User talk:Xodusness

From Hellgatewiki.com

Hi! Good work on the equipment pages; helps get things moving, that's for sure! I just have a couple of thoughts/suggestions, as I add my item data in. Lvl is being used twice, to refer both to item level and character level. I suggest changing Lvl in the table headings to iLv/iLvl and in the item requirements to cLv/cLvl to clear up any possible confusion over the differing level information. Another is with the names. Right now it has such like Apprentice Cope, or Aspirant Salet. I'd like us to get rid of the second word, because there are multiple words to describe the item type (boots, hat, whatever) for each item level naming designation (apprentice, mistwalker, etc...). For example,for mistwalker helmets (for templar) i have Visor, Helmet, Kabuto... but it's all the same item. The second word is randomized. By getting rid of the second word I think it'll help keep the lists easy to read at a glance (less verbose), and not cause people confusion when they are looking up Pyric Chestguard, and find Pyric Haubergen, or some such. Could maybe have a listing of all the different words the game uses for Helmet, or Torso Armor, in it's own field at the top or bottom, or something? Something also has to be thought up to Faction the various weapons, as right now they are all clumped together, but in-game, each item is clearly sectioned off to a particular faction, just as with armor. I'm happy to help with making such changes. In the meantime, I'll be adding some of my item information. Tenera 09:13, 9 November 2007 (CET)

Oh, also, I think things should be broken down more, into the categories provided by the game. i.e. Swordsman, Defender, Order, Novice. Whether all equipment types are listed under those headings, or if it is first organized by equipment slot, and THEN by the category... either would work I think. perhaps something like this:

Templar Normal Armor

• Head
  • Novice
  • Defender
  • Order
  • Swordsman
• Shoulders
  • Novice

OR

Templar Normal Armor

• Novice
  • head
  • shoulders
  • etc...
• Defender
  • head
  • shoulders
  • etc...

It would help, I think. Also, it tells people something about the gear. As each of the "categories" has unique properties about them. IE swordsman armor is going to have armor and shields, and probably melee speed bonuses to some effect. Defender gear is going to be high armor, possibly have thorns, and HP bonuses. Order has the special defense vs all... and so on. I personally prefer the first organization method (Eq slot -> Category), I think. It would also allow for easy linking, because we'd then use a header to declare the equipment slot, allowing for a table of contents, and linking from elsewhere in the wiki ([[Normal Templar Armor#Shoulders]]). Then the sub-types/categories can be named in the table as the equipment slots are now, OR given a sub-header, as well, and then just simply have a table without that top title cell. Thoughts? Tenera 09:29, 9 November 2007 (CET)

I replied on a PM to your forum account with details :) The rough of it: I changed Lvl to iLvl, and lvl to cLvl, I also added a column in armors for "Category" such as novice, etc :) --Xodusness 14:56, 9 November 2007 (CET)

Try to either reply here, or on people's talk pages, so we can reference and display your discussions to others. ;) I just wanted to add that there is more than one "description name", , so you have the lvl 1-10 or something, armor called something else. --Leord 16:49, 9 November 2007 (CET)

Yeah, I will in the future, but I didn't understand how this worked when I responded, so jsut did so via PM :p And when I foudn out this was how it worked, I tried to copy it over ehre, but I had loads of quotes etc so it didn't work in an easy way :) --Not really sure what you're talking about in the second part of that sorry o.O --Xodusness 18:06, 9 November 2007 (CET)

Here's relevant parts of the PM for the discussion... About the "second name" of armors, he wrote

Well, I kinda disagree with you on this one, since the different "second-name" (noun) to the armors (at least on equip above lvl 10-15) makes for different modifiers on the armor piece, which makes it a stand-alone item all-together

I haven't found any examples of this. Every item so far has been purely designed by the first word in the name. I have items of everywhere from iLv1-iLv28 with multiple descriptor names (spaulders, epaulets, gorget, etc...) but they're still all the same item. Now, I have items that are exactly the same in every way except ONE property, and they have a different first name. For Example, at iLv16:

• Brigadier Crossed Shoulders (order armor), has inherent 20 def all sp.attacks with 15 armor. Requires cLv 11 and 4 str.
• Guardian Gorget, exact same as Brigadier Crossed, except it also has an additional bonus of 8 def vs all sp attacks.
• Pyric Gorget, exact same as Brigadier Crossed, except it has a bonus of +36 HP.

