User talk:Ividyon
|
Hi there! Here's some basic talk pointers, as with the main page talk:
When starting a new discussion topic, please add a 2nd level headline ahead, like so: == Not enough cookies == Also, please sign your messages with ~~~~ and, when responding to another message, use : to indent your responses! — |
Hiatus
As I am rather fed up with the buggy and unsupported nature of Mush, and the half-assedness with which Motion Twin is maintaining this game, failing to resolve major gameplay/balance issues in half a year, just adding unnecessary and rather underwhelming features instead, I am taking an indefinitely-timed break from playing the game and maintaining the Mushpedia. Please do not direct any further requests at me. I'm wishing you the best of luck! — 
ividyon (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2014 (MDT)
- Too bad :( I'm too new to be fed up with it yet, but I can see your problem here. I hope they fix things up and you come back, that would be a double win...Edfel (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2014 (MDT)
Item templates
Hey Ividyon, just a small suggestion, every item can be effected by fire, some damaged, some destroyed etc, how about adding this to the default template view along with the repair/dismantle stuff on the right? I think this would help tidy the templates up even more! Gimboid (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2014 (MST)
- Hmm. Currently, this is displayed in the attributes list below. If it's tagged "Destroyed by Fire", that attribute pops up in the attributes list, and if it has a Repair Chance, it's displayed as "can be broken by fire". Do you reckon this is not enough? — ividyon (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2014 (MST)
Beta test screenshots
Ividyon, I do not know if the descriptions or naming of the mush skills are wrong. All of my screenshots are from the beta test.
Only yesterday I noticed that the beta skill 'Anonymous' was renamed to 'Anonymush'. I am certain that there will be other minor changes that I am still unaware of.
Thats said, I still think that these screenshots have some value in the absence of current ones (that and even current ones will become obsolete one day). Maybe we can update them as we go.
Pause (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2013 (MST)
If we are talking about file sizes for images I find that the best format to use changes from image to image. For example, when I convert the image Action-Sabotage.gif to jpg it jumps up from 8KB to 13KB, converting to png it drops to 6KB.
...unless by "far better" you were talking about image quality or something other than file sizes.
Pause (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2013 (MST)
ImageMap
Hey, thanks for activating ImageMap! :) Tatsukishi (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2013 (MST)
Templates
Is there any reason you want the templates for things like APs and glory to have the word after them? I think "some action costs 3 
" is better than "some action costs 3 AP". It's how the game handles it, and it looks less redundant. With template:ap (my template) if you mouse over it says AP, and I intended to make it a link to something about AP as soon as there was something suitable to link to.
There is now template:AP (yours, used with {{AP}}) and template:Ap (mine, used with {{ap}}). We should just use one of them. MP has the same situation.
I do think the AP template should have options for special skill points, I just hadn't gotten around to it. We should keep that from yours.
Lastly, filling up the recent changes is my job! —Cimanyd
- I actually absolutely wasnt aware those templates already exist! As you noticed, the wiki has this awful issue of case sensitivity, and I just punched in "AP" and "MP" and didn't find anything, so I figured I was the first to make it. My inspiration came from the excellent Dota 2 Wiki and its usage of templates.
- I'm actually torn on the issue myself; I believe that
AP looks more elegant, because it's the same with 
Glory and 
Morale. The game is not really a point to refer to in this issue, since its usage isn't uniform at all; sometimes you get "3 ", sometimes it's "3 AP", sometimes it's even "3 Action points ()"! Really silly. That also opens up another issue, namely how to treat tooltips and descriptions taken from inside the game... as they have haphazard, non-uniform usage of AP icons and texts all over the place, you can't really replace them all with wiki templates without altering them from their original phrasing. (which I personally think isn't an issue, but opinions may differ)
- Personally like to keep it the way I did it, though this opens up some issues for job-specific AP, as you need to add "s" behind 2 {{AP|IT}} to make it "2
s", etc. This may require some more elegant coding, but this is my first contact with MediaWiki so idk (yet)! — ividyon (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2013 (MST)
- I had forgotten how inconsistent the game itself is. My opinion is, for the wiki (anything not supposed to be copied from the game), we should just use 3 , 3 , etc. and for places where the in-game stuff is copied, just say "3 [[Image:pa slot1.png]]", "3 [[Image:pa slot1.png]] '''AP'''", "3 Action Points ([[Image:pa slot1.png]])", or whatever, to match what's in the game.
