Difference between revisions of "Talk:Weapons"

Revision as of 15:28, 21 November 2007

Madoog and Shadoog Names?

• Early word from the 360 servers is that "Madoog" is actually "TECH-Mag" and "Shadoog" is really "R-Mag". Seen it in enough places to expect it to be true, but perhaps a little more confirmation is needed before changing the names of the two articles, this weapons page, the weapon template, the pages for each (now) Mag and the templates for the icons. - Miraglyth 23:03, 20 November 2007 (CST)
  • Definitely want to wait for a PC shot to confirm this. If it is true, then ST blows at localization even more than previously thought. --Qwerty 23:24, 20 November 2007 (CST)
  • From what I've been able to gather, shadoog descriptions all start off with "a GRM ranged combat support machine." TECH-Mag and R-Mag had better be bullshit. - EspioKaos 23:42, 20 November 2007 (CST)
    • Being told by someone I trust that the boards for them call them "Tech-Mag" and "R-Mag" :/ --Beatrixkiddo 00:15, 21 November 2007 (CST)
      • Rise to kill urging. ... Wait... I did that wrong. D: Seriously though, that means we've got "shadoog" and "madoog" from the official site(s), "ranged combat support machine" (and I'm willing to bet, though I haven't seen its in-game description yet, "TECHNIC combat support machine") from the in-game weapon descriptions, and "R-Mag" and "TECH-Mag" from the weapon synthesis boards. I think this calls for a /facepalm. What next? Are whips going to become "light-based lashing devices?" - EspioKaos 00:39, 21 November 2007 (CST)
      • I strongly believe the proper names are Madoog and Shadoog. The 'TECH-Mag' and 'R-Mag' terms come from synthesis boards, which rarely if ever use the 'proper' name for the weapon category. Ditto with weapon descriptions themselves. I therefore will push for the names to remain the same - if anything, we might as well just set up redirects and add 'Also known as...' to the main Madoog and Shadoog articles. Given that we now have a consistency in weapon type naming, it would be an inconsistency to use terms pulled from item descriptions. - Mewn 06:43, 21 November 2007 (CST)
      • On a side note, I've just been told by a 360 player that the shop search categories refer to them as 'TCSM' and 'RCSM'. Seems Sega don't even know what to call them. If people are really against calling them Madoogs and Shadoogs there will have to be a vote. - Mewn 09:28, 21 November 2007 (CST)

PSUPedia Weapon Situation

• Figured this might be useful to know: Here's the weapon situation comparing the PSUPedia article names for each with their unified in-game description:

• Where the contents of [] are quality desciptors (usually generic for a star count) such as "mass-produced model" or "limited-run". After this is a string of flavor text unique to every weapon in the game. - Miraglyth 19:49, 24 February 2007 (CST)
• Well, in reality this is basically a conflict of, from a JP PSU paradigm, whether to go with the translations of the katakana, or with those of the kanji, that were sadly never synched to reflect the fact these are parallel. With a few obvious exceptions -- the katakana for 'throwing blades' was 'Cards' ofcourse, and Bows and Grenade Launchers were in PSU JP referred to as 'Longbows' and 'Grenades'. Now, as for the subjective part: I believe it is a 'mistake' that the translations were never synched, and because of familiarity for fans, as well as length, I myself prefer the katakana versions by very far. Seeing as the translations were mostly done by Japanese (check the credits in the manual), some of the English representations of the kanji versions aren't even proper English. It's 'long-swords' and 'throwing-blades'; these aren't just relatively long swords or blades that are throwing something. That aside, I believe that noone is going to say 'pairs of claws' instead of Twin Claws, 'single-handed blades' instead of Sabers, 'throwing blades' instead of Cards, or 'long staffs' instead of Rods -- I feel inclined to go with the PSO-style names. How about it? - Tycho 04:16, 25 February 2007 (CST)
• For the most part I agree (which is unfortunate for me given my standpoint in the following sub-comment) especially considering "cannon" is pretty misleading. I do agree that "pair of" just does not work, and "paired" sounds equally daft, so I suppose the best alternative is the GRM prefix which is already used. Oddly I don't have any issues with "blade" (sabers are traditionally curved blades, and we all know are an unwritten connection to Star Wars).
  • However I just cannot stand "Rod". The three arguably most common uses of "rod" in modern use are curtain rods, fishing rods, and obscene slang. The only use of rod I can even find in a weapon context is (ironically) this, a short whipping stick. Hence "Long Staff" while longer to type (really why they could have just been made "Staffs" is beyond me) is for me a far better representation of the weapon the same way "Laser Cannon" makes far more sense than "Cannon". (Edit: If not more because, y'know, a cannon is a weapon.) - Miraglyth 06:58, 25 February 2007 (CST)
  • Context is important, however. In a normal context, you wouldn't nessecarily associate 'Rod' with a weapon, but we're not in a 'normal' context. Everyone with an interest in this game knows what a Rod is. Indeed, I believe that even in Dungeons & Dragons the word 'Rod' is used to describe a magical Wand that can fire 'charges' of a magical spell. I have no trouble associating Rod with magic, whereas Staff is arguably more ambigious and could be used to refer to a weapon such as the Quarterstaff, generally used in Fantasy as a melee weapon by Mage-type characters. We know Rods cannot be used for physical attacks at all in the context of PSU, which is what this site deals with. At any rate, I see no need to change the name of Rod just for reasons of a consistency that isn't apparent to most people. Mewn 13:23, 25 February 2007 (CST)
    • Luck sounds like a pretty good reason to me. What people call something is often different to what the official term is (see also: Blow Down, Blow Away, Universe Transporter...) so the issues with "weapon names" are what to define as "the official term" considering besides item description, there isn't anything used for all weapons, which is particurly a problem for non-GRM weaponry considering we tend to agree with the "worst" GRM version of weapons they make. - Miraglyth 02:36, 26 February 2007 (CST)
  • Well, the Japanese suck at English in any way you look at it -- see SoulGainer. But yeah, context. karenblewmerod, etc. - Tycho 17:30, 25 February 2007 (CST)

