User blog comment:Ladysarah27/Please ignore: just testing tables/@comment-5433714-20130104085822/@comment-5433714-20130104220840

Hi MissT, I agree the 3rd and 4th tables are still very wide but they are much shorter with only 2 rows to look at (of course this would change as more dinos are added). I do agree though that it is kind of just putting a bandaid on the current tables instead of fixing the entire problem. It is nice that they are collapsible though, much less scrolling! We could do that to any table though.

As for the skele example, I had to look back at what I wrote in our previous discussion:

"It is still very large but it can be collapsed as shown. When new dinos are added it would probably become way too large though, just like the current tables. I think it really only helps to make the table shorter. It is a bit less wide because we are able to eliminate 2 columns and still show all the combinations. Additional new dinos would make it wider again though. I'm not sure what to think of it. You lose the ability to compare the # of that dino being fused versus other dinos that result from the same combination."

And Eppidiah said:

"It does get rid of the problems of many dinos per cell, but the tables themselves will still grow in size with every new dino and having 40+ tables and growing is going to be more than the average wikicon will be interested in. And like you said, losing the ability to compare frequencies is a major problem as my own personal data since the fusion changes seems to suggest that dino rarity may play a part in fusion results. Personally, I see 2 variables at work, biome and target rarity and to remove the ability to compare fusion frequencies results is a loss. Not to knock the effort, but I'm not sure this is a workable solution."

This is not to say that we should completely give up on the single dinos fusion table just yet. I will create another one with a tier 3 dino. There are more tier 2 dinos at this point to fuse with so that would make a tier 3 dino chart the largest. We can see how large a table like this would be at this point and if that would make any difference to the pros/cons. Please continue to give me any suggestions if you think I am doing it wrong or if it can be improved. I'm working off your idea for this one, so you might be able to tell me how to improve it ; )

In the end, I think we should come up with multiple options (just expanding the current tables; making the current tables into 4 collapsible parts; making single dino fusion tables; etc) and then have the community vote...

Whew that was a long message! :D Thanks for your feedback and please continue to offer it!