Line 167: Line 167:
==Keeper Score==
==Keeper Score==
What is it, how is it calculated? [[User:Clawbugmenot|Clawbugmenot]] ([[User talk:Clawbugmenot|talk]]) 20:23, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
What is it, how is it calculated? [[User:Clawbugmenot|Clawbugmenot]] ([[User talk:Clawbugmenot|talk]]) 20:23, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
:A subjective evaluation of how good a corruption is. The "scale" used is explained at the bottom of the page. [[User:Yulgash|Yulgash]] ([[User talk:Yulgash|talk]]) 22:28, April 8, 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:28, April 8, 2020

I'm currently verifying that in version 1.2.0, removing corruptions do not appear to change the subset of 18 corruptions. Instead, their order is merely randomly reset. I've tested with PoCR and SoCR so far, but not yet the Yrruir quest. If this turns out to be true, it would be a worthwhile clarification to the Corruptions wiki page.

Lawofqr (talk) 06:28, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

Aside from a bunch of 1.2.0 changes (typically related to stat training), this article always seemed a bit bloated to me. I've started rewriting pieces of it a couple of times although didn't have the Strength and Willpower to finish these (they should be somewhere though).

How about splitting some complex corruptions (mana battery, poison hands) to their own pages?

Another thing which is bugging me is the complexity of linking individual corruption to these page due to the way headers are organized (all stat changes are in the header). How about creating a bunch of pages with short name of the corruption with "(corruption)" suffix (everywhere for conformity?) and using these? I propose the following list:

  1. Poison hands (corruption)
  2. Mana battery (corruption)
  3. Unholy aura (corruption)
  4. Sulphuric breath (corruption)
  5. Thin and nimble (corruption)
  6. Very light (corruption)
  7. Bulging cranium (corruption)
  8. Horns (corruption)
  9. Thorns (corruption)
  10. Rage (corruption)
  11. Antennae (corruption)
  12. Astral attunement (corruption) //kinda silly
  13. Corrupted tissue (corruption)
  14. Hooves (corruption)
  15. Stiff muscles (corruption)
  16. Tough scales (corruption)
  17. Voice of ChAoS (corruption)
  18. ChAoS attachement (corruption) //best I could come up with
  19. Hate of the sun (corruption)
  20. Babbling mouth (corruption)
  21. Gills (corruption)
  22. Body decay (corruption)
  23. Cold blood (corruption)
  24. Acid blood (corruption)
  25. Bronze bones (corruption)
  26. Mists of ChAoS (corruption)
  27. Black eyes (corruption)
  28. Stilts (corruption)
  29. Tentacle mouth (corruption)

I can't come up with anything good-sounding for:

  • apish corruption
  • flesh of Order
  • sweating blood
  • one merged eye
  • maggots
  • 12 more eyes

13:50, August 26, 2014 (UTC)

