Talk:Storm Scale

qualifierX

I think it would be helpful to have something like:

entryX = Landwalk

qualifierX = Nonbasic

the have the link work with the entry and have the qualifier appear in parenthesis after the mechanic. But not today. Merry Christmas - Yandere Sliver 17:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Already planning something like this. --Corveroth (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that edit wiped a few of the changes you made. I got it covered, just not tonight. --Corveroth (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, what say you to that? I know the subentry system causes those rows to sort a little oddly when sorted by rating, but otherwise, I think it works alright. --Corveroth (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks very cool. As you already mentioned, I would have expected that Bushido would sort under 8 (basically the main entry). However currently I don't really get why it sorts incorrectly. - Yandere Sliver 04:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Something about the sorting javascript doesn't handle it right. I'm not sure exactly what it is - whether it reads that row as "84", or "8\n4", or whatever, but it parses it as coming after 11... alphabetically, probably. The JS responsible is obfuscated and comes down from Curse anyways, so I can't change it. It comes down to a choice between having "subentries", as I'm calling them, as a part of the "main" row, which damages the sorting slightly; or having them as separate rows, which allows them to be sorted away from the main row. I favor the former, of course. --Corveroth (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

(reset indent) I updated the Flanking entry. I think that approach would be better. Simply because it sorts correctly when sorted by Mechanic and by Latest Ranking. The subentry logic looks more pretty, but I think it is less functional. It also don't need any additional code since everything already is there. - Yandere Sliver 04:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Turns out it can be forced to sort rows properly. As is now, Bushido sorts into the 8s (according to the primary entry for that box). Do you think that addresses the issues sufficiently, or do you still think the variant rows need to be separate? --Corveroth (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It is fine from my perspective that was my only major concern. By the way can you have more then one subentry? I mean is is currently not necessary. Well, we can get to it when it becomes necessary. - Yandere Sliver 06:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that will ever be needed, but no, it isn't currently supported. I'll be tied up tomorrow, but come Friday I'll look into building this out into a proper article. I've got even more data to work with, this is just the main attraction.

At some point in the future, I may try to rework the module to use a more traditional wikitext format for the ratings lists (like how navbox just uses list formatting). My main concern there is ensuring that editors input the data in a well-formed manner. Right now, at least, the unusual syntax is a reminder to pay attention to detail. --Corveroth (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Storm Scale Articles

What I just realized is that the articles from the wizard pages are missing:

• Ravnica
• Tarkir
• Zendikar

- Yandere Sliver 17:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

On the to-do list, I just wanted to get the blog import done first since that's the part that really wanted automation, then work out the layout. Thanks for the list. --Corveroth (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Got those in... mostly. There are a few things remaining. I didn't bother to include the rankings from the very top of each article, where he lays out examples of each point on the scale, because those are mostly duplicated throughout. The only change through all of those is the absence of affinity for artifacts in the Zendikar article. Still, it's a data point... should probably be done.

There were a few ratings I skipped including, however, and I'm unsure how I want to proceed there. For example, the Zendikar article gives ratings for traps, quests, and "the ally mechanic", while I've tried to keep the main table strictly named mechanics - or at least, mechanics. It's probably fair to bring "ally mechanic", "processor mechanic", "colorless matters", etc. into the table. Not gonna do it just yet though.

I'm growing disenchanted with the subentry setup I built. I might just scrap it and add a field for a fourth "notes" column. Feedback welcome. --Corveroth (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and entries added to the bottom of the table don't get automatically sorted in alphabetically. To-do list. --Corveroth (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes I was a bit surprised to see supertypes and subtypes not recognized as mechanics. Ability words and keywords feel more mechanical most of the time but they typeline carries as much information. In some cases all of it. - Yandere Sliver 05:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Killed subentries in favor of a generic footnote system. Table will auto-sort by first column on page generation, may later add option to default to second column. Some entries from lower lists moved into tables. All in all, I'm mostly happy with the current state. Aside from a bit of cleanup, I expect to push this live tomorrow, barring issues. --Corveroth (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I have seen it looks beautiful. - Yandere Sliver 08:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Very nice. Good work! --Hunter (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess -1/-1 counter is at 2 now

I have no idea how formatting works. Blogatog post is at: markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/157405990543/once-upon-a-time-you-rating-1-1-counters-at-1

I'm not allowed to link it. --Linlin110 (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks for pointing this out. We are aware that the formatting is not really editor friendly. You can look at the history of the page and look at the latest revision. Perhaps that will help you understand how it works...

The general rule for adding a ratings is: {rating, date of rating in ISO format, reference for rating}, ...