But... Guardian Wristbands, guardian bracers, guardian heavy gauntlets, and Guardian arm guards are all the same item. There are duplicates like this in the listings now. If the second word does matter in some cases though, at least those instances will need to be taken care of. Also, the first word is sometimes used across factions.

Regarding Weapon Organization, he wrote:

For melee weapons this really sint neccesary since they're all labelled "swords", but I was thinking about this when I made the lists for rifles & pistols (you can see I implemented it into foci] The thing that made me drop that on the rifles and pistols, and instead jsut sort everything after iLvl (with the weapon type information put in of course) is that if we make it sorted after to many factors, there'll just be alot of editing on it since people will put different weaps where they "shouldn't" be etc.. misplacement so to speak.. Thought I'd keep it simple, at least for now... In time when every weapon category has more weapons in them, it might be more feasible to make it understandable where to put things, since there will be a multitude of items everywhere

For melee, you're right, it's not really a big deal, but I think it's very confusing as it is right now for guns. Because a very big portion of the lists (once they are filled out more) will be completely unusable to the person looking through them, depending on what class they are looking up for. I think it would be easier to start with the categories now, even if they the tables are smaller as a result, because it creates less work later. Because eventually things will need to be broken down, as more and more items are discovered and/or added to the game. (Plan for the future ^^).
Regarding Armor organization, he wrote:

Atm I think theres generally too few items in these lists aswell to sort them after "type" in every category so to speak, for the same reasons as weapons. As for the thing about category, I wanted a sort of that implemented, but didnt know how to do it at the time I made it, but if you look at the way it is now:
Normal Templar Armor:
Head blabla blabla
Shoulders
blabla

wouldn't it jsut be possible to change it into something like this?
Normal Templar Armor: [[Normal Templar Head Armor|Head:]]<br> blabla<br> [[Normal Templar Shoulder Armor|Shoulders]]<br> That was what I had in mind when I made it anyway, if that is doable, feel free to input the category links, and have links to them where suitable
Regards, -xodus

There's too few right now, but that won't stay that way for long. I haven't been to nightmare yet, and my list is already quite large, although I know i'm missing quite a few items. Also, I think it just helps organize things. If you look at something like Arreat Summit for D2, there aren't a lot of item types in the various categories, but by having them it helps keep things orderly. That's kind of how I see setting up different sections for the armor. Plus, it makes it easier to look for a particular "kind" of item, when they are grouped like that, as order armor is always going to have certain properties, just as swordsman armor is always going to have certain properties. By setting up the categories or ordering that could be necessary later, now, we end up saving a lot of work. As later on there will be a LOT more items to reorganize and move around.
For the linking, it doesn't quite work like that. That linking you posted would like to an entirely different page (which is an option). What I meant was linking to the page Normal Templar Armor. And further linking to the Heading Head/Shoulders/whatever. Normal Templar Armor#Head means go to that page, and look for the header "Head" and go to that. Doing it that way will also create a table of contents at the top of the page, so people can click that to go down to the equipment slot they want. :) I'll set that up though, and it won't really change how the pages are set up, it just moves the "title cell" from the table, and into a header on the page.
I did up the "Helmet" section like I mean and you can tell me what you think (Leord too!), the current set up won't be lost at all, as the wiki saves back versions of pages, and we can recall it easily enough. Also, I set up the Headers, so everything is linkable now, along with a table of contents. I'll get around to doing that to the other pages too. --Tenera 04:56, 10 November 2007 (CET)

---I've looked at the Helms section, and also the templar normal armor part, and my opinion is this: Good idea on the headers, and ToC, thumbs up :) I think we should still keep the category name in the tables aswell as in the heading, since the heading is on the sides, and it would be easier to "spot" so to speak :)

As for melee, I'm glad you agree :)

And for Foci, I'm considering merging the categories there, and jsut display the "type" in a column of it's own after "iLvl" since wether an item is a Locus or a Lens is not heavily related to styles of play (like pistols/rifles), as in wether you choose a Locus or Lens doesnt really depend on the "Inherenet attribute" but rather the magical modifiers.. That plus the fact theres not "that" many of them compared to at least pistols :) Whats your thoughts on this?