Splitting into separate pages does seem like a good idea. As well as making this page less cluttered, it would probably be more convenient for people searching the wiki for info on one specific corruption at a time (as they might be more likely to do than want to read a big page about all corruptions... maybe). Perhaps all corruptions could have their own page, though with some of them there isn't a lot to write about... though having really short articles wouldn't really be that much of an issue, would it? (I know sysops on some other wikis don't really like people creating articles consisting of only a few lines or less)
I'm not sure what you mean by the part about linking. Would those names be the names for the pages for the individual corruptions if split, the new heading on the pages, or the names for redirect pages? Nightcrawler226 (talk) 14:50, August 26, 2014 (UTC)
Well, currently if you want to link to some corruption, you have to use the following abomination: [[Corruptions#You_have_grown_a_bulging_cranium_.28Le_:_.2B6.2C_Wi_:_.2B4.2C_Ap:_-6.2C_PV_:_-4.2C_To_:_-3.29.|bulging cranium]]. All three ideas are viable in my books, although having either a split page or a unique redirect page for each corruption seems preferable to me as they will be then available through editor automatically without the need to link to Corruptions with header anchor through "#". Ln (talk) 15:17, August 26, 2014 (UTC)
Oh, right. I've always tried to avoid linking directly from pages to those headers, so in a way I've already made a start on that sort of thing anyway (poison hands, mana battery, apish look, unholy aura, perhaps others). It would certainly make sense to use redirects like that =} Nightcrawler226 (talk) 15:39, August 26, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with everything that's been said so far and am only here to suggest names. 06:53, August 27, 2014 (UTC)
  • 12 eyes (corruption) - note that the game's description is in fact "a total of 12 eyes" NOT 12 more which would mean a total of 14.
  • apish look (corruption) - "look" is now a noun.
  • scales (corruption) - simplify from "tough scales" because the only other use of the word is scale mail, not "scales".
  • chaos whispers (corruption) - change from "Voice of ChAoS" to disambiguate from the babbling mouth which rants and raves instead of whispering.
  • chaos hands (corruption) - instead of "ChAoS attachement" since it is basically poison hands but for corruption.
  • hate the sun (corruption) - "of" is unnecessary and makes hate a noun, which increases comprehension complexity.
  • bloody sweat (corruption)
  • flesh craving (corruption)
  • merged eyes (corruption)
  • maggot infection (corruption) or just maggots (corruption) since that word is not used anywhere else.
  • Since 1.2.0 the description for more eyes explicitly states that "you've grown 10 extra eyes" (and the message states that you grow them in a circle around your head) in order to avoid incorrect descriptions when you also have merged eyes. Therefore it should be either 10 extra eyes (okayish but I would rather avoid numbers) or something more complicated like peripheral eyes (since they are in the circle around the head)
  • tough scales seemed like a common name, although I suppose "scales" will be more in line with "hooves" and "horns".
  • apish look, maggot infection, bloody sweat, hate the sun, merged eyes - I agree
  • chaos whispers -> ChAoS whisper (singular) maybe? I'd like to keep the ChAoS-print to associate more with corruption
  • chaos hands -- good call on poison hands, I haven't thought in this way. I'd like to use ChAoS though
  • flesh craving - doesn't seem appropriate. It kinda gives a wrong message, as the focus is on the flesh of Order creatures.
I'm currently pondering the page and some of my initial names seem a bit off --
  • Corrupted tissue -- redundant. How about "unnatural vigor"/"ChAoS vigor" as used in the message for acquiring the corruption.
  • Body decay -> Decay. Sounds more malicious this way :D
  • Rage -> ChAoS rage. To differentiate from monster rage. Ln (talk) 15:38, August 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • "extra eyes" without the "10" seems like a simple solution to avoid numbers.
  • With consistency as one reason for dropping "tough" from tough scales, I would definitely rather use "maggots" than "maggot infection". To my knowledge, there is no other instance of the word "maggot" in the game or on this wiki.
  • The only reason I suggested all-lowercase "chaos" is that it's easier to search for. "ChAoS whisper" as the article title with "chaos whisper" as a redirect would work just fine.
  • I think "healing tissue" more accurately describes the corruption's effects, even despite the scarring.
  • "Rage (corruption)" should be enough to differentiate from other forms of rage. The article Rage already reads like a haphazard disambiguation page.
No comment on other points because agree. 01:13, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

I've created Template:Corruption in the hopes of helping this process along. It's probably best not to protect the page like the other templates until all the pages it's used on have already been created. 01:37, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of, we might as well create an individual page for each corruption with generic comments concerning each attribute individually and leave only brief summary on the "corruptions" page. This way it might be transformed into table with a list, while we split general information on corruption (this is my ancient idea) into another page adding all methods to gain it, clean it and other considerations. Thoughts? Ln (talk) 12:54, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