- To link to an external website, you use [website text], not [website|text].
- This will be confusing to anyone reading it after the templates are changed... —Cimanyd
- I had forgotten how inconsistent the game itself is. My opinion is, for the wiki (anything not supposed to be copied from the game), we should just use 3
- I went and changed the formatting on our talk so it won't be confusing to anyone!
- I'm still not convinced. It may be redundant to someone who got to know the game, but anyone else won't immediately draw the connection that blue is Movement and red is Action, or that it's even supposed to be points. The image could, of course, link to articles explaining the points, but then again it won't be guaranteed that people mouse-over and realize the image is a link. Lastly, the various job action points like cook, gardening, IT etc. really aren't recognizable as AP on first glance.
- There are cases where both types can be useful, but ultimately we should decide on a "default" type of writing which should be uniformly used across the wiki, with exceptions where applicable. (The one we decide against can remain an optional template argument for experienced editors) My vote remains on the extended style. — ividyon (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2013 (MST)
- There are cases where both types can be useful, but ultimately we should decide on a "default" type of writing which should be uniformly used across the wiki, with exceptions where applicable. (The one we decide against can remain an optional template argument for experienced editors) My vote remains on the extended style. —
- Actually, I just changed my mind! We could leave the extended version as an optional argument for the AP/MP templates, but otherwise we can condense them down to just the icons (which will link to articles explaining the points). — ividyon (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2013 (MST)
- Actually, I just changed my mind! We could leave the extended version as an optional argument for the AP/MP templates, but otherwise we can condense them down to just the icons (which will link to articles explaining the points). —
- OK, I'll do some template editing to make them icons only.
- I don't think there's anything called "life points" at all, and there's already template:health (or template:hp), so what's template:LP for? —Cimanyd
- This damn game. The FAQ clearly read Life Points, but in the game interface it's Health Points... what the hell? — ividyon (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2013 (MST)
- This damn game. The FAQ clearly read Life Points, but in the game interface it's Health Points... what the hell? —
- The game's information isn't always consistent or accurate, that's why we need a good wiki. I think we should stick with in-game names, and ignore the help and stuff if it disagrees. —Cimanyd
- Why did you revert my last message? —Cimanyd
- I... don't know! I think I tried to look at the previous revision of the page, and ended up rolling it back instead? I didn't get a confirmation prompt or anything, so that's weird... anyway, point taken! — ividyon (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2013 (MST)
- I... don't know! I think I tried to look at the previous revision of the page, and ended up rolling it back instead? I didn't get a confirmation prompt or anything, so that's weird... anyway, point taken! —
In template:skill, I think the icons should stay bigger. I know they fit better in lines, but they don't look as good because of the resizing. Compare: 
—Cimanyd
- Bit of a late response, buuut: It does look better, but the bigger icons absolutely break reading comfort and content flow, so they have to be downscaled a bit. Sorry! — ividyon (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2014 (MST)
I removed the double bolding from template:skill and template:character, I don't think it looks good. —Cimanyd
font size
inventory - the font size is too small. i can barely read them. it hurts my eyes. please change into bigger font size. suggestion: must be at least 90%. not all people have sharp eyes. thank you. - ronga
To solve that, you can hold down Ctrl and scroll your mouse wheel up to increase the zoom level of the site. The small fonts are still at a reasonable size for typical web usage, so I'm not sure if I can help you with anything else. :/ — ividyon (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2014 (MST)
Thank you for the tip. From a web designer's perspective, I'm interested to know where you learned that small font size is reasonable for typical web usage. First of all let's read the following paragraph.
