|This is Marian's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Marian.|
Hello Marian! I wanted to give you the reasons for deleting the efficiency section from the Sprinklers page. You compared the efficiency of the sprinklers using 25 tiles for basic and iridium sprinklers, but 9 tiles for quality sprinklers. The efficiency for quality should be 21/25 = 84%. But even given that correction, it seems a bit obvious to me that efficiency increases from basic to quality to iridium sprinklers, so there's no need to point it out.
There may be value in stating that basic sprinklers can be used on a large scale if placed diagonally, what you called an "L-shaped pattern". But you didn't show what the "L" shape was, and in looking at your image, I thought it looked more like the Big Dipper constellation than an L shape.
- Adding my $0.02
- Firstly, the space efficiency of the quality sprinklers was correct. Quality sprinklers water a 3x3 grid, with the sprinkler itself taking up a tile, so it 8/9 space efficient. This doesn't translate effectively to a 5x5 grid unfortunately. The regular sprinkler can be said to have a 4/5 efficiency.
- Secondly, I agree that there is merit to illustrating the optimal placement of regular sprinklers. I'd suggest using different colours to show how the spread of each sprinkler interlocks with each other.
- Quality and iridium are reasonably intuitive, as they are square. So the probably dont need illustrations. If we were to illustrate placement for these, it should be done on their respective pages. BlaDe (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2019 (BST)
no need to apology, your comment was polite.
As BlaDe confirmed, the efficiency comparison was correct, you've made mistake. So, apparently the efficiency is not that obvious. The efficiency comparison is meant to give players a sense of how much more/less each sprinklers are effective. Of course it's obvious that more expensive sprinklers will better. The table was just showing how much better.
I agree the pictures weren't perfect — the quality sprinkler grid was 5x5 just to be same picture size, as the others, even though the repeating pattern is only 3x3. That was confusing probably. L-shape could be better illustrated on the pictures, I agree. I like the idea "I'd suggest using different colours to show how the spread of each sprinkler interlocks with each other.".
So, proposal for improvement: Keep efficiency comparison only as table (thus removing pictures for the more expensive sprinklers), and illustrate the L-pattern with better picture.
Also the efficiency comparison table should be included on all sprinklers pages, since we're comparing all of them. Is there any better way to do it, apart from copy-pasting the same table to all pages? I'm not that versed in MediaWiki syntax and functions. Thanks.
Btw, deleting the original picture files seems to me as unnecessary offensive reaction, was there any reason to be that much dismissive? I don't have the original pictures on my computer anymore (didn't know it will be that much of a big deal, with comments and everything) and now I can't look at the old ones. Can you revive them... somehow? :D
Thanks for the feedback.
Marian (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2019 (BST)
- I'm sorry, but comparing a 3x3 grid to a 5x5 grid is comparing apples to oranges. There needs to be a base grid for comparison, it doesn't have to be 25 tiles, but it does have to be one size across all 3 sprinklers. For an example, the Greenhouse page shows efficient layouts for the fixed size of the tillable soil inside. As I said before, though, it still seems a bit obvious to me that efficiency increases from basic to quality to iridium sprinklers, so there's no need to point it out, especially when the size of tillable land will vary from farmer to farmer.
- I've restored the images so you can download them. There was no offense intended, I delete all unused images asap. Please let me know when you've got them secure on your hard drive. All the best, margotbean (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2019 (BST)