With a wiki of this size, I don't believe it's necessary to separate lists into autonomous pages. At least, there isn't precedent for it. The article Wands for example has a table list and also talks about recharging. 16:52, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Well, with a page for every crappy item I don't see why we should stop :D Ln (talk) 17:18, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
That's a very good point. I guess this wiki could use some "list of" pages (several already exist, they just aren't titled that way - Melee weapons, Monsters, etc.) It would be a major update, but not unwarranted. 17:28, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
That is not something I'm willing to undertake, sorry. If I were the originator of the wiki (like Epythic & Ascyron were), I would certainly do everything in a more compressed way. Though you and NightCrawler are probably right, better to split off only interesting ones. Ln (talk) 13:10, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
By the way, seeing as you are quite active here, you might want to grab a wikia account. I would certainly feel better talking to someone with a name instead of IP :) Ln (talk) 13:14, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
Regarding having a separate page for general information on corruptions, I do kind of see the point... currently the wiki seems to have two meanings for the term corruption, the process itself ('corruption', 'corrupting') and its results with their particular effects (' a corruption', 'corruptions').
I would agree with having the page contain a list of corruptions, with links to individual pages; I would have suggested keeping the intro paragraphs as an overview of corruption itself, but now that I consider the difference between the process and the outputs I'm not really sure. It seems to be common practice (or maybe just for me...) to link instances of 'corrupting' (from monster attacks, etc.) here, so these would have to be redirected to the separate overview page if created.
With separate pages for each corruption, I suppose the main concern would be if there 'would be much point' in creating pages for the simple corruptions like blackened eyes or bronze bones, but I'd say go ahead with pages on some of the corruptions that there seems to be a lot to write about (poison hands, mana battery, unholy aura...) and see how that goes. I remember there was a debate somewhere long ago about whether the wiki should have more overview/list pages or a page for each (minor) thing, but I can't find it now... one of the more prominent editors, maybe it was Ascyron?, seemed to have been in favour of the latter. Nightcrawler226 (talk) 18:11, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
That is precisely my concern (effects vs the process). However, this is not the problem, as pretty much all pages who link corruption, use "corruption" page which is currently a redirect to this one. If we make a more detailed overview of the process itself, we can simply remove the redirect.
These debates are kinda split from what I remember. Talk:Long sword has some input for instance, which I somewhat trampled by the (base item) initiative. I feel a bit guilty about imposing my view, but it's for the greater good, isn't it? :D Ln (talk) 13:10, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Disease-ridden maggots Edit

It's worth noting that the tame worms generated by the disease-ridden maggot corruption have their initial levels adjusted by the KPL formula; after an extensive white worm infestation (~3000 worms) in the Big Room, a tame white worm spawned as "extremely experienced" and was able to kill up to a troll berserker in one hit. Very brave or ranged PCs with no Toughness concerns might wish to use controlled infestations to ratchet up the worm levels via KPL, especially Bards with their loyalty-granting class ability. Alternately, the Small Cave should also spawn the worms at double the PC's level, so locking oneself in the staircase room of the Small Cave for a few thousand turns to create a platoon could be a useful mid-game strategy. The corruption can be removed immediately afterwards. 04:17, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

Acid blood side effectEdit

I think that the acidic blood corruption might reduce your natural healing rate, based on personal experience. Any thoughts on this? --Kahran042 (talk) 16:28, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

Corruption quick reference table Edit

Made this table for myself because the wiki lacked anything similar, and I needed a quick reference to remind myself of hidden penalties and removal priority. Maybe it will be useful for somebody else. Ranking is based on analysis from respective wiki pages, overall severity of disadvantages and needs for mitigation, as well as personal experience. You can copy or download it if you want to rearrange or sort it alphabetically. — moozooh (talk) 21:13, January 26, 2017 (UTC).

it's not bad idea to incorporate this into wiki... Apparently we do not have pages for all corruptions...--Soirana (talk) 05:12, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Talk from the Corruptions quick table pageEdit

I'm considering moving this to the main Corruptions page to replace the list of corruptions. Now that there's an individual page for each corruption, the extra information there (description, received/removed messages) is redundant, and it would mean one less page to keep in sync every time corruption information needs to be edited. Yulgash (talk) 19:15, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I consider somehow defining score and adjusting towards definitions.

