Topic on Talk:Lizardskin

Lizardskin *is* a pretty crappy textile, even despite its elevated blunt rating. And it is worth mentioning some of the details why for the more advanced players or players using mods.

I don't understand why it is important to keep salient information from the users. I also don't understand why it is important to present confusing/over-stated misleading "facts."

Some players are interested in min/max. Before end-game exotic materials are available, lizardskin has the highest blunt damage rating in the game. Period. The difference is small, but it is there. It is the absolute best available in game until acquisition of exotic late game materials. For min/maxers, this is relevant. Someone may have an opinion about whether that is significant or not, but it is a fact. Why remove that information from the page? For certain situations where you want your pawn to have maximum blunt protection, such as hunters who fear animal revenge (but aren't worried about bullets), blunt rating can be the critical consideration. Same with certain raids where the attackers are mostly using blunt weapons (not common, but does happen). With this being the one-and-only best-in-early-game leather for blunt protection, that fact is worth mentioning, not hiding. Even if the difference is small enough that some editor might have the opinion that it is an insignificant difference. It is best for certain situations, and that is a fact. Mention it. Also mention the difference is small, fine. But mention it. Small differences in starting conditions can produce huge differences in results. Complex systems frequently display sensitive dependence on initial conditions. So something that is factually best (in certain situations) is worth mentioning, regardless of one's opinions about those facts. Include the opinions, sure. Put it in perspective. But simply removing the facts is wrong.

Also, saying the lizardskin is tied for 11th most protective among leathers is misleading. The fact is that it is 11th most protective among SHARP protections available. It really is 4th among blunt protections and #1 before exotic late game materials are available. It is factually incomplete to say it is 11th best and leave it at that. The difference might be small, but that doesn't mean the facts should be hidden. It is 11th best for sharp and 4th best for blunt. Both parts of that are true and worth mentioning.

Bottom line: lizardskin is the absolute best solution to certain problems at certain points in the game. Why is it so important to keep removing any mention of that fact?

Did you read the edit summary of the reversion? The issue is that its not salient. The difference isn't just small, its basically non-existent.

I feel like this is going to discourage you from making further edits, and thats the last thing I want, but in the interest of clarity I want to explain why I think that. So please understand this is just meant to be constructive. I know that can be difficult when established people in any organization, fandom, whatever seem to be just &%^$ing on your contributions. My only intent is to be as clear as possible.

Nothing made of leather has a significant blunt factor. The duster (the highest blunt factor) only has a base difference of 0.9% between the lizardskin and the plainleather. Even at Legendary, its only 1.6%. And the total armor is so low, that almost all attacks will ignore the armor it provides by virtue of their AP.

The vast majority of animals do more sharp damage than blunt. Only 16 of 63 do more blunt (not counting humans or dryads in either total for obvious reasons). Of those that are blunt focused, 4 have enough blunt AP on their attacks to totally ignore a lizardskin duster even at legendary quality. So we're down to 12/63. Even if we're generous and say you can get enough lizardskin and a high enough skill crafter to make Excellent lizardskin dusters for your pawns before getting access to the more blunt protective textiles (which includes devilstrand - a decidedly middlegame material, and Thrumbofur, which can be gotten fairly early with some modestly easy strats, and is often [but admittedly not always] more available than lizardskin due to LS's low yield and modestly rare animals and TF's high yields even if the animals are rarer) , then a further 9 animals negate its protection at that quality tier.

So this leaves you with:

• The monkey which will still use its Bite (opposed by sharp armor) attack 25% of the time but does face about 5% effective armor after AP against 75% of its attacks.
• The sheep which will ignore even the legendary duster 75% of the time due to AP and will leave the excellent duster with 1% effective armor after AP (not relative to a different duster material, total. I.e. a 1% chance to half the damage and no chance to deny it. In other words, a reduction from receiving 100% damage to 99.5% damage on average); and
• The gazelle which always leaves the excellent duster with 2% effective armor after AP (1% chance to negate the damage, 1% chance to half it)

Keep in mind that even at this point, the difference between the exc Lizardskin duster and an exc plainleather (or the many other plainleather-equivalent leathers) is only ~1.2%. So instead of 5% against the monkey, they'd only have 4%, etc. Not to mention, how often do you make a duster just for fighting THOSE animals specifically?

At normal quality, only the monkey really cares about the lizardskin duster.

The wiki is for players of all skill levels and implying that the difference is important or that clothes make for good blunt armor generally is misleading to new players who might think that there's merit in prioritizing acquiring lizardskin for the purpose. A 1% difference for 3 animals and only at a quality that you likely won't be able to reliably achieve before getting better materials anyway is not worth it. If you're desperate for that small amount of blunt protection for some reason, you're far better off just gathering all of the plainleather-equivalent textiles (including lizardskin) and farming for quality. You'll also get extra sharp armor out of it.