Size: respect the users' preferences, avoid small size for content
As a base font size for a document, 1em (or 100%) is equivalent to setting the font size to the user’s preference. Use this as a basis for your font sizes, and avoid setting a smaller base font size
Avoid sizes in em smaller than 1em for text body, except maybe for copyright statements or other kinds of “fine print.”
Quoted from "W3C Quality Assurance Tips for Webmasters"
In fact small font sizes are discouraged. I'm afraid no good web designer will tell their clients to use small texts. You are causing your readers eye strain. Old readers will not be able to read it or you cause them big trouble reading it.
Take a look at the general trends of modern web design standards. Studies reveal that people like bigger font sizes. I'm quoting the result of a website usability survey[1]:
Bad fonts won the vote by a landslide, getting almost twice as many votes as the #2 mistake. About two-thirds of the voters complained about small font sizes or frozen font sizes; about one-third complained about low contrast between text and background.
Read more if you are still not convinced[2]:
One of the most significant accessibility issues is font size. Small fonts are more difficult to read. For those of us with good eyesight, it can come as a shock that a significant percentage of the population has trouble reading anything below 14 point times on paper. Screens are less readable than paper, because of their lower resolution.
Please remember there are different people who use different devices to browse your website. For example Macintosh users will see the texts even smaller than most of the Windows users due to the differences in dpi. Don't forget mobile users too. Web design is about what your users want, and how you deliver what they want. It is not just what the developer wants.
To be blunt your site has many usability issues. Font size is just one of them but I'm afraid I'm not in a good position to express my concerns. - ronga
I did not say that small font size is customary for current web design, but rather that the small fonts on Mushpedia (words wrapped in the <small> tag, which are used rather rarely) are still in acceptable size for what they're supposed to be; namely, somewhat smaller in comparison to the rest of the page text.
Mushpedia does all you've described and linked above; it allows the users to set their personal font size by its employment of percentage-based sizes. It does not dictate a set-in-stone small text size anywhere. You can freely use the zoom level method described above, or configure your browser settings, to change the Mushpedia's font size and many other aspects.
I'm going to assume you're taking offense with the usage of the <small> on the Inventory page. It serves the purpose of reducing the amount of space taken up by auxiliary stats such as item origins and maintenance info. It helps shorten the page both horizontally and vertically, which, considering the respectable size of the tables, comes to aid the users of Mushpedia who have run on relatively small resolutions, rather than today's 1080p standard. As many play Mush off their laptops, the comfort of low-resolution users seems like an acceptable trade against the slight discomfort for sight-impaired users, who have to scroll their mouse wheel once to set a more appropriate zoom level.
It seems that MediaWiki's base font size is 13px. Since MediaWiki's fairly simple layout doesn't break if you configure your personal zoom level, and we have not actually changed any element sizes from MediaWiki's default - which is employed across basically all wikis on the internet, and thus enjoys some popularity - I simply don't feel that a fundamental change is necessary.
I'm still interested in what other usability issues you have noticed, so feel free to explain in further detail. — ividyon (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2014 (MST)
Sigh!
words wrapped in the <small> tag
Good practice is to not use <small> tag at all.
still in acceptable size for what they're supposed to be
It is not even if you have to use smaller font size. You make it too small. Advice: At least 90% if you really want to use. Please show some care for senior readers. You are probably young now but you will get old one day.
You can freely use the zoom level method described above, or configure your browser settings, to change the Mushpedia's font size and many other aspects.
I'm afraid it is never a proper solution. It is often a layman's excuse to tell others to "fix" their own web design problem. I can't stress that enough. Read this usability research [3].
"In this day and age, [...] most people who need to increase their font sizes in their web browser already know how to do it." WRONG
"People who do need to resize type will do so via the browser; it's not hard to do so." WRONG
"It's not 1995; not all 50+ people are such newbies that they don't know, or wouldn't want to know, how to resize text in a browser." WRONG
And then.