I hope this clears things a bit up. Cheers! - Yandere Sliver 03:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the usability is entirely my fault. I can probably make a modified TumblrRef that adds the rating parameter and puts special restrictions on the date, then the trick is just extracting the necessary bits from the ref... I'll look into it this coming week when I have time off from work. Of a more immediate concern, Linlin, it looks like you were tripping a major spam filter. You might be fine now that you've made an edit; I'm not sure what it considers a "new" user. For sake of argument, could you do me a favor? Use this page to generate a few paragraphs of filler, and then try to reply right here with that text and a) any safe, generic full (including http etc) link at the end of the last paragraph, b) that same link at the end of any other paragraph? I've seen a few other users get caught in those filters and I'd like to give Gamepedia some data in the hopes of reigning them in. --Corveroth (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Like this? I don't see any warning now. Maybe I'm not "new" any more. By the way, I think it's necessary to keep new users from posting links, to stop spammers. So that's fine. If anything needs to change, maybe whitelisting Blogatog, if possible? I also edited some articles on Wowpedia, so it's a little strange that Gamepedia considers me "new". --Linlin110 (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

psst, Yandere sliver - I asked for the Lorem Ipsum to test the filter. =)

Thank you Linlin. I'm taking over some options. --Corveroth (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah that explains things... I was just a bit confused why that suddenly popped up here. :P - Yandere Sliver 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Beyond 150

I tried to add the following entries from the Innistrad articles. | name151 = Delirium | ratings151 = {7,2017-03-27,<ref name="InnistradArticle" />}, | name152 = Investigate | ratings152 = {3,2017-03-27,<ref name="InnistradArticle" />}, | name153 = Skulk | ratings153 = {7,2017-03-27,<ref name="InnistradArticle" />}, | name154 = Emerge | ratings154 = {6,2017-03-27,<ref name="InnistradArticle" />}, | name155 = Escalate | ratings155 = {5,2017-03-27,<ref name="InnistradArticle" />}, | entry156 = Curses | name156 = Curse | ratings156 = {2,2017-03-27,<ref name="InnistradArticle" />},

But the lua module breaks... Is there anything which prevents the list to go up beyond 150? - Yandere Sliver 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The module 'does' currently have a sanity check limit all the way up at 500, but no, this was just a mixup between "name" and "entry". If you have better naming ideas for those parameters, I'm open to them. --Corveroth (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes... I mixed those two up. After a quick look I think 'name' should be called 'link'. Because it does exactly that, provides the 'link' to an article if the 'entry' is not a proper link itself. - Yandere Sliver 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Changed template/module code

I made the first of a few updates I'm planning for Template:MaroScale. This one is quite small but has a noticeable visual impact; the list is more compact vertically now. (The under-the-hood formatting of the ratings has also been simplified.) Let me know if you object to the change! - jerodast (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Section creep" to Major miracles

I saw the note about Phyrexian mana (9 rating) under Major miracles, and while I see why it was added, I do worry about "section creep" where we start to just have all kinds of subjective commentary about anything that "feels off" from the scale. I originally added Major miracles section because I could see there were extremely few 10s, and fewer still that had actually come back, so it wouldn't be adding too much to an already huge page. It starts to get a lot bigger if we start including 9s and so on. I'm not so opposed to the new note that I'll remove it, but just noting we should be cautious and let the scale and the mechanics usage speak for itself for the most part. If we do want to open it up to all kinds of observations perhaps it would be more appropriate for a subpage, much like some analytical notes about set contents are in subpages for the sets.

I've been distracted from the project for awhile, but I still plan to experiment with adding more functionality to the scale chart so you can compare ratings vs usage more clearly. Perhaps that level of detail wouldn't go on this page but on individual mechanics pages, not sure. But that should reduce the need to make ad hoc observations about this kind of thing. - jerodast (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Bonus sheets

Was interesting to see Rosewater volunteer bonus sheets as a rate-able mechanic in his recent article https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/storm-scale-throne-of-eldraine-through-strixhaven-part-2 . While he's replied to plenty of fan inquiries about mechanics that are broader than simply which cards they're printed on, I think this is the first time he's brought it up himself, which makes it an awkward fit with the rest of the list IMO. It's tempting to change one of the lower sections to include it rather than putting it in the table with the others, but on the other hand none of those sections quite fit anyway so I'll leave it alone for now. Maybe if he starts including other similar set-level ideas on the scale, we could make a small other table for that kind of thing. - jerodast (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Evergreen/deciduous being synonymous with 1/2 on scale

IIRC there are some early posts where Rosewater's initial conception of the scale explicitly did not consider evergreen mechanics to be on the scale (they were for returning mechanics, and evergreen didn't even have to return). Similarly, deciduous wasn't necessarily a 2 on the scale. But by the first wizards.com article on it in 2016, he had pretty firmly shifted to a "1 = evergreen" "2 = deciduous" philosophy. A little unclear how often something has to return to be deciduous/2. At some point I'd like to add to the history section regarding this, but want more research first. For now just gonna drop a bunch of links here so I don't forget them or if anyone else wants to run with it.

Wizards.com:

• 2016 The first storm scale article had longer descriptions "This category is full of mechanics I refer to as deciduous." [1]
• 2017 Transform as a 3: "I think of this as a popular mechanic that will return many times rather than a deciduous mechanic." [2]
• 2018 Equipment is somewhere between evergreen and deciduous "For now, it's evergreen, but I could see the switch happening, so I'm giving Equipment a 2." [3]
• 2019 "Vehicles are deciduous so they get a rating of 2" [4]
• 2020 "I even think there is a potential of them one day being deciduous, but we're not quite there yet, so they get a 3." [5]

Blogatog:

• 2016 "Will we need it again? Odds are yes, but probably not anytime soon. As a deciduous mechanic, albeit a less used one, it is technically a 2." [6]
• 2017 "It’s a 2. It’s deciduous. We don’t do them often but we still do them." [7]
• 2019 1. Evergreen 2. Deciduous 3. Every 5 years or so. (cycling) [8]

Also I apologize if I made this exact post on some other page a few months ago or something. I could swear I collected some links like this before but I can't think what other page it would've been on but this one.- jerodast (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)