  P.S.: Forgive my mood, I'm a tad tired at the moment.

Old Throwing Blade Talk

• I think that someone should start the card section. The fans have been found! Do we have any info on them?
• No solid info yet. D: - Tycho

Changing the template

• This template turned out ugly. I think the template should more like this; something I adapted from a Wikipedia template but edited with Paint to have three subjects. I'll change the template today (hoping that Tych saves me from miserable work) but I want to know what you guys think. But more importantly how am I gonna get the three subject thing for the template ? Because I know it's possible I just don't know how I can write it down. I'm hoping someone can find something from the Wiki that has something like it, burrhaps in a guide. - Asim, Oct. 6

• The way I currently made it, I purposely did them the other way around in order to make it span only two lines for the weapon type pages (which use a different version of the box from the same template). I think having a new line for the Casting Weapons turned out to make an incredibly ugly table, since this third line would have only 10% of the content of the former ones or so. If you can come up with something else, that's great, but I hope it'd still look good as well as be compact for the weapon type series of pages. - Tycho

• I think the idea Asim presented is good, but my main gripe with both the current template and Asim's idea is the colour scheme. The colours look horrible, and should be more like the colours used for other templates (a bright, kinda faded look). Mewn
• Sure, that way it looks good. As long as the text hasn't been added yet. >__>; - Tycho

• I tried to get the template to have three subjects but it just won't work, when the Wiki makes those types of templates (or tables) you have to type {| class="wikitable" align=wherever and it won't code on PSUP and this looks a lot harder than I thought.. -_- - Asim, Oct. 7

• No kidding. Took me quite a lot of edits to make them work the way it currently does (meaning the template would be usable in both 'forms' as well). - Tycho

• Ok.. that template hurt my eyes, so I made this one, if you dont like it feel free to revert/change colors/wording/add/subtract stuff/whatever. --SephirothYuyX 07:18, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

• Thanks. Sorry about what it was like before; it really did need a revision like this. x_x; - Tycho

• Awesome job. Mewn 12:38, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

PP Recovery

• You wrote that info on Figunner and Protranser was still unclear or unavailable, but won't this do? The source is Famitsu, so it should be pretty reliable. Furthermore, if the Type bonuses really are consistent throughout, would it really be worth it to include the numbers for the Types that get bonuses to them as well? I mean, for the sake of comparing weapon types/manufacturers it barely adds anything, really. I believe just stating the bonus percentages somewhere at the top might do. - Tycho 22:43, 15 November 2006 (PST)

  Edit: Perhaps the manufacturer stuff could be covered by multipliers as well. By the way, does anyone know how to create a bit of a black background to make white text stand out? DX

• The Figunner info listed on the Types page isn't something I'm sure of, so I didn't list it. The Japanese wiki was somewhat confusing to me, but I got the sense it was giving some other information - it didn't list a higher PP regen for melee weapons for Figunners, but it seemed to list a PP regen between non-favored and favored for ranged weapons for them. If someone else thinks the info they have is certain, I don't see a problem with adding it, but I figured I wasn't going to do it until the advanced classes became available and I could test the Figunner and Protranser stuff for myself, since I don't like adding data that I'm not sure of. As for listing the entire chart instead of just percentages, just seems easier to check the number at a glance. Plus with percentages and low numbers there's got to be a lot of rounding. Koyasha 08:48, 17 November 2006 (PST)

Recent edits to PP regen rates

Dear 69.234.184.184. You recently changed the PP rates of a few weapons, but used numbers influenced by class bonuses instead, which this page currently does not take into account. So I changed them back for now. D: - Tycho 02:20, 21 November 2006 (PST)