- The fact that the game world contains both a camera and aluminum (which was not able to be refined until 1825), yet medieval weapons and warfare, paints a very curious picture as to just when the game is supposed to be set if the source of these items are assumed to be unmagical in orgin.
While true, the above has nothing to do with wands of magic missile. The contributor is encouraged to move it someplace appropriate. See NetHack_units for similar conundra. Tjr 11:46, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
- You're absolutely 100% correct and I was going to do just that. I put that as a bit of a placeholder. Sorry, you're right, it doesn't really belong here. Feagradze 00:47, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
- The given confidence of getting a wand of magic missile from polymorphing a wand object.
- Table does not include the chance of a wand shuddering, and so, the number of wands required to reach this level of confidence will almost surely be higher; the effective number of polymorphs is as per the table, however.
I have moved this table here because 1) the table is grossly wrong because it omits wands shuddering, and 2) I have never seen a real-game situation where polymorphing for this wand would be worth it.
1.] I'm the one that made it. And I take offense to the "grossly wrong" comment. The reason it doesn't include the chance of wands shuddering is because I'm fairly limited in how much space I can actually provide. My vision of this was sort of like a mere footnote, as per, like you said, it's not really that helpful yet. I wasn't about to include one for all the various possibilities (simply take up too much room), so instead I placed the number of successful polymorphs it would take. Sure, I could have done it for uncursed wands, and might yet do so, just not now.
2.] No, you're absolutely correct, it's not worth it. That's not the point of the table. The point was that I was going to work my way towards wands that are worth it, and putting it here for the sake of consistency (that every page has a table). Though, playing Devil's Advocate, it could be argued that the player is trying to complete their wand identification list.
I've, as of yet, still haven't completed the rest. The point of it was, on each page, to show the odds, should one be polypiling, of getting the various wands. I was eventually going to move them all into their own page (most likely) but as of now said page still doesn't exist.
I'm working three steps ahead, here, and I apologize for it not being clear what the point was. But understand that there is a point.
Though for that matter the table is slightly wrong, and I fully admit to it. The reason for this is because it lists negligible in the polypile page of magic -> nonmagic. Negligible implies a close-to-zero but not quite. The figure that pops up in my head is 0.01, or 0.1, and either of which would have no large effect in play. Once I finish my work, I'll correct it. As it stands that make it "give or take one" which clearly is not significant.
I'm awfully hesitant to contest an admin, so I'm not gonna put the table back, at least, not for now (until I make said page), since you were kind enough to put the table on the talk page instead (I wouldn't have been too happy if you pointlessly forced me to recalculate all my figures).
Anyway, best regards. I'm not mad, or anything. This is a simple misunderstanding.
P.S. I've also yet to explain how the figures were calculated to begin with, something I'm surprised you didn't contest. That, in itself, is coming too. I was going to put that on the page I said I was going to make. These remarks of yours are really pushing for me advancing and making it a lot sooner.
P.P.S. Removed the template on the table. Didn't realize that broke the WYSIWYG editor. I don't actually use that and simply never noticed. Anyone using it will probably break my paragraph sections here. That's why I never use it.Feagradze 06:03, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, I'm sorry I stepped on your toes. My wording was definitely a bit harsh.
- The wand shuddering probability is 1/3 regardless of BUC status (100% if large piles). That is pretty big. Answers to the typical question "I have 20 junk wands, can I polymorph them to a wand of fire/lightning/death" will have to take that into account. (What about golem creation - is that on top of shuddering?) ("Negligible" is made precise in Zap.c#line1215.) If you don't want to rewrite all your code/spreadsheets/..., you can add a dummy "destroyed" wand type.
- Many players will eventually ask themselves once why it doesn't make sense to polymorph wands. Perhaps your tables give an answer to that. How about a separate page wand polymorphing that gives the hard numbers for this question?
- Basically, I'd like to start with what a reader is likely looking for on a given page, and then try to add answers. I suspect most players will find out at some point of time they don't need to polymorph wands, and then stop looking for such info on the individual wand pages.
- If you are going to use placeholder content extensively, you might want to start in your user namespace, e. g. User:Feagradze/wand_polymorphing. Tjr 09:10, July 8, 2010 (UTC)