Talk:Rumors

I really like this page. It needs more love, though. :) One question - is it better to present the rumors as they're usually stated (kill the captin with da hat!!!one) or the way things actually are(Hats don't indicate brigand difficulty)? I matched the way the rest of the page was, but I think it might be better to have the headings be true. --Zava 20:57, 19 April 2006 (PDT)
 * I'd agree. The targeted audience are those that might only read the headers :)  The myth statement can be put in the text under the header with something maybe like Snopes does Status: FALSE or whatever. --Guppymomma 21:03, 19 April 2006 (PDT)
 * I changed all the headers to show "da truf," rather than "da liez." It could be handled differently: Feel free to roll it back if you want to do it another way.  Also, I made all the headers have only their first words (and proper nouns) capitalized; the first header used the "title" capitalization scheme, wherein all the words, except for the conjunctions (or some other category of "little words"; I'm not a grammatician; I just play one on TV [and "grammatician isn't even a word, for what it's worth]), but most of the other ones seemed to follow the "sentence" capitalization scheme, so I went with that. --Emufarmers 21:18, 19 April 2006 (PDT)
 * I would like to make a case to revert back to the "liez". Here's my reasoning, which should be discussed before implemented. When someone spreads a rumor, or myth, a person not knowing the "truth" will be skimming for what they were told. They will not know what the truth "is" and thus, may convolute things a bit. I know when I myself, as a user look for stuff, I look for stuff based on frame of reference. In trying to get to the truth of the matter, especially where a rumor is concerned, if I am skimming, and, dont know what the answer is, im going to be skimming for what I was told, not knowing what the truth is. I think the headers should contain a sample of what the myth is, based on the most common form of the rumor. Discuss.=) --DuoX 00:31, 25 April 2006 (PDT)
 * If the headers continue to show "da truf," the introductory paragraph should be reworded a bit, as I think that following up the line "Here are a few of [the myths]:" with the TRUE statements is a bit misleading. However, I'd personally prefer changing it back to the "liez" for the same reasons Duo mentioned. -- Majortom 17:32, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * This page has always struck me as a bit odd for that reason- the title is "rumors" but the headings don't list rumors, they list the facts. I don't see another title that is as accessible that makes "da truf" as headings make sense, so maybe better to actually list the rumors and then dispel them. Or something like this. Header- "Exiting and Rejoining a Sea Battle helps" Underneath- "Status- False" in red or something like that. Kind of like Snopes. --Darkaardvark 14:09, 18 August 2006 (PDT)

Following Zava's lead, I have added the current crop of skellie myths. I am also wondering if perhaps the shouting/lag myth should be subbed under perhaps a heading of "skellies", as that myth is used most commonly *at* skellie fights. (also went back, and made the new myth entries conform to "Truth" Headers. --DuoX 09:46, 20 April 2006 (PDT)

I changed the language a bit because there are many ways an independent faction can help defenders in a blockade. -- Sweetiepiepi 12:00, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

I'm not sure if this is totally necessary to add, but can't you get an injury if you are jobbing, even if you are not a full member of either crew? I think it goes something like, if flags A and B are at war with flag C, and you, a pirate from flag A, job with a crew from flag B, and you get sunk by a ship from flag C, you can get an injury. I don't know, I might be wrong..... just thought the way it is written currently is a bit misleading. Zyxt 15:51, 9 July 2006 (PDT)
 * I don't know if the transitive property applies to injuries. I have no indication that it does, but it's perfectly possible.  Does anybody else know? --Emufarmers 02:55, 10 July 2006 (PDT)


 * Apparently.... http://yppedia.puzzlepirates.com/Injuries Zyxt 18:13, 11 July 2006 (PDT)
 * I'm very scared of overcomplication. I'd suggest that sitations like that are so rare in-game that adding them will only serve to confuse people and add more (intimidating) text to an already-pretty-long-and-scary page rather than enlighten anyone. That kind of stuff's better suited to footnotes and subpages than full-on inclusion in the article, IMO. --Ponytailguy 18:54, 11 July 2006 (PDT)


 * True... true...I just point stuff out alot. And therefore overcomplicate them. Pay no attention to the crazy man. Zyxt 20:32, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

Has anyone verified that Brigand Kings have no effect when they die? If we haven't, it should be removed. Octobeard 10:19, 11 December 2006 (PST)

