Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"
(→Mathematical Analysis Policy?) |
(→Mathematical Analysis Policy?) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
== Mathematical Analysis Policy? == | == 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 other Hungering Arrow runes except Alabaster, since none of them 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. | 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. | ||
Revision as of 10:58, 21 September 2011
Cant edit this page. Just wanted to say, that the Wizard should be added to the main page with the other 2 classes.
Typos, etc...
"Key Pages for Diablo II Info" might be misleading... =] --Azymn 08:47, 28 October 2008 (CET)
Can we fix the Diablo 1 link on the main page pointing directly to http://diablo2.diablowiki.net/Diablo_I instead of http://diablowiki.net/Diablo_I ? --Diak 21:50, 18 April 2009 (CEST)
The Witch Doctor's "Plague" Skill Tree should be changed to "Zombie", and all the links under the WD should be changed to "--- skills" instead of "--- skill tree", to mesh with the rest of the page. --Bran Maniac 23:02, 11 September 2009 (CEST)
- Oki, fixed :) --Leord 14:25, 25 September 2009 (CEST)
Request...
Can you please put a link to Resistances in the Combat section? That page is orphaned and has only ~350 views.--TheWanderer 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Skill Trees
Really need to remove the skill trees from the first page... --TheWanderer 01:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
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 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.
For the conversion from Pierce Chance to number of hits: Number of hits = infinite sum of 0.6^n from n=0 to infinity = 1 + 0.6 /( 1 - 0.6) = 2.5
