Talk:Attribute combinations

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Vista-file-manager.png
Archive



Captain[edit]

Where does this name come from? 76.253.2.43 06:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Prefix selection list on the new craftable back items. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 15:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Forsaken[edit]

What is this and where can it be acquired? Is this just a theoretical stat combination? Tsafran (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is only available for leveling equipment. I don't have any of these myself in-game, so I'm going off of the API data. It also isn't listed on pages such as Handcrafted Barking Dog, so either we've overlooked it or it is unimplemented. G R E E N E R 15:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It's on the loot versions, not the crafted versions. See Barking Dog etc. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback 2015/11/07[edit]

In the new four attribute section near the end of the article, some of the links to the Ascended versions point to the Guild Wars 1 version of the wiki. The 10 yr old game that preceded this one. I'm guessing this is a mistake. :) --67.190.103.161 15:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That is deliberate. Most ascended equipment names are based on various characters from the Guild Wars lore, which includes the first game. The links lead to the predecessor's wiki for articles on characters that have otherwise no connection to this game but appeared in GW1. User Noxx Sig.png 16:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Crusader's and Marauder's stats[edit]

While these were added in HoT, they should be available to players who don't have HoT since they were added to the ascended recipes boxes and the required materials can be acquired on the TP. Seylan (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Stats[edit]

Would be nice if we could add a stat's section somewhere with the actual numbers for each major/minor attribute for easy reference. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.54.64 (talk).

Impractical. Every level and every rarity differs in amount. It'd only be consistent for the quadruple stats but still duplicate for each stat as they all have exotic and ascended variations (though only level 80). Konig 22:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
"For information about specific attribute values granted by different types of equipment, see Equipment#Attribute bonuses." β€”Mora 23:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Named Links[edit]

Maybe each named ascended set should get their own page. Currently, the name links to the actual character it was named after. However, people coming to this page aren't interested in lore: they're interested in stats, how to get it, where to craft, etc. So the link should point to an appropriate page (likeYassith->Yassith's armor). In the trivia of that page, the link to the character can be placed. I know there's both armor and weapons, so just linking to the armor page wouldn't work. But as it stands now, it links to the gw1 wiki and that's even less helpful. 80.112.180.116 12:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I did the exact same thing last night when pondering builds. I wasn't too surprised when I ended up on the GW1W, but there really is no need for that nor any of the other links which lead to characters rather than stats. A link tells me there's more relevant information; there wasn't. G R E E N E R 17:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI, there is info for acquiring ascended equipment on the pages for ascended weapons, ascended armor, and ascended trinkets. Putting that information on separate pages for every prefix looks like it would be largely duplicative. Felbryn (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Those pages already exist anyway. The current setup is VERY confusing and really belongs in a trivia section, not as a main link. 80.112.180.116 08:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you at least show that it's an external link maybe? 80.112.180.116 10:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I've killed all the links to name related trivia. Each ascended page probably has its own trivia section already. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 11:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Stats 2[edit]

I am not very good with wiki, so I'm going to leave my thoughts via feedback if that's ok. Can we put the Table of Attribute numbers somewhere else? I looked through the talk page and it looks like it used to be in the Equipment#Attribute_bonuses section (as of January 2016), but it's not there anymore, and that little section left is honestly quite uninformative. I would never have thought to look for the actual numbers here in "Prefixes." Yes, I realize there are two redirect links, but they both point to pages that aren't readily clear which the actual numbers would be on. --174.52.8.94 23:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The attribute bonus table needs to be moved to equipment as prefix only relates to the attribute distribution, not the total attribute bonus derived from armor type and rarity, which seems to be the purpose of this table.--Relyk ~ talk < 23:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Table Layout[edit]

Can we make the table layout a little easier to use? Just throwing out my observations on the recent changes and how difficult it makes the tables to see the information clearly:

The "Availability" sections with all the checkmarks is duplicated on the Equipment_acquisition_by_stats page, and it makes it kindof hard to quickly see what prefixes are. I propose removing it. --174.52.8.94 23:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we put the Prefix name at the far left of the table? And sortable? I'm not sure why it's one of the middle columns, but when you're looking for prefixes, it's easier to scan for the name you want rather than having the Attributes columns first. Making it sortable will help in ease of finding the prefix needed. --174.52.8.94 23:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there was a reason the prefixes were split out into tables by 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-Attribute, but it makes it harder to find the prefix you are looking for if you don't know whether it's a 1/2/3/or 4 prefix. Might it not be easier to just have it as one table? It would be clear visually from the Attribute columns how many different attributes it has. --174.52.8.94 23:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

How do you acquire ascended equipment of the following stats? (Forsaken, Apostate, Captain)[edit]

Is it possible to get level 80 ascended quality weapons, armor, and trinkets that have the Forsaken, Apostate, or Captain stat combinations? --60.50.93.175 23:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not possible to obtain those in ascended quality. -Darqam (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Band of the Brotherhood is an ascended ring with Captain's stats, as well as a couple of others... https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Ascended_trinket#Trinkets_with_predefined_prefixes and it's selectable from Mawdrey β€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.43.241 (talk) at 21:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC).

