Talk:Jewel

Affix Table Formatting

Hey, I'd like to hear some input on how to format the affix table. With all those values it breaks the size of the wiki, even on very large and wide screens. Maybe there is another way to make it more readable? N/A values don't actually exist in the database, i.e. the entire column about conditionals could be shorted down to just those where it exists; however it may be confusing and is not very sort friendly.

As for the jewel files, I was considering to fill in the generic chance instead of N/A, while that value doesn't actually exist, it makes sorting & understanding easier for people (I think anyway). If anyone has good ideas regarding the formatting, post here. You can also go ahead and edit of course, but I have a script that simply formats the data for the wiki, so it's much less painful then editing all rows manually; in particular if there's updated data. --OmegaK2 (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there is any effect of the conditional section for any of the suffixes, would it not be worth removing all of those to make at least that table easier to read for now? TheHurd (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the excess columns from the suffix table. It looks like every row in the prefix table only has one column used, so that should be able to condense to one column. It also looks like the same for the jewel columns, so maybe that should be saying things like "200 Cobalt" instead of 3 columns? Otherwise, I think it would look a lot clearer if the N/As were blank cells.

I'm not sure I understand how base and jewel conditionals interact. For example, Arctic prefix is listed as 200/na/250/na but can spawn on Cobalt. Is the chance for Arctic prefix weighted at 200 for all jewels, and the 250 in the Viridian column is extra, so total 450 for chance of Arctic on a Viridian jewel?

Another thing that needs further explanation is the groups - it looks like these are affixes that cannot spawn on the same item? That looks like useful information to be able to sort by. --Qetuth-(talk) 22:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added a better explaination of what things actually do. Btw you removed some of the data when you "shortened" that other list. --OmegaK2 (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops? I thought I was only removing n/a and 0 and didn't see why those were different, but if I understand now those 0s actually prevent for example a wand suffix being rolled on a jewel which already has a melee prefix? --Qetuth-(talk) 01:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That's pretty much what they did to make it easier to roll good jewels without conflicting mods :) --OmegaK2 (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest coloring the weighting columns. So it's easier to discern which mods can be found on the jewels. The tables are very large so it becomes a struggle scrolling up to see which jewel can have that particular mod. I also think these LARGE tables should be the last thing on a page or hidden in a spoiler. There is a lot scrolling to get to the Corrupted or Unique Jewels header.--Illviljan (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)