Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

Revision as of 17:04, 12 October 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)

Under the classes section, the 'Passive Skills' link should point to (for instance) Barbarian passives instead of Barbarian skills#Passive Skills. MrFrye 17:00, 22 September 2011 (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

 :O. Can you explain that formula a bit more? I think you can put these calculations in a separate section on the skill page(like calculations or further reading). You can post on the diii.net wiki forum if you have any more questions.

--TheWanderer

The equation is ∑(x=0,∞) y^x (y=0.6), what he posted is just the simplification in case where 0>y<1. With that said there will never be and infinite number of mobs on the screen, but as a theoretical maximum average damage I think it has a place somewhere on the skill page.--Brokenstorm 17:38, 21 September 2011 (CEST)

I think it could be useful to have the formula for skill damage on the skill, but I'm not sure this skill is a good candidate for calculations. According to the last info on the official forums (http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/3123248970#8), it'll only hit targets in a straight line behind the original target. So in order to get a damage bonus, there are two conditions that has to be in place;

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. --Grapz

Here's a video of Hungering Arrow.[1] 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.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. --Brokenstorm 07:54, 22 September 2011 (CEST)

Diablo III Monsters

The animals category should be renamed beasts.--Brokenstorm 17:45, 21 September 2011 (CEST)