Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page »
neongreyneongrey 13 Sep 2010 04:43
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Hide

Unfortunately, the fact remains that if you are going to post to this wiki, your work is absolutely subject to error checking and editing by other users— that is what a wiki is for. If this is a problem for you, I suggest you confine your work to personal documents only.

by neongreyneongrey, 13 Sep 2010 04:43
AnghwyrAnghwyr 12 Sep 2010 20:07
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Hide

Thanks for the explanations. Its clear now :-). Neon - your wording is still horrible.. I'm not an evil force knowingly trying to pollute the wiki, as you put it. It is a honest observation that players (like me) that come from mages and move to playing rogues would suddenly notice: an sharp increase in nonsensical mobs detecting you while hidden, whereas with invis and camo, most mobs seemed quite sensible in their ability or inability to detect.

I don't know how the game works from an immside, and while on the avendar forum and in the trac list I have conceded to accept it whenever you tell me I am utterly wrong without explaining how, I felt that on a player-run wiki you would have to do better than that before I would give in.

by AnghwyrAnghwyr, 12 Sep 2010 20:07
neongreyneongrey 12 Sep 2010 15:33
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Hide

Perhaps this is so, but mobiles with detections will inevitably be far more common than on PCs regardless… it has always been wiser to leave the area regardless of detectability. That being said mobile tracking is obviously broken by lack of detections so there will continue to be a great deal of mobiles which continue to detect, so that their tracking is not circumvented, much like how mobiles intended to be used for interaction will often be omnidetectional.

by neongreyneongrey, 12 Sep 2010 15:33
ninjadyneninjadyne 12 Sep 2010 15:29
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Hide

It is basically impossible to know which mobs detect hidden, detect invis, or detect camo because there is very little rhyme or reason to which can see what. This is something we intend to review after the class revamp project is completed, because there are a number of nonsensically-enabled mobs in that regard (I am including the infrared/darkvision bit pairing in this as well). So while I agree that it isn't proof positive of "most mobs", it can be pretty shocking to suddenly get jumped when by most rational-minded players they should be safe. The caves, in particular, are really bad about this with regard to what some of the mobs in there can detect innately.

I apologize for any confusion and I hope that this helps. I only made some very minor adjustment to the wording, which I hope retains anghwyr's original intent with his addition and addresses neongrey's concerns with regard to clarity.

by ninjadyneninjadyne, 12 Sep 2010 15:29
neongreyneongrey 12 Sep 2010 15:20
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Hide

'This mob attacked me while I was hidden' isn't exactly proof positive of a) most mobiles detect hidden, b) more mobiles detect hidden than invis, or c) this mobile didn't detect hidden until he was aggro to me.

This mobile detects hidden. It does not detect invis. Many mobiles detect invis, but not hidden. Many mobiles detect both invis and hidden. Many mobiles detect neither. Many detect the former two and camo.

by neongreyneongrey, 12 Sep 2010 15:20
AnghwyrAnghwyr 12 Sep 2010 06:59
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Hide

Neon - the blatant factual error you removed is based on ingame experience, checked with braz and ninja, and based on your own bug report ( It could still be that I am misunderstanding something, but in this wiki, you will have to be a bit more elaborate in your explanations if you do not wish your actions to be reverted.

Here is the log.

The large worm has arrived from the north.

==143 305 404 404 168 168 2268 standing NE 23:00 underground darkness==

The large worm sees you, and comes at you in fury!
You cleanly evade the large worm's attack. (ATTACKED)
The large worm has a few scratches. 5/6 (0)

==143 305 404 404 168 168 2268 standing NE 23:00 underground darkness==

You evade the large worm's attack. (ATTACKED)
You step out of the shadows.
Your POTENT sting tears into the large worm!
Your mediocre smash damages the large worm.
The large worm has some small wounds and bruises. 4/6 (0)

==143 305 404 404 168 168 2268 standing NE 23:00 underground darkness==

That is a chaja cave worm that is able to detect hidden after you have attacked him. Whether or not he has that skill or ability is not the issue. It would be great if you can explain what is actually going on, but from a players' point of view, that worm detects hidden.

by AnghwyrAnghwyr, 12 Sep 2010 06:59

Defilement damage is negative damage all stop. There is not a single thing about negative damage that does not also apply to defilement period. The singular, entirely, only difference between defilement and negative is that defilement also penetrates sanctuary partially. This is why the page names defilement as a variant of negative. Because it is.

Does armor resistance to negative also give resistance to defilement? (as neon said that defilement is a type of negative damage)

AnghwyrAnghwyr 15 Jan 2010 12:24
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Large Size

Stock rom-wise, size also matters for trip. Is that still the case?

by AnghwyrAnghwyr, 15 Jan 2010 12:24
AnghwyrAnghwyr 14 Jan 2010 17:40
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Damage types

Where does 'hit' belong on the current list of standard verbs. Bashing damage? I added it to bashing damage for now (branch from Qilarn does hit damage), but there's all sorts of mobs (e.g. animate statues, bandits etc.) over avendar doing 'hits', so I think it warents a place amongst the standard verbs, even if it isn't hardcoded as such.

I also added a few more verbs, possibly committing sacrilege here. Chilling touch under chilling damage (would be nice to clarify as it is a void spell that seems to be doing frost damage), negative burst and numbness under negative damage, sonic wave under sonic damage.

by AnghwyrAnghwyr, 14 Jan 2010 17:40
AnghwyrAnghwyr 14 Jan 2010 16:55
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Damage types

Is the current list complete for standard verbs? That would be good news. I'll just add a non-standard verbs entry, and make a note that they do not necessarily mean that all 'blasting' weapons are only producing bash damage. In that way, we get the best of both worlds.