brigands sometimes read your exact moves
Sorry for this, but as a high-level battle navigator, I am very, very sure that one of the "rumors" on this page is true, although it is factually stated to be false on this page. I know also that many, many people would agree with me on this. I'd like to either confirm that the rumor is actually fact, or at least call that into question. What is the procedure for doing this? Should I gather evidence, then post in a Tips & Tricks thread, and then update this article? C squared01 08:10, 18 December 2006 (PST)
 * That's a good way to do it. Which rumor are you referring to?  You didn't mention.  --Barrister 12:56, 18 December 2006 (PST)
 * The "brigands sometimes read your exact moves" rumor should be pretty easy to prove true. With good sailors, I should be able to create the same situation multiple times in a single battle, with two possible moves by me. I would then randomly choose one, and they would choose the correct response. If I did it, say, 8 times, that would be pretty strong evidence. --C squared01 16:54, 18 December 2006 (PST)
 * I believe we got Ringer assurance at somepoint, that brigands did not ever read you exact moves. That is a tactic reserved for the Black Ship. Like the article explains, most of the time it's just coincidence it moved in-sync with your move. --Sagacious (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2006 (PST)
 * Yeah, I'd like to see where that "ringer assurance" is, because I think someone completely misinterpreted what the ringers were saying. Chrisspy is totally right, and the wiki is totally wrong here, and needs to be changed.  Or at the very minimum, it needs a link to where the devs said that.  --looseweed 16:29 eastern 10 January 2007
 * It's not recent, and there's been a revision to the AI in the meantime, but in Nov. 2003 Nemo said "I also had the advantage of having the Sea Battle AI programmer right next to me. According to Peghead, they have no psychic knowledge of when you are going to fire. They do, however, have a reasonable expecation of when you are going to fire on them." That, if anything, is the start of the idea that they don't read your moves.  I'm still searching for more recent definitive statements.--Fiddler 15:25, 10 January 2007 (PST)
 * There's a difference between an opponent who is psychic, and an opponent who can think far enough ahead to see all the possibilities at a given turn. Sea battle is deterministic, has an extremely limited number of possible moves, and few surprises are possible (ship vs. ship ramming behavior?), so the AI necessary to predict the "best possible next turn" is significantly easier to design than one for, say, chess. Also, a psychic AI that cheats is very poor game design. Chupchup 05:07, 10 March 2007 (PST)

I know for a fact that brigands at least do more than look at your movement bar. This is because I have seen over and over again brigands changing their moves after I add a grapple token. If anyone else wants to test this out go ahead. In battle enter your move and wait for the brigand to enter theirs. Now throw some grapple tokens in and they will often change their move. Since grapple tokens do not appear on your movement bar, this is proof that the brigands know more about your move than just what the movement bar shows. --HiimEric2001 00:29, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

Injuries
"In PVP, you must be a full member of either crew, or you cannot be injured."

So, if Ship A and Ship B are fighting, and you are a full member of the crew of Ship A but are jobbing on Ship B, and Ship A sinks Ship B, can you still get an injury? If not, I think the above statement needs more clarification. --Smc508 07:52, 28 June 2007 (PDT)

- Unfortunately, it's a rare enough occurrence that both conditions would be met, that nobody knows the answer yet. ~ Sweetiepiepi

I believe that statement is inaccurate for another reason. You don't need to be a full member of the crew specifically, just of the flag. --HiimEric2001 00:21, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

Sitting on chests actually does nothing
I've heard it posited that sitting on chests between hauls in Atlantis actually serves no purpose. When a new haul is started, any chest already on the screen from a previous hauling session doesn't count towards the ship's total, or so I've been told. I've never seen evidence for or against this idea, though several of my friends take it to heart as truth - I assume they've tested it or seen the results of a test. Is there anyone who has tested this and can confirm or deny it irrefutibly? If it is indeed true, it could save many an Altantis driver the grief of jobbers asking if they can sit. --Blade beast 08:45, 29 May 2008 (PDT)
 * I know from my many Atlantis trips that if you do sit on a chest, it will be the exact same as it was when you last had your TH screen, provided the navver doesn't leave the board. The only drawback to this is that if you sit too long (not sure how long is too long) you will drop stat considerably, as it counts that time where you're not hauling as "lazing about" time as if you had the chance to puzzle, but only had the puzzle paused. Klostro 07:04, 19 June 2008 (PDT)
 * I think what he's saying is that while the chest will still be there, actually clearing it doesn't add to the booty. I know there's been times when people (myself included) clear chests but not have it count, but noone's ever really worked out why. --Belthazar451 07:17, 19 June 2008 (PDT)
 * Perhaps the latest release fixed this, although it was related to a slightly different bug. --Sagacious (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2008 (PDT)

Late comment, but, every time I've heard someone claim that the chest doesn't count it's because they are looking at the duty report that pops up when a treasure haul finishes, not realizing that the DR that appears is the one from the last break (so it will not include any recently hauled chests). --Sprngweather 21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your sword color affects the attacks sent to you or the pieces that you receive
Though stated false, its partially true. The pieces that you receive are random and both players get the same colors and type of pieces. However, the attacks sent on you depends on your sword. As for my experience, I've noticed though the colors change every game, pattern doesn't change, regardless my oponents sword. So, if you're using a foil, it will always follow the pattern, though the color of the patterns might change every game. If your enemy is using a cleaver or a short sword, it will always fall on that pattern, thats if you use a foil. --[[User:Crowa|Crowa]

Black boxes repaired using Carp rumor
Judging by the Alpha release notes, this may have actually been true from 2002-12-09 (when Carpentry was introduced) to 2003-04-05. This explains why the documentation actually claimed it was repairable at the time. --Thunderbird 08:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)