I'm happy to hear counterarguments, or even to workshop a alternate edit that mentions the difference to ensure we steer clear of the above implication, but honestly I'm not convinced it isn't already covered by "negligibly higher"

Yes, I read your edit summary. Thanks for restating.

Your opinion is that the higher blunt rating from lizardskin is negligible/insignificant. Those are relative terms and judgment calls. They are well-informed opinions and worth mentioning. Facts are also worth mentioning.

There are many examples of why a player might want the facts. If a bunch of raiders are prepping to attack on the edge of the map and most of them have clubs and maces, it might be worth slipping into the lizardskin shirt sitting in the warehouse. So no, it is not just about a few animals. There are many many more situations that could conceivably arise than we can even imagine, because players do all sorts of crazy unpredictable things. Because we do not have god-like judgment and understanding of what weird, possibly modded situations players might find themselves in, it is worth bringing a bit of humility to the table and admitting that whatever opinions we have, they are just opinions. They do belong in the article, but so do the facts. Players need facts sometimes, not just a patriarch telling them what he thinks they need to know.

I agree with you that it is important not to imply that lizardskin is better than it is. The facts need to be presented in a way that has context. But when I try to put the facts into the article, they are just simply yanked out, with your personal opinion being the only thing that is allowed to be heard.

I respect your rank on this wiki and your right to change anything you don't like. But I disagree with you removing facts, thinking that your opinion is the only thing that should be presented.

If you think my edit adding the facts misrepresents the situation, I would suggest adding some context, rather than removing factual data that some players might want.

Sensitive dependence on initial conditions in a complex system means players need facts. Give them some context, but in the end, it should be up to the reader to decide what is the best path forward for him/her.

Another situation worth considering: A raid has started. One of the melee colonists is already wearing a lizardskin duster, shirt and pants. The player might choose to send that pawn to intercept the raider with the blunt weapon. Yes, he could look at his colonists' stats and decide that way, too. But if he already read the wiki and noticed that lizardskin is particularly good against blunt, the idea might pop into his head, whereas the player who didn't get those facts from reading the wiki might not even think of it.

'I respect your rank on this wiki and your right to change anything you don't like.'

First I want to touch on this. No need. This is an editor-to-editor discussion only. You've done absolutely nothing egregious and so the mod hat stays off here. We'll get a third opinion if we can't resolve something together. OK?

'If a bunch of raiders are prepping to attack on the edge of the map and most of them have clubs and maces, it might be worth slipping into the lizardskin shirt sitting in the warehouse'

No, it won't be. Thats the point. Because even the worst club's (wood/plasteel) worst attack (the handle poke) still has enough AP (11.7%) to completely ignore a legendary lizardskin shirt (9.7% Blunt armor). Thats not an opinion. That is a fact. Even the AP of melee attacks of ranged weapons (typically ~13% AP) completely ignore anything less than a legendary lizardskin duster, with some of the bigger weapons (~18% AP e.g. the minigun) ignoring that too. The cases where there is any improvement are vanishingly rare, and even when they are there, the bonus to protection is tiny.

'Those are relative terms and judgment calls'

Thats what the analysis is for. Judgement calls. Because players use the wiki to not just get the numbers but the context and value judgements. If players want to know what the numbers are and make their own judgements, the numbers are on the page and they can skip the analysis. If they want to know what textile has the best blunt protection, they can compare the numbers on the page or on the big table on the leathers page or the textiles page where they can easily see how it fairs against everything else. But the Analysis is for putting that information into context, especially for newer players.

'"could be useful for early game melee fighters or hunters/tamers worried about revenge." (from your edit)'

This is also a judgement call. You are making a recommendation. And that would be totally valid, because that is what the Analysis is for. Literally the only issue is that its just not particularly accurate because unless they're taming monkeys its not going to help them much if at all, and if it means they take lizardskin over something with better sharp, then they're making things worse for themselves in both of those roles generally.

'But when I try to put the facts into the article, they are just simply yanked out, with your personal opinion being the only thing that is allowed to be heard. '

I don't particularly appreciate the implication that this is a powertrip. The wiki does not have many active editors, with most making very small contributions very occasionally, burning bright and short, or editing in periodic bursts. General day to day is mostly left to me and I only have so much time to verify new edits and correct mistakes they add. The only reason this conversation has gotten all the extra time the original edit didn't is because I value editors like you and want to address your concerns. Which I seem to be failing to do.

To my knowledge this has happened to you only once, and I feel that I have made the reasons for this reversion clear and the counter examples haven't really taken into account the reality of the numbers. E.g. the tamers in the original or the shirt example above. Even now I'd be hesitant to say that calling it useful for early game as you did is a fact, inasmuch of it being better than any of the other similar textiles at least.

