ADVERTISEMENT
Talk:NPCs
From Hellgatewiki.com
Contents |
NPC Categorization
We need to decide ASAP on how to categorize NPCs. Is this one used now ok? Or is it to many colons? Should we use "Optional Quest NPCs" instead? --Leord 14:21, 13 November 2007 (CET)
I've been using the following categories:
- NPCs
- Quest NPCs
- Vendor NPCs
- Medic NPCs
- Crafter NPCs
Crafter NPCs go into Crafter and Vendor. All NPCs go into the NPCs category. I also put the NPCs into the category of the station(s) they're found in. In cases like Arphaun, I also categorize him into the act(s) which he plays a part in.
Also, I've been trying to get as many screenshots of NPCs as I can, and making the NPC's page, even if it's a stub (and I've been marking them as stubs). --Cydira 03:47, 15 November 2007 (CET)
- Sounds great. I actually did rename those categories yesterday. They used to be like: "Category:NPC:Crafter" etc. Now we just need a good boilerplate for them, so we can start to mould them in the same shape :) --Leord 13:04, 15 November 2007 (CET)
Is there any point to having a separate heading for Medic NPCs? The actual NPCs aren't used for anything as of 11/16/07; you get healed immediately upon teleporting into or otherwise entering the station, and none are used in quests, whether to start or advance them. Would it be more prudent to have a single Medic page listing each, with some sort of redirecting page if you search for the specific name? -- Mileron 00:38, 17 November 2007 (CET)
- Medics be used in the future, so I think we should keep the category. There are only so many ways to differentiate NPCs. Besides, more categorization is better than less, I think. --Cydira 16:29, 18 November 2007 (CET)
- Good point Mileron, but I think I agree with Cydira on this. More categories (up to a point) is good. Still, you have a very good point with a medic page, we should have that as well! Mainly saying that "they used to heal, but now automatically, till here to remind us of the work they do" or something nice :) --Leord 18:11, 18 November 2007 (CET)
- Okay, it seems Medics are still used for healing - in Single Player mode. :) You're not automatically healed upon entering stations in Single Player - it's strictly a Multi-player feature.
At some point over the extended weekend I'll add that note to each, and also see about typing up the description boxes for them as well. --Mileron 17:22, 21 November 2007 (CET)
- Okay, it seems Medics are still used for healing - in Single Player mode. :) You're not automatically healed upon entering stations in Single Player - it's strictly a Multi-player feature.
- Cool. Smart to notice that! --Leord 14:22, 22 November 2007 (CET)
Unused NPCs
Regarding the categorization: is it worth it to have a "Flavour" NPC type, for NPCs that serve no game purpose, like Murmur in most stations? --Leord 14:21, 6 December 2007 (CET)
- I don't thinkk we should categorize them into anything but NPCs (and Techsmith, since there are so many of those). Murmur does actually give a quest arley on, so he's a Quest NPC. I think the devs might assign quests to the few NPCs who just stand around now, so as long as they're in the NPC category and we can find them easily, I think that's enough. --Cydira 19:32, 6 December 2007 (CET)
- Good enough for me =) --Leord 13:37, 7 December 2007 (CET)
NPC Titles
As mentioned in the NPC infobox (I think), Cydira added the possibility of writing in "Title" into the page, not just the name. I was wondering how we should handle this by principle, if a character is promoted/demoted in future lore of the game. Which title should we add there? The original one, or the "latest" one, depending on how the story line will look. Will game info come before any possible book info, or is any "valid" source with latest date the one? Is that the latest ingame date, or IRL date? What is they have "future dreams" of the like? More complex than one might think ^^ --Leord 14:05, 7 December 2007 (CET)
- I lean towards going for the "latest" one, with the game info paramount. Future dreams don't count. Any changes can be written about in the background section, or in trivia. There's always a place for that kind of content. It makes these pages more interesting, rather than just a collection of names and places. --Cydira 18:27, 7 December 2007 (CET)
Quest Line Boxes for NPCs and Stations
From the Community Talk page, where it got (a little) lost in the shuffle. It makes more sense here, anyway.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think we need to make something work for the quest articles, where I think we all agree that having the quest line in the infobox would be best. I think I can do it in a sub-optimal, but entirely workable way. Once the quests in a certain quest line are entered, they won't change, so it's no less work than we're already doing when we add quest articles.
We need to keep thinking about the best way to show quests in the station and NPC articles. If those two could use the same box, that would be great. Maybe something like:
| Gunny's Templar Base Optional Quest Line | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Quest Name | Quest Type | Quest Area | Prerequisites |
| Gold-Digger | Collection | Fleet Street | None. |
| Fight Night | Bounty | Tudor Street | None. |
| The Bone Hunters | Collection | Kingsway | None. |
| Kill 'em Rotten | Bounty | Old Bailey | None. |
The "Prerequisites" is where we'd put quests in other lines that you first have to accept or complete, or that you need a subscription, or a certain standing, etc. This block would make it clear how the quests relate in a single station and could be reused on the NPC's page. What do you all think? --Cydira 18:43, 7 December 2007 (CET)
- That is a really good idea. I see only one major flaw: Why didn't I think of that first? As far as I gather, there probably won't be enough NPCs in any "Town" to screw up the system's aesthetics. Even if they have a massive amount of NPCs in Stonehenge and beyond, it is good to have all quests being easily displayed anyway. I like the table a lot! --Leord 13:12, 10 December 2007 (CET)
- Any other opinions on this before I start making the boxes? Bold or not bold for the quest titles? We need anything else in there? It shouldn't be too specific, that's what the quest articles are there for (so no rewards, objectives, etc). --Cydira 19:54, 10 December 2007 (CET)
- Shiny work, Cydira! The only thing I can think of is that Pre-Requisites might get a bit of business, because some optional quests aren't offered until certain Story quests are finished. The actual quest pages might help in this regard. --Mileron 22:20, 10 December 2007 (CET)
- I've been keeping track of those this time through. I've been adding them to the quest pages as I put the template and infobox on them. Being able to see at a glance which story quest you need to finish before an optional one is offered will help, I think. We're not using Prerequisites to list quests you need to have completed in the same quest line.
- Do you like the quest names better bold or plain? (See above.) --Cydira 23:17, 10 December 2007 (CET)
- I like the layout as it is for the most part, with plain text. I am a big fan of really small text but I know Elly, for one, doesn't so lets go with this size. --Leord 12:36, 11 December 2007 (CET)
Archived the Old
I archived the old page, but kept the talk page. We needed to have the NPC page free of the old clutter so people will add relevant game information to it. It's very much a stub now, but I hope that'll change soon. No one was editing the archived page. --Cydira 08:32, 11 December 2007 (CET)
- Just as well, we need to update some of the gargantuan big info pages Flux spent ages on creating. I'll jump on that shortly, am focusing more on layout, choice of links on main page and left toolbar ([[User:Leord/Wiki_Navigation|look here), help pages, and then the bigger content pages (including archiving old stuff). --Leord 12:38, 11 December 2007 (CET)
