Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cold Forged Blade"

Latest revision as of 20:53, 13 February 2009

The information about the 40% mana leeching effect seems to be wrong. I created one recently and it has none. The item catalogue of stratics says the same. (http://uo.stratics.com/database/view.php?db_content=gameitem&id=2238&cat=2272)

It sounds like you have gathered some reliable evidence. You can just go ahead and remove the property if it isn't correct. - JC the Builder 22:11, 24 May 2008 (PDT)

Done. I also changed the strength requirement from 15 to 35.

Reversions

Uhm, the crafting-reversion I can kinda live with, but is there any particular need to put this and the other pages back into the two handed cat? I spent ages taking pages like this out of there, on the basis that it's redundant (for eg, these weapons are Spellblades, and the spellblade cat is already in the two handed cat).

- Bomb Bloke 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been meaning to work on that category. I think there is value in having, somewhere, a single place to find a listing of one-and two-handed weapons; swordsmanship weapons; maceing weapons; etc. I figured a cat tag would be an easy way to do that. While subcats are great, they require the user to already know information. It's only redundant if you already have that information. Not everone is going to know that a Cold Forged Blade is a spellblade or that spellblades are two-handed weapons, therefor a cold forged blade is .... Why are we removing germane information? --Ceruleus 00:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Granted, but I reckon categorys aren't the place to put that info. A table on the Two-Handed Weapon page would allow additional information, such as weapon damage, an associated image, swing speed, yadda yadda yadda. Sorta like what I setup on the weapon skill pages (eg). - Bomb Bloke 01:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, it was not a revert. It is now consistent with all of the other spellblade pages. You should know that while crafting I came looking for the following information, which you removed:

"Crafting of this type of blade requires the use of Peerless ingredients. Because of the modifications associated with this weapon, it is considered a Blacksmithy Artifact. Its properties cannot be enhanced with the use of Runic Hammers during creation."

I think there was some good stuff in there that you pulled out and a reversion is what I should have done. So, I think having every weapon with a 1- or 2- hand category tag is a good thing. I think you took out too much information on crafting on this page. --Ceruleus 00:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Granted, yup, I removed that stuff. But aside from the hammer, I'm not sure how relevant those links are. Still, I'll throw together a template including all the generic info on the Artifacts (Craftable) page and stick that in there.

Again, my mistake on the revert. The other spellblades use the old UOStuff crafting layout (which to me just looks like a really bad table), I've been trying to rid UOGuide of that... On that basis I assumed the CFB must've used it at some point in the past without checking.

But I really do hate that layout. Again, I'll throw together a template for that, too.

My main stress is standardisation, see. When I've got templates covering all this sort of stuff changes won't bother me so much (as one tweak'll effect all), but for now, re-designing things adds up to a lot of page edits... Like, at least one for every craftable item in the game. I'll end up making that many edits anyway, I just wanna have the layout agreed on before that happens. ;) - Bomb Bloke 01:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented the first "descriptive" template. Lemme know if that format works for you and I'll add it to all the other relevant articles. The crafting section one'll take me some time, but it's long overdue anyway so it can wait a while longer. - Bomb Bloke 04:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)