Further, I have said that I would be happy to workshop an alternate edit that mentions the difference but ensures we steer clear of recommendations that would mislead new players. In that light I inserted a version of your original edit back into the page but with the context that is necessary to avoid misunderstandings. I'd appreciate your opinion on it.

You raise several issues. First off let me just say thank you for taking the time to listen and consider my points.

Regarding "relative terms and judgment calls," no need to get defensive. I'm not saying relative terms and judgment calls are bad. In fact, I explicitly say they are good and belong on the page. Just they are not a complete story.

I don't mean to imply you are on a powertrip. At the same time, it is a bit harsh to simply yank out information inserted by another user, rather than try to incorporate it somehow. You say that as far as you know this has happened to me only once. FYI 3 years ago Zesty ended up demoting moderator Yoshida Keiji after a series of my edits were undone/over-ridden. It was the reason I stopped editing here. So no, this is not my first time feeling a little unhappy with this site. That said, I really appreciate the way you are handling things. And I like the most recent revisions you have made. I must admit that you appear to understand the mechanics of damage better than I do/did, and I may have come to the wrong conclusion. But that is also part of the point: it is easy to misinterpret these things. And rather than simply tell the player what is best (for expected/common situations), I think it is good to give the facts and put them in perspective where the player can understand what is going on, rather than simply follow someone's advice.

It is a difficult and fine line to give players enough information to help them develop their own play style without overwhelming them with endless stats. So sometimes opinions/ short-cuts/ "just do it this way" advice can be very helpful. At the same time, part of the fun of any game is trying different strategies and failing. Personally, I overlooked lizardskin for a long time until one day (years ago) I noticed in the wiki its higher blunt rating compared to other mats. I tried to build on that in game. Of course, that path was unproductive, but trying it out was part of the fun. Also, just because it was unproductive for me with the way I mod/play the game doesn't mean it will be an unproductive path for someone else who plays the game very differently or with different mods.

In the end, it boils down to philosophy. What is the wiki's mission? Is it to tell players what to do? Is it to give them facts and no advice? Clearly the mission should be somewhere in between. And I think it is a strength of this wiki that we have dedicated people trying to tweak it to get it just right. Honest disagreements between respectful people with a common goal is an asset we are lucky to have.

Urgh yes, I am well aware of Keiji and the numerous editors he drove away with his... actions. I try hard to not replicate his mistakes, and I'm glad we seem to have come to a consensus on this matter in a relatively amicable way.

I agree that we have to balance advice with information, and upon reflection I can definitely see the merit in explaining WHY the difference could be considered negligible. I was mostly concerned with not misleading new players by pointing it out (esp with the given examples at the time), but without explaining why in the article the players that know enough to notice the difference but not enough to see why it might not be worth prioritizing can fall into the same line of thinking you did and end up thinking the wiki has simply missed something. The explanation in place now is much more likely to make it clear to everyone I think.

Thanks for your help and understanding. If you're similarly happy with the end result, feel free to reply and/or mark the topic as resolve with the "..." at the top right hand side of the topic. If you're not, I'm happy to keep discussing it.

I'll just add that mods are another thing to keep in mind. Over 100,000 players subscribe to Infused and over 50,000 to Infusion II. Those are mods that add buffs to crafted items as well as potions that can add buffs to crafted items. Using those mods, players might add significant blunt protection to an item, and knowing more about the items might be useful to those players. And I'm sure there are lots of other mods out there that we can't even fathom what players are doing with them. So not everyone is playing vanilla or even in a way we can imagine. In those situations, the raw data might be more useful than great advice intended for playing the vanilla game

But yeah, I think we've resolved this one.

Yeah the raw data is always available in the infobox and on the tables. We also try to include specifics of how the mechanics work rather than just what the outcomes are. E.g. we're [we being Albedo, Ick, and myself mostly] trying to build a standard to upgrade all the drug pages to - that included clarifying the differences between when its -10% vs x90% etc. It often is never relevant in vanilla effect stacking, but it can be with mods.

This is also why I pushed for the splitting of Analysis section (and the mismatched other names it was given) into Summary and Analysis, so we could keep data/mechanics on one hand and the outcomes on the other clear and separate.

We can't tailor content to mods any more than that though. There are just too many options with too many different interactions and effects and everyone thinks their pet mod should be represented. I was warned it was a bad idea, I still tried to do more several times, and every time I did it always led to more and more scope creep. So there has to be an enforced cut-off there to stop that. If some mod makes the something like the Recreation Gained/Ingestion time ratio of drugs ultra critical for some reason, both of those individual values are on the wiki, and players can find them, but we won't host a page of the calculated ratios. Seems arbitrary but otherwise we just get flooded and it makes the wiki less navigable for everyone.