User talk:Ryan W

  

Archived discussions
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

Histograms
I've been trying to replicate the damage data behind the histograms such as those used in the SSG article, but I can't replicate the same distribution you've got, so there's probably something I'm overlooking somewhere. My current assumption is that between two consecutive pellets, there are 9 extra P_Random calls (two from horizontal spread, two from vertical spread, three from bloodsplat-or-puff spawning, and the last two from P_DamageMobj. Meaning that if the first pellet uses the RNG value at index 0, then the second uses RNG value at index 10, the third at index 20, and so on until the 20th at index 190. That however gives me a distribution with a result peak at 205 total damage (48/256 probability) whereas the histogram shows a peak at 185 damage with about 18%. If you still have whatever code you've used to get the values I'd like to compare with my monstrous spreadsheet. --Gez (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2017 (CST)


 * Wow, it's been a while since someone took those seriously. :>   I have the code, but it is some kind of encoded  archive, so actually I can't read it myself anymore!  If anyone desperately wants to import it, I'll post it somewhere, but you're probably better off starting from scratch.


 * What you say makes complete sense, and sounds consistent with my goals at the time. I do remember getting stuck on the SSG computation: I couldn't determine how many P_Random calls were in the vertical spread.  Perhaps I never actually solved it, and the current version still assumes zero additional calls among the damage (try that first).  I'm no longer surprised when data mistakes linger for a decade, because it is so much work to double-check, and I'd be the first to congratulate you if you replaced my image.    Ryan W (usually gone) 17:31, 23 February 2017 (CST)

BREAKING NEWS

 * DoomWiki has a new wiki home! BlingBling (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2019 (CDT)

Italics
As far as I know there has not been a reversal in the idea that primary-topic games (Doom series, Doom engine) should not be italicized except when occurring in a context where it would be unclear that the title is being mentioned, or when occurring amongst other titles in a list or sentence. --Quasar (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2019 (CDT)


 * The guideline says in-scope titles need not be italicized, not that they shouldn't be. IME this is accurate: users italicize inconsistently.
 * Without having collected stats :>  I have a sense that italics are more likely when a page is believed to approach "completion" and therefore should look more formal.  Certainly the Doom 4 histories are highly organized and intimidatingly thorough, thus I italicized most of the time, despite thinking it could look marginally odd depending on adjacent markup.
 * With hindsight, I should have clarified such questions during the style RFC (didn't want to prolong it maybe?). The inconsistencies have been around forever and are exactly the sort of thing that makes occasional contributors say, "Why should I stick around, if admins are going to hector me about OPTIONAL tasks in return for my time?"    Ryan W (living fossil) 15:41, 6 July 2019 (CDT)


 * Well alright, I can accept that, so long as the result is not a nuisance to read, which is what I've assumed was the main impetus behind it to begin with. --Quasar (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2019 (CDT)