10 could be corruption I would live with something like poisone hands being next if all i have is scrolls of corruption removal (acid blood, stilts). 9 good things with no drawbacks, but not that important (black eyes, gills). 8 minor drawbacks. 7 very good in theory, but has serious drawbacks (very light) (i have no idea how apish work with high stats, iirc, in some version +stats did not happen if stats were high enough). 6 probably should be removed, but either has situational bonus, or can be lived with for prolonged time. 5 generally bad trade off like hooves, but one that most characters would not feel a lot. 4 generally should be removed as soon as reasonable, but might have benefits in some situations (cold blood in tower, mindcrafters trying to milk babbling mouth for spell knowledge) 3 same as for but mostly without benefits (chaos hands as strict melee build) 2 Generally I would remove these as top priority, but they have some benefits if handled well -- like poison hands, but prolonged flirting with these likely ends badly for char. 1-this has to be removed - stiff muscles, babbling mouth for caster.

Honestly I've done descriptions above based on current table (the only changes would differentiating between 10 and 9 properly)--Soirana (talk) 04:37, February 20, 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest cutting down the number of scores from 10 to 5. While it's interesting to see another experienced player's opinion at a high level of detail, it's probably not necessary for the players who would actually make a decision based on the score. Having fewer scores makes explaining them easier, and hopefully cuts down on silly arguments in the future. That said, I'm not going to mess with the ratings much myself. Yulgash (talk) 07:22, February 20, 2017 (UTC)

hmmm... 10>>5 - always keep;9+8>>4 -- keep unless something specific; 7+6>>3 -- neutralish; 5+4>>2 -- remove unless specific situation; 3+2+1>>1 always remove. maybe, i need to think it over.

I think overall stupid overpowered stuff (acid blood and Co) should have their own score category--Soirana (talk) 07:37, February 20, 2017 (UTC)

Mechanics update Edit

I'm simplifying the page a bit. While it mostly gives the correct impression of how corruption works, it does not entirely match up with happens in-game. Internally, a corruption is gained once the corruption value reaches 1,000,000. This is regardless of appearance score. Appearance simply reduces the amount of corruption gained (or lost!). For the sake of consistency with other pages and keeping numbers small I use 1 CP = 1000 corruption. Note that the larger internal value means that no corruption modifiers are lost to rounding in newer versions.

Removed comparisons to older versions, such as 'lower than 10 Ap means faster corruption', since background corruption has been changed enough to make them irrelevant and misleading. Yulgash (talk) 05:01, February 25, 2018 (UTC)

Evaluation changes Edit

"The upside [to bloody sweat] becomes less relevant in late game."
Why is acting more often less relevant late game? I can't see this being anything less than a 4, given that the downsides are irrelevant.

"Do you play a game where you always have a healthy surplus of food..."
I find the hunger analysis a bit long and off the mark. The extra hunger matters for chaos knights that start with the corruption (as they have less access to food anyway), but otherwise it's unimportant.

"Actually somewhat decent for martial artists." (hooves corruption)
Decent in what situations? Only characters using kicking at all would be monk and chaos knights crowned with boots. Given the energy cost and base damage difference between kick and unarmed melee, monks would not be using this outside of early game (how are they getting a corruption that early?). Chaos knight crowned with boots will switch to using a weapon once anything halfway decent is found.

"+4 Pe (blocked by some headgear)" (merged eyes)
What hats do not block this bonus?

(Tentacle mouth corruption)
Appearance seems to be majorly overrated here. Corruption is not an issue even at 1 Ap. I would rate this at 3 (1) - problematic for anyone casting spells, but reasonable (if slightly annoying) to keep around on most characters.

Yulgash (talk) 16:39, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

Keeper ScoreEdit

What is it, how is it calculated? Clawbugmenot (talk) 20:23, April 8, 2020 (UTC)

A subjective evaluation of how good a corruption is. The "scale" used is explained at the bottom of the page. Yulgash (talk) 22:28, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.