People that find some odd weapon that produces an odd type of damage can check in the wiki what type of damage it could be. I remember wondering about that blasting staff when I found it ingame. Thought it was magical at first.

by AnghwyrAnghwyr, 14 Jan 2010 16:55
neongreyneongrey 14 Jan 2010 16:06
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Damage types

As I said, it will only obfuscate the message if we index every one of countless non-standard damage verbs. The verbs in the article are presented as samples only and by necessity cannot be comprehensive.

My concern is to create a useful and accurate resource; yes, this does include removing information where it obfuscates the meaning of an article. If you aren't comfortable with other people editing your work for formatting, accuracy, and usefulness, a wiki isn't the format for you to work in. It's, by nature, a collaborative work, which means editors do need to work together to produce the best, most useful, and most accurate article, and this means by editing articles for accuracy, for clarity.

If what you want to do is index trivia and speculations by yourself, a personal website would be far more suited to what you're trying to do.

by neongreyneongrey, 14 Jan 2010 16:06
AnghwyrAnghwyr 14 Jan 2010 07:49
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Damage types

neon - you're making yourself the only one allowed to edit the wiki, and you have now actively removed information that you don't know if its ok, and what I was pretty confident in. As good as i remember, blast is a bash type of eapon (aelins have a tougher time against that ambassador). I'll double-check it for you with an aelin and then put it in myself.

by AnghwyrAnghwyr, 14 Jan 2010 07:49
neongreyneongrey 13 Jan 2010 22:25
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Damage types

Blast is not a standard damverb in Avendar. I'd have to look that specific item up but I don't know that it would be productive to index every one-off arbitrary damage phrase in the game; there are hundreds. Something like that would probably be more obfuscating than useful.

That's pretty much entirely why I put sources in, in the first place, actually, so it would contain standardizable info; the verb index serves as good examples but the way the damage system works means it's not much more than that.

by neongreyneongrey, 13 Jan 2010 22:25
AnghwyrAnghwyr 13 Jan 2010 12:17
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Damage types

There's a lot of mobs with the damage-verb 'stab'. It has been removed from piercing damage, but not added to any of the other types of damage. Where should it go?

There's the staff of the shuddeni ambassador in Rahh Nefor that does blasting damage. 'Blasting' has been removed from bashing damage. Where should it go?

by AnghwyrAnghwyr, 13 Jan 2010 12:17
neongreyneongrey 13 Jan 2010 11:13
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Damage types

They're not practically connected, no, and especially not in items or mobiles that have been added or adjusted since the change, which are not standardized, and it shows.

Resistances especially cannot really be checked through play in any reliable fashion due to the nature of damage, reduction, and lack of ability to view it reliably or accurately.

Stock's variances are especially problematic in ways that are not going to be visible… things like how stock ROM uses bash damage for peck, or uses grep as a damverb, or many other things. This is why it's important to not use it in something presented as authoritative. It just makes more work for other people.

If you're not sure about how something works, just ask. Stock is not relevant.

by neongreyneongrey, 13 Jan 2010 11:13
AnghwyrAnghwyr 13 Jan 2010 10:54
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Damage types

"The notion that damage verbs are connected to damage type has not been one used in this game in at least seven years"

Except that for all practical purposes, they are connected. "Blunt" keywords are connected to blunt damage types. Its largely irrelevant that the game is capable of adding weapons that show piercing damage but do blunt damage, if that is never the case. The article is correct, which is the bit that is relevant, isn't it? As I mentioned, I didn't blindly type over stock rom code, I checked it against 10 years of experience ingame of being hit by different mobs while having different resists of vulnerabilities. That makes me an authority as well.

Nice to meet you.

by AnghwyrAnghwyr, 13 Jan 2010 10:54
neongreyneongrey 13 Jan 2010 10:35
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Damage types

The very premise of this article was founded on an error; the notion that damage verbs are connected to damage type has not been one used in this game in at least seven years. The entire emphasis of the article had to be re-written in order to convey a message that was both relevant and useful.

I am an authority on what sort of information is relevant to the game mechanically; stock is not, as a general rule, and where it is used, it needs extremely rigourous testing for validity, otherwise it's making more work for everyone. If you're using it for a draft, that's fine, but unformatted drafts do belong in your sandbox, and should not be presented as guides.

by neongreyneongrey, 13 Jan 2010 10:35
AnghwyrAnghwyr 13 Jan 2010 10:20
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Damage types

Neon - you're free to correct when I am making mistakes, but you are not an authority on the avendar wiki to tell me what is allowed and how it should be done. You are an imm of avendar, but we're both moderators in this wiki. There are some half-finished policies on what is allowed here and what is not, and I haven't violated anything there.

So no, I'm not going to listen to you and stop using stock rom as the occasional source of information. As I've pointed out (but both of you have chosen not to respond to), it turned out that stock rom was still fully correct on translating damage verbs to damage types. I'm also less inclined to follow advice when I cannot make any sense of it (such as being told to stop introducing errors when I'm not making any).

Anyway, thanks for the mild tone in your response.

by AnghwyrAnghwyr, 13 Jan 2010 10:20
neongreyneongrey 13 Jan 2010 10:03
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Damage types

I appreciate the work you are putting in on these sorts of guides. However, stock ROM is only superficially mechanically relevant to Avendar; it is not really an appropriate resource for articles. Please do not use it in the future. If you are still hashing out formatting, we have the sandbox namespace for this reason. Something posted as a guide, especially one linked to the title bar, should be polished and reasonably fact-checked. Such articles will be construed as authoritative and due diligence requires that this be done.

by neongreyneongrey, 13 Jan 2010 10:03
page »
This is an unofficial fansite.The AvendarWiki is in no way affiliated with

Unless stated otherwise content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License