Editing v0.34 Talk:Item value

Why have we made this page less clear than it was?  Sure, now we have formulas, but it's also worthless since only weapons are listed.--[[User:Girlinhat|Girlinhat]] 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
:Was it ever otherwise? Eh, either way I'll put some tables down. --[[User:Reilwin|Reilwin]] 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
::Alright so I plugged in the values from [[Armor#Types of Protection]] into the given formulae and put the results into the tables here. Are the formulae accurate? I find it odd that the base value of leather armor is higher than that of a breastplate. --[[User:Reilwin|Reilwin]] 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
::Also, I couldn't find the value for blockchance for the shields, and I'm not sure whether the formula for armor applies to all upper body clothing or just those which fit in the armor layer. --[[User:Reilwin|Reilwin]] 22:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
:::For shields, just look at item_shield.txt - '''[BLOCKCHANCE:20]'''. For armor, it applies to everything in item_armor.txt, including clothing. And yes, the forumae are 100% accurate - I determined them back in 0.31.25 by disassembling the code that calculates them, and I've confirmed that it's still correct in 0.34.07. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 23:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

== ‼Contradiction‼ ==

The table at the bottom of this article contradicts the table in [[Item quality]]. I would only trust the table in [[Item quality]] as that quotes a forum post by Toady One. I could not find any such post, though. Anyway, why don't we use footnotes pointing to sources of information like the Wikipedia does? I wanted to point to my [http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=113052.msg3440542#msg3440542 source of information] for an edit in the [[Wear]] article but could not really figure out how to do it, so I used <nowiki>{{verify}}</nowiki>. I don't know whether it was the right thing to do, though. --[[User:Nagidal|Nagidal]] 19:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:Exactly where is the contradiction? The one at the bottom of this page lists the name decoration, description, and value multiplier, and all of those values are '''exactly the same''' as the ones on [[item quality]]. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 19:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:: They are indeed the same, sorry for the false alarm. I only saw that their rightmost column had different multipliers and did not notice that the item quality table has one extra column. Problem solved. This section may be deleted or archived. --[[User:Nagidal|Nagidal]] 02:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
::: Actually, not solved. I still would like to know how we can handle footnotes and sources in a wiki-worthy manner. --[[User:Nagidal|Nagidal]] 02:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 :: They are indeed the same, sorry for the false alarm. I only saw that their rightmost column had different multipliers and did not notice that the item quality table has one extra column. Problem solved. This section may be deleted or archived. --[[User:Nagidal|Nagidal]] 02:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 ::: Actually, not solved. I still would like to know how we can handle footnotes and sources in a wiki-worthy manner. --[[User:Nagidal|Nagidal]] 02:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
-==Traction Benches==
-Removed from the article:
-:''Traction bench quality is determined by the quality of the table used in its creation.''
-This does not seem to be the case. I had a dabbling mechanic create two traction benches from masterwork tables--the resulting benches were "finely-crafted" and "well-crafted", and both were worth significantly less than the original tables. The calculation appears to use a fixed base value of 20, and apply material and quality modifiers for the traction bench the same as other items; the quality of the components is not included. This does mean you can "recycle" poor-quality tables, mechanisms, and ropes into high-quality traction benches for a significant gain in value.--[[User:Loci|Loci]] ([[User talk:Loci|talk]]) 20:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)