, in my opinion it'd be wrong to say that this skill averages on 350% Weapon Damage, because it don't. There are also some reports that when it pierces the first target, it'll apply the damage to that target again, giving it a total of 280%, but I'm not too sure about that until I see some hard proof. But that's just me. But all in all, calculations are probably good, as long as there arn't too many if/then involved in the calculation. --[[User:Grapz|Grapz]]
 ::::Here's a video of Hungering Arrow.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzTv2rBoSYc&feature=player_detailpage#t=2m10s]  At 2:11 it pierces a zombie at the top of the screen.  At 2:12 it turns around and attacks it again.  So it remains guided even after piercing.  @Brokenstorm: Simplification in case where 0>y<1?  Don't you mean 0<y<1?  And even so, how could the pierce chance be negative or greater than 1?  @TheWanderer That formula says you have a 100% chance to hit once plus a 95% chance to hit again plus a 95%*95% chance to hit again plus a 95%*95%*95% chance to hit again etc....  On to infinity.  It comes out to 20 hits on average.[[User:Strill|Strill]] 06:24, 22 September 2011 (CEST)
 :::::Yes i meant 0<y<1, and of course pierce % will always be between 0 and 100%, I was just telling where the 1 + 0.6 /( 1 - 0.6) came from. @Grapz the skill is homing so it will always hit something if it pierce, even the same target as Strill pointed out. @Strill 95% is for the golden runes, is 60% without. --[[User:Brokenstorm|Brokenstorm]] 07:54, 22 September 2011 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:31, 7 December 2012
Line 50:		Line 50:
	==Diablo III Monsters==		==Diablo III Monsters==
	The animals category should be renamed beasts.--[[User:Brokenstorm\|Brokenstorm]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (CEST)		The animals category should be renamed beasts.--[[User:Brokenstorm\|Brokenstorm]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (CEST)
−
−	~~=== My First Page ===~~
−
−	Legal controversy over Merck’s popular osteoporosis drug Fosamax continues as plaintiffs bring more complaints regarding complications from taking the medication while legal and media sources also continue to record ongoing developments in court cases, industry analysts say. [http://fosamaxattorneys.pbworks.com Fosamax Attorneys Blog]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 7 December 2012
Line 50:		Line 50:
	==Diablo III Monsters==		==Diablo III Monsters==
	The animals category should be renamed beasts.--[[User:Brokenstorm\|Brokenstorm]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (CEST)		The animals category should be renamed beasts.--[[User:Brokenstorm\|Brokenstorm]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (CEST)
		+
		+	=== My First Page ===
		+
		+	Legal controversy over Merck’s popular osteoporosis drug Fosamax continues as plaintiffs bring more complaints regarding complications from taking the medication while legal and media sources also continue to record ongoing developments in court cases, industry analysts say. [http://fosamaxattorneys.pbworks.com Fosamax Attorneys Blog]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 10 May 2012
Line 50:		Line 50:
	==Diablo III Monsters==		==Diablo III Monsters==
	The animals category should be renamed beasts.--[[User:Brokenstorm\|Brokenstorm]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (CEST)		The animals category should be renamed beasts.--[[User:Brokenstorm\|Brokenstorm]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (CEST)
−
−	~~== sdfew ==~~
−
−
−	~~tera gold [url=http://www.3zoom.com/tera+account-36.html]tera gold[/url]~~
−	~~buy tera gold [url=http://www.buy-tera.com]buy tera gold[/url]~~
−	~~Tcheap tera gold [url=http://www.buy-tera.com]Tcheap tera gold[/url]~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, 8 May 2012
Line 50:		Line 50:
	==Diablo III Monsters==		==Diablo III Monsters==
	The animals category should be renamed beasts.--[[User:Brokenstorm\|Brokenstorm]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (CEST)		The animals category should be renamed beasts.--[[User:Brokenstorm\|Brokenstorm]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (CEST)
		+
		+	== sdfew ==
		+
		+
		+	tera gold [url=http://www.3zoom.com/tera+account-36.html]tera gold[/url]
		+	buy tera gold [url=http://www.buy-tera.com]buy tera gold[/url]
		+	Tcheap tera gold [url=http://www.buy-tera.com]Tcheap tera gold[/url]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 == Mathematical Analysis Policy? ==
-I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but the Community Portal seems to be empty.  My question is:  Is it acceptable to include calculated summaries of skill effects?  For example, [[Hungering Arrow]] has a 60% pierce chance.  That means it hits an average of 2.5 times. Therefore, you could say that on average, it deals 140% * 2.5 = 350% Weapon Damage.  You could also do similar calculations for all the <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.proposable.com <span style="color:white;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">proposal software</span>] other Hungering Arrow runes except Alabaster, since none of them apart from Alabaster deal AoE damage.
+I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but the Community Portal seems to be empty.  My question is:  Is it acceptable to include calculated summaries of skill effects?  For example, [[Hungering Arrow]] has a 60% pierce chance.  That means it hits an average of 2.5 times. Therefore, you could say that on average, it deals 140% * 2.5 = 350% Weapon Damage.  You could also do similar calculations for all the other Hungering Arrow runes except Alabaster, since none of them apart from Alabaster deal AoE damage.
 Would it be acceptable to include the calculated average weapon damage in the page for Hungering Arrow?  I understand this kind of analysis isn't possible in some cases without extensive guesswork, (like Alabaster Rune).  However, in some cases it's just single-target damage for each of them so they should be directly comparable.