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)

For navigation there is the table of contents. But perhaps the the list of mods (prefix, suffix, corrupted) should generally be moved into their own page(s) to avoid the clutter on the jewel page. Colouring the columns seems a good idea, I think you mean the first three columns (for the 3 types of jewels)? I've included those so it's easier to sort by. I think I'd rather not colour the last column because it becomes confusing.--OmegaK2 (t|c) 10:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I like collapsible tables, see http://terraria.gamepedia.com/User:NoseOfCthulhu/Sandbox2. Correct, I meant the columns named Viridian, Cobalt, Crimson. --Illviljan (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think as the page currently stands, the section order should be base, unique, corrupted, affixes. I like the idea of colouring columns if there is a good way to do it - there are probably other tables around the wiki that could do with some R/G/B cells since it's so fundamental to so many game mechanics, so maybe a standard template/css to be reused elsewhere would be worthwhile. For the affix tables, if these are going to end up on a lot of item pages, would it be better to make them their own page but transclude them the way we do the unique lists? --Qetuth-(talk) 22:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added some basic coloring. I choose to color the text instead of the cells because that seems less intrusive then the background for a table like this. I'd generally think putting affix lists into their own pages is useful because people can go though categories and look for lists they are interested in. There is still a limit on how many things can be transcluded - the limiting factor here is mostly run time. It may not exceed 7 secs for the lua in total. But it's fine for transcending on a single page. --OmegaK2 (t|c) 22:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we remove the "Spawn Weighting Column"? I don't think it is being very helpful. --1BLOOBERRY (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, or at the very least have it in it's own dedicated hidden table for anyone looking for that info. Iamacyborg (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

All of the weighting column entries can be derived from the info in the previous 4 columns:

Tag	Cannot roll if jewel already has:
two_handed_mod	shield_mod one_handed_mod dual_wielding_mod
one_handed_mod	two_handed_mod
dual_wielding_mod	two_handed_mod shield_mod
shield_mod	two_handed_mod dual_wielding_mod
melee_mod	bow wand
specific_weapon_mod	specific_weapon_mod (other than existing specific weapon)

I'd be happy to replace that column with something like the above table, or the same info in text explanation --Qetuth-(talk) 23:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Mhh, this is neater and also the reason why I don't want to omit the column in general, it's kind of important to know that certain mods cant roll when others are choosen. Btw if you want to add that you'll have to edit Module:SMWResultFormat --OmegaK2 (t|c) 06:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)