As for pistols and rifles, I see your point about "better sooner than later" tbh.. So sorting them after "Nova Guns" "Rocket Pistols" "Machine Guns" etc, and "Automatic" "Heavy Rifle" "Sniper" etc, seems viable to me.. If you agree to this, feel free to modify it in that fashion :)

However, as for sorting armor pieces after "Order" "Swordsman" etc, I still disagree, since I personally don't feel that they differ that much in playstyles, as I'm more concerned about the magical modifiers on them (even if your a tanking guardian, you may run around with swordsmans armor pieces, and vice versa with Defenders pieces), plus I feel it gets a bit messy overlook-wise to have the armor page divided into the various slots, and all of them divided into 5 more sections if you know what I mean :) Additionally, the attributes of those "categories" will be easier to compare in order to find what pieces your aiming for (if you use the modifier 3000 or whatever its name is) if theyre located next to each other sorted by iLvl, than if you have to look up multiple places in each table for it :)

As for there not beeing any difference in stats due to second name, I have to prove you wrong on this one, sorry:( (EDITMisread your views on this, as you clearly said you didn't rule out this might be the case in some cases, sorry) For example. Aspirant boots, and Aspirant kicks, are both iLvl 3 Templar boots, same armor value, but one of them requires strength to be worn, the other nothing.. I know this is a minor and kinda unimportant difference, but my main point in this, is that those items that has a different second name to them, even though stats are alike in most cases, they have different quotes on them (the ingame quote on each item) which points to the fact that they are not random, but placed there with care.. (if they were random affixes they would have the same quote:)) And lastly, I personally feel that a different named item, is a different item alltogether, even tho the stats are alike, so i'd really like to include them in the list :) I also feel that only listing the first name of any armor piece due to that feels kinda "empty" so to speak :)

So to summarize:

• I really like the headers, and ToC, thumbs up :)
• Melee weapons list stays as it is then
• Your thoughts on the Foci category merging, and instead just list the category in a column?
• Pistols and Rifles, I agree, feel free to implement it :)
• Armor sorted after category in different tables, I still disagree sorry :(
• Second name on armors, if you don't want to obsess about that like I do, feel free to not, jsut list one of each like you want to, and Ill post the variations :) I'd still like to keep the "second name" on the item's name column tho :)
• EDIT: Oh btw, forgot to tell you, but I REALLY appreciate you taking the time to engage yourself in this, thanks ^_^

• I'd also very much like an official opinion on this discussion and layout from Leord :)

Regards --Xodusness 14:45, 10 November 2007 (CET)

I'll add the titles back into the tables, then. Since the tables are centered, the headers are less noticeable, as you say. I think you're probably right about merging the foci items. I don't think there's much point separating them out either, as it is only the inherent attributes pretty much that vary between types, well, and the look of course. For the armor, I see what you mean about having three lists to look up iLvls for. I agree that you're going to mix and match across all the categories or whatever from time to time, unless you had a specific plan from the get go or something. I'll leave helms as is for now, but add data to the other tables as they are now. I personally think it makes it easier to read/compare, but *shrug* that's just a personal preference thing I thinks, and i'm not really sure what it is that's making it so for me (maybe that it's stretched to the full page? I dunno).

I actually saw those two items you mentioned shortly after writing up above, heh. I haven't found any others, BUT I do think we should avoid exact duplicates in the tables. So if A B, A C, and A D are all the exact same, we could list it as: A B, C, D in the table? And then A E which is different in stats, has it's own row? I have been recording all the different names as well, and I would like to see the various nouns used included too. --Tenera 02:58, 11 November 2007 (CET)

--I added the titles back :) Will get around to merge Foci, and sure, we can keep the templar page as is for the time beeing, and see how things turn out :) Pretty good idea about the duplicates ^^ So let's enter duplicates like this then:

• -----------------------------------------
• Greenhorn Ballistic Vest ---- -
• Greenhorn Aramid Fiber Jack - bla -- bla -- bla -- bla -- bla etc
• Greenhorn Aramid Fiber Vest -
• -----------------------------------------
• next item

what do you think? --Xodusness 14:39, 11 November 2007 (CET)

Merged the Foci now :) --Xodusness 14:55, 11 November 2007 (CET)

• Reddimus PMd me this:

Hey there,

I'd like to comment on your charts--the setup looks really good and seems easier to input data.