It serves the purpose of reducing the amount of space taken up by auxiliary stats such as item origins and maintenance info.
First of all readability is more important than saving some space. Then an image is better than a thousand words. See it yourself.
It is your version.
My proposed fix.
You are not saving a whole lot of space because of small fonts. You are actually wasting the space inside the cells for nothing. You make most users struggle to read by using small fonts!! I can't stress that enough. Read the survey if you are not convinced. I fail to see how this improves the usability.
against the slight discomfort for sight-impaired users
Slight discomfort?! Are you SURE??? I don't even talk about the senior readers here. If you still insist that they have slight discomfort only, I can only say you care nothing about their needs, and you show no respect to them.
I simply don't feel that a fundamental change is necessary.
You don't even have a clue what web design is. Just like the new Mycetodessei skin, how it caused eye cancers to a wide range of audience. It is the prime example of the website failure which commits many fundamental mistakes in web design.
Enough said. I don't know why you insist SO MUCH on using small fonts. You are constantly violating the common web standards and guidelines. For something which is so obvious as a mistake and so easy to fix, you make it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for a change. You refused to change it even to 90%, claiming it is ONLY SLIGHT discomfort for EVEN visually impaired users. It is beyond me. I have a feeling I have to write a dissertation on this issue before a small change like this is likely to happen and it is just only a REALLY SMALL change. How much more time I have to waste to propose other changes. I know I'm just wasting my time. - Ronga
Why don't you just learn how to use your browser and zoom the page?? Firefox works with as Ctrl + and Ctrl - --Alfalfawar (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2014 (MDT)
- Ronga has since been blocked from the site for various reasons; rudeness in other people's talk pages being one of them. — ividyon (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2014 (MDT)
Request for Neutral Play page
I have created a "Neutral_Play" page, wherein is enumerated what I know of the Neutral Play concept as practiced in the Mush community. If it is acceptable, could it please be added to the "Aim of the Game" section alongside Mush play and Human play... or perhaps add it to the Meta-game section, as it certain is a meta concept. Thanks. Nijineko (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2014 (MST)
- It is too bad the admin completely ignored your request and don't even bother giving a word of it, though it is perfectly normal. I would like to know why neutral play should not be added to the front page. - ronga
- What icon should be used to represent the Neutral Play?? -- Alfalfawar (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2014 (MDT)
- Neutral play is an important rule, however not a core gameplay concept of Mush, and so it barely merits a front page slot; after all, it's just a tiny rule component of the pre-game phase of a Mush round. Other ways should be found to embed the article, i.e. by linking it in various other articles like Game Basics, Aim of the Game, Human Play etc.
Sorry for responding so late, I'm not sure how I missed that. — ividyon (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2014 (MDT)
- I would like to see some reference included about
Chun, since it doesn't apply to that 
Unknown Character.. I would add myself but know nothing about Neutrality, I always assume I am the Human since I start that way, up until I become a the 
Mush.. -- Alfalfawar (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2014 (MDT)
- I would like to see some reference included about
- I see there is a talk page for it, I will put it towards there.. -- Alfalfawar (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2014 (MDT)
Glory tables
Spacekadt said "I'm totally fine with something like that being collapsible, as long as it doesn't start collapsed on any actual main wiki pages." --Alfalfawar (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2014 (MDT)
- I've consulted spacey on the matter and we've come to the conclusion that, given the additional information on the new Glory page, it's better to keep it collapsed as long as there's a notice which says "please expand to view". This is because, otherwise, readers need to scroll all the way past the giant Human Glory table to get an explanation of what Mush Glory is. — ividyon (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2014 (MDT)
- I agree it work like it is but that was just the reason why i make it a separated page for the tables to follow the rule I was given instead of make it all on the same page like you did, I just wasn't sure if you knew about it.. -- Alfalfawar (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2014 (MDT)
