Forum:Rework of FO3 and FONV containers

From The Vault - Fallout Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Rework of FO3 and FONV containers
 
Gametitle-Wiki.png
Gametitle-Wiki.png

A sysop pointed me to the container articles which could use lots of work to meet The Vault's standards. Also their overviews, Fallout 3 containers and storage and Fallout: New Vegas containers and storage are suggested for a merge.

So I've begun with two not so important container pages, the Mail dropbox and the Mailbox. (In fact I first have created the former one, which was actually merged into and confused with the latter one.) I've listed the possible content complete with chances which items can be found. And there are whole lists of the locations in the wastelands.

However, there are questions I'd like to get answered, regarding my use of layout and some details, before I continue my work with other containers.

  • The contents appear as bullet lists in nearly borderless tables. Should I instead use complete borders? Or remove those sparse lines completely?
  • Is the use of a little oversized text in the heading (the text with the base chance, size 110%) okay? I've done it that way to make it more distinguishable from the listings below.
  • Is the chance system understandable, especially the base chance and single chances for each item related to that? Or should I use absolute values instead (possibly creating chances far below zero with many decimals)?
  • Collapsed (as it is now), or not collapsed? Collapsible at all?
  • Nearly the same questions for the locations: Collapsible? Collapsed? Table with borders?
  • Should the locations be more detailed rather than listing large areas? For example the raid shack (vicinity) – there are 19 mailboxes in total, some more near, some more far, those latter in fact more near some other buildings in the vicinity. But that would expand the list…
  • Should I reveal the numbers for each location or leave that information hidden? (I'm starting to tend to the former…)

Some of these questions may be answered in the future on their own when doing the same thing for other containers, or simply because I'd like to do further changes. But feedback, input and criticism are welcome!

For now I'm working on a "tool" that shall help me to get the locations more easily. Until that's finished I won't continue on other containers. So I think, time enough to get some answers here. :) -- CompleCCity (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments[edit source]

Here are my thoughts:

  1. While bullet lists get the job done, and are simple enough for my liking, bordered tables help add to a standardized look and feel for the wiki, which is not something that I am opposed to. If you find the time, some examples as to what you have in mind would be great for our consideration.
  2. So long as customized text does not ruin the flow of an article, by creating an eyesore or disrupting the text/code, then you are absolutely free to make custom headers. In the body of the article itself, I would not approve - but headers I do not see an issue with.
  3. When it comes to technical information, always write as simply as you can, without sacrificing quality. Aside from that, the most important aspect involved is that any technical data/statistics that you add to the wiki, can be consistently replicated and verified by other users. If you are dealing with possibilities, only, then just leave that work off of the wiki.
  4. If the information involved is rather extensive, then having that information collapsed helps us out with preventing clutter. I would try and find examples always present on the wiki, and stay consistent to those, if possible (sometimes, inconsistency is what is consistent).
  5. I would need to see any example of what you have planned for bordered tables, first.
  6. Our location articles are strictly restricted to the immediate area. So, for instance, if you added information on the Tenpenny Tower article about a shack 10 miles off, then that information will be removed. If there is a location of importance that is not covered by confirmed locations, then unmarked location articles can be created.
  7. Personally, I would just go ahead and reveal the numbers involved. There might be some exceptions that need to be made for that rule. GarouxBloodline 17:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit source]

"If you are dealing with possibilities, only, then just leave that work off of the wiki."

Um, the whole thing of random loot lists in containers is based on possibilities. I thought that was the purpose, to integrate the (replicatable! verified by G.E.C.K.) chances of which items can be found. Or do we talk of different things at the moment? -- CompleCCity (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No man-made algorithm, as we are speaking, can truly replicate random outputs. At least, none that I know of, so feel free to point something out if I am wrong. That means that pure statistics can be replicated and/or pulled from the algorithms, in an objectional way that can be verified by others. Much more preferable than just guessing at the percentages involved. GarouxBloodline 18:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Oookay… Seems like something's above my head now.
So please simply tell me, shall the contents look like this?
  • With a base chance of 15% one of the items from this list – 30% item A, 20% item B, 20% item C, 20% item D, 10% item E
Or like this?
  • Most of the mailboxes are empty, but sometimes one of the following items may be found – item A, item B, item C, item D, item E

-- CompleCCity (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot give the exact percentages involved, then it is best to go with 'Option B', there. If you only know the base percentages, then stick with those. And if you know the modified percentages, based off of the luck stat and related perks such as with Scavenger, then that would be the final step in complete accuracy. GarouxBloodline 18:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then it's easy.
  • Luck doesn't affect the chances of random loot.
  • Containers that are affected by Fortune Finder or Scrounger contain related loot lists, so that I can incorporate these.
Remains the question about relative or absolute chances…
  • Relative: With a base chance of 15% one of the items from this list – 30% item A, 20% item B, C, D, 10% item E
  • Absolute: (Quick example) The base chance to find something is 15%. Item A: 4,5%, item B, C, D: 3%, item E: 1,5%.
The absolute chance to find e.g. a rolling pin in a mailbox would be 0.2145%.
I tend to leave the relative chances, but some people might have difficulties to understand those. -- CompleCCity (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Further suggestion(s)[edit source]

  • After the yet to come research regarding the Fortune Finder, i'd like to add something into the infobox: Affected by perk | Fortune Finder<br>Scrounger.
  • In the also yet to come overview of (the merged) FO3 and FONV containers I could implement a table, listing the possible loot in cells rather than after each container, something like this:
Container Weapons Apparel Aid Misc Ammo Notable loot Fortune Finder Scrounger
Mail dropbox Fallout 3Gametitle-FO3.pngFallout: New VegasGametitle-FNV.png Fallout 3Gametitle-FO3.pngFallout: New VegasGametitle-FNV.png Fallout 3Gametitle-FO3.pngFallout: New VegasGametitle-FNV.png Fallout 3Gametitle-FO3.pngFallout: New VegasGametitle-FNV.png Fallout 3Gametitle-FO3.pngFallout: New VegasGametitle-FNV.png Fallout 3Gametitle-FO3.png
Perhaps with sort of weighting the categories with higher chances or something like that, will see…
  • I thought about an overview of containers affected by these perks, or a category at least, but I think I should check first the amount of those – in the end all containers come onto that list, that wouldn't be really helpful.

-- CompleCCity (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

100% supported - I will talk it over with some of the other sysops, and see about having the change made out. It is the weekend, so I cannot promise any results until the week rolls around. Until then, I will see about getting some others to give their feedback on this forum, as well. GarouxBloodline 20:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Just tell me what, exactly you need, and I'll bend over backwards to give it to you. I'm currently working on a major portal upgrade (well, addition) locally, but I should be able to divert attention your way. :) Tagaziel (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I don't want to be responsible for any backaches! ;) But sure, I'll ask you if I need assistance. :) -- CompleCCity (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)