I'd recommend merging the Damage column with Type and Range as currently there are no ranges listed for the second type. It would be nice if they were at least near each other if this seems too sketchy. Something like:

Type/Damage/Range D/10-20/2m S/5-12/2.5m

If that saves some space in the chart, then maybe the mod window can specify which type of mods the weapon has, up to three per row:

2tech, 1fuel, 1batt, 1rec, 2ammo, 1roc

or

2T, 1F, 1B, 1Rl, 2A, 1Ro

Thanks

• I replied:

I agree with merging damage and D.type, and will implement that :)

However range is of different importance on differnt weapons, and is displayed stand-alone in-game aswell, so I would like to keep that one as it is :)

As for mods, what you mention would be handy, I've thought abuot it aswell, but I'm even though it seems so right now due to my lack of very in-depth data on weapons so far, I mean to have Mods sorted like this: 2-6, 0-3 etc.. Which displays how many mods the weapon "can" have, and seeing as the type of mods, and slots of those etc is somewhat random on quite afew pieces: (I've seen a 4slot sword three times, 3relics, 1fuel - 2batteries, 2relics - 1fuel, 1 battery, 2relics) which would make listing that kinda more extensive than is really useful imo =/

Besides I'm making a list of all the possible modifiers on Mods, and from what I can tell, you can get every kind of modifier values, in any slots, so does it really matter?

Please tell me your continued thoughts on this subject :)

Regards

-Xodus

• He replied:

I think you are right on the mods part, however, I do like planning around certain mod types.. just for the specific reason that I have bad luck finding good ones :P

As for the range thing, how about just moving the column closer to the damage listing then?

Thanks for responding. :blush:

• My answer:

I can move the range column on pistols/rifles/foci 2 spots closer to the name, but will leave weapons as it is since range isn't of that importance there :) --Xodusness 15:03, 11 November 2007 (CET)

Those abbreviations for mod types works for me, lol, they're the exact same that I'm using in my spreadsheet. I think it will be worthwhile to at the very least, note the numbers of the individual mod types for now, in addition to a simple maximum mod slots value. I think we need more data to come to any concrete conclusions, but I'm getting the feeling that there is a maximum total mods based on the item type, AND a maximum for certain kinds of mods. So a sword might be allowed say, 4 mods, but a maximum of 2 fuel mods. I'm keeping data on both to see if I can't find a relationship between them (ie, do the maximum mod types always end up adding up to the total maximum mods value?). If we can somehow work it into the tables accurately, I think that's a good goal to have, particularly as the indepth items page templates (for individual items) breaks it down into mod types, as well. But, for "at a glance" tables, it might end up being much cleaner/easier/better to just have the max number only. Still, it's good data to record, if only for the individual pages. And I do think the individual pages will still show up, as it will provide more information, like screen shots (the mod types?), the in-game quote, and any possible notes players may have about the item's individual uses... as it isn't always clear how a weapon works or functions in looking at the details... for example Nova Guns, and Cinderspikes. --Tenera 04:23, 13 November 2007 (CET)

Restart

Hi! Sorry for late reply, I have had my GF over to visit me here in England, so I have spent time on other things than Wiki. This is a LOT of text on this talk page, and quite hard to follow. Make sure you sign all your posts, and perhaps put any quotes from PMs in italic text.

I wanted to say that we seem to work very good together, and as an overview info page, this is actually seeming a lot more sensible to me now. I was afraid that it would be too much work, but as there really is limited weapons and items, it should be possible. If you guys have msn/icq, feel free to add me: targetgamer @ home . se and 39837459. Would be really good to have more rapid discussions, and more compressed text on progress in talk pages, whenever possible =) I will try to lick Skills organisation today, and then I am moving over to items much much more, including these overviews. We should move this discussion to an official page, and make sure Community Portal links there. --Leord 13:30, 13 November 2007 (CET)

No worries mate :) Thanks for the feedback, and yes, I propably agree it woul be better to have this somewhere else :) Feel free to move it where it belongs :) Regards--Xodusness 13:57, 13 November 2007 (CET)

Not moving as such, just dedicating a new home to it. You are the initiatior, you should decide ;) These pages needs to be well categorised etc as well. Suggesting we put them in the regular weapon cats + special overview cat. --Leord 14:16, 13 November 2007 (CET)

Just to clarify, you're not talking about moving this whole talk page, just moving the future discussion to the talk page on the main page of the list? If so, theres already been some discussing there, so that's all good :) As for the placement of the section itself, is that alright as it is? Regards--Xodusness 16:50, 13 November 2007 (CET)

Message

I have an important message to all Wikians on my user page :) --Leord 18:41, 30 November 2007 (CET)

I just sent you a forum PM =) --Leord 16:28, 10 December 2007 (CET)

Yep, read, read and replied :)

Hey man! Had a good Christmas? I actually spent new years in Oslo! --Leord 13:14, 9 January 2008 (CET)

Hey! Yeah, I had a a good time =) Aaah, cool, how was it in there?