Topic on Talk:Lizardskin
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This page shows the changes between two versions of a post by Bullwinkle in the topic "Why keep the people in the dark?" on Talk:Lizardskin.
You can see other versions of this post at its history page.
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I don't understand why it is important to keep salient information from the users. I also don't understand why it is important to present confusing/over-stated misleading "facts." | I don't understand why it is important to keep salient information from the users. I also don't understand why it is important to present confusing/over-stated misleading "facts." | ||
| − | Some players are interested in min/max. Before end-game exotic materials are available, lizardskin has the highest blunt damage rating in the game. Period. The difference is small, but it is there. It is the absolute best available in game until acquisition of exotic late game materials. For min/maxers, this is relevant. Someone may | + | Some players are interested in min/max. Before end-game exotic materials are available, lizardskin has the highest blunt damage rating in the game. Period. The difference is small, but it is there. It is the absolute best available in game until acquisition of exotic late game materials. For min/maxers, this is relevant. Someone may have an opinion about whether that is significant or not, but it is a fact. Why remove that information from the page? For certain situations where you want your pawn to have maximum blunt protection, such as hunters who fear animal revenge (but aren't worried about bullets), blunt rating can be the critical consideration. Same with certain raids where the attackers are mostly using blunt weapons (not common, but does happen). With this being the one-and-only best-in-early-game leather for blunt protection, that fact is worth mentioning, not hiding. Even if the difference is small enough that some editor might have the opinion that it is an insignificant difference. It is best for certain situations, and that is a fact. Mention it. Also mention the difference is small, fine. But mention it. Small differences in starting conditions can produce huge differences in results. Complex systems frequently display sensitive dependence on initial conditions. So something that is factually best (in certain situations) is worth mentioning, regardless of one's opinions about those facts. Include the opinions, sure. Put it in perspective. But simply removing the facts is wrong. |
Also, saying the lizardskin is tied for 11th most protective among leathers is misleading. The fact is that it is 11th most protective among SHARP protections available. It really is 4th among blunt protections and #1 before exotic late game materials are available. It is factually incomplete to say it is 11th best and leave it at that. The difference might be small, but that doesn't mean the facts should be hidden. It is 11th best for sharp and 4th best for blunt. Both parts of that are true and worth mentioning. | Also, saying the lizardskin is tied for 11th most protective among leathers is misleading. The fact is that it is 11th most protective among SHARP protections available. It really is 4th among blunt protections and #1 before exotic late game materials are available. It is factually incomplete to say it is 11th best and leave it at that. The difference might be small, but that doesn't mean the facts should be hidden. It is 11th best for sharp and 4th best for blunt. Both parts of that are true and worth mentioning. | ||
| − | Bottom line: lizardskin is the absolute best solution to certain problems at certain points in the game. Why is it important to keep removing any mention of that fact? | + | Bottom line: lizardskin is the absolute best solution to certain problems at certain points in the game. Why is it so important to keep removing any mention of that fact? |