Just to clarify: At level 80, Captain's is only available on trinkets. --118.101.154.104 19:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

no, it is also selectable from ascended back pieces. β€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.54.135 (talk) at 02:14, 18 August 2017β€Ž (UTC).

Moved to "Prefix" - why?[edit]

This article is not solely about prefixes but about suffixes as well. Thus "Item nomenclature" is more accurate, and has worked for quite some time. Why was it changed? I suggest moving it back. "Prefix" (and "Suffix") could redirect to "Item nomenclature" instead. Konig (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As the history says, simpler and more intuitive name. "Item nomenclature" is inaccurate and generic as hell, and wouldn't cover some of the current information, like attribute bonuses at level 80. Also, prefix is easier to link from ingame, as it's a name everyone uses, unlike "item nomenclature". Removing the move suggestion until the discussion is over.
If you think [[item nomenclature]] could use its own page, covering prefixes together with sigils, runes, and skin names, then that's an entirely different matter, and I see no problems.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
If you knew English, you'd know that Prefix is an entirely false usage. A prefix refers to a preceding (before) term, while a suffix is a succeeding (after) term. This article is about both prefixes and suffixes and the first line is just outright cringing. And should be to anyone who knows English.
Item nomenclature is actually entirely accurate as it refers to shared naming styles, wich is exactly what this articles is about - the shared naming style of stats via prefixes on weapons and armors and suffixes on trinkets.
Sigils and runes actually wouldn't be covered by item nomenclature because it's not a shared naming beyond minor/major/superior runes/sigils, and skin names are only in so far as sets.
As for "generic as hell", prefix is even *more* generic because it's just about preceding terms, rather than shared naming, which this article is more about. Konig (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
This page definitely contains (and should contain) more than just prefixes. The subtitles should also be redone to reflect such. G R E E N E R 21:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I just Googled "nomenclature" because even as a native English speaker, I have no idea what it means, and apparently its "the devising or choosing of names for things, especially in a science or other discipline." Prefix is "a word, letter, or number placed before another." Unless I'm mistaken/very confused(which is likely), isn't this page about a name that appears before a weapon or trinket that indicates what stats it has? - Doodleplex 21:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to say that "prefix" is a far more logical title for anyone trying to guess what the page is called rather than "item nomenclature". -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 21:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd counter with "that's why we have redirects." ; ) We don't expect everyone to be experts, but if we're gathering and organizing items based on a naming convention, why wouldn't we call it item nomenclature? What people notice the page they were redirected to after they type "prefix" into the search bar? G R E E N E R 21:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Doodle: The majority of this is about prefixes (Armor and Weapon stat names), but as the very first line says, it's also about suffixes (Trinket stat names). That makes the article name a misnomer for a third of the article.
As for searching - honestly, it would NEVER occur to me to search "prefix" since that's so generic of a word - or suffix for that matter - and could refer to a ton more things in the game than stat naming conventions. I would probably search "Inscription" or "Insignia" instead, but those articles are specifically about the items rather than the stat naming conventions. Item nomenclature has worked for years without complaint. I see no reason to move it to a massive misnomer of an article name which misuses English to the nth degree.
If we really want to leave the name at something that would be commonly searched, then "Stat" would probably be more fitting than something that is wrong vocabulary. (EDIT: But that's a redirect to Attribute which is probably a far better and more common search intent). Konig (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
How about something more like "Attribute combinations" or "Attribute distribution"? I would argue that describes the overall core concept of the page better; the prefix/suffix names seem to me more like data points/aspects of this overall concept, along with the availability and stat bonuses of these combinations which are also covered. (Also, any value in adding the info directly to the Attribute page instead of its own page? Or at least have prominent links from there for this closely related info.) Mayhap (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Attribute combinations would be the right name, but prefix is better because it's what the players use to refer to this information. Usability should go first, before semantics or naming conventions that have no use outside our editor circle. "Prefix" is all over the wiki as well, since long before I overhauled this page.
Stats wouldn't work because it covers strength and defense as well, which aren't part of attribute combinations. Item nomenclature can refer to things beyond attributes and stats, hence it's wrong for the current content of the page.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
This might sound crazy but if it's a page about prefixes and suffixes, maybe you could title it "prefixes and suffixes". --Azurem (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I have never once heard folks respond to stat combinations as "Prefix" in four years of playing GW2. It's always been "stats" of "Insignia"/"Inscription" among everyone I've ever talked to. And the reason why I would argue that naming the article "Prefixes and Suffixes" is the same as why just "Prefix" is - too generic. Prefix and suffixes can refer to a large number of things.
Personally, I don't see the problem with nomenclature all of a sudden (I'd argue "State nomenclature" is more accurate than "Item nomenclature" but still nomenclature is the proper vocabulary term for this article's topic), but if we must change it, then I'd argue Attribute combinations (even if that'd be wrong for low level stat naming conventions (aka nomenclature)). Konig (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
There are more than enough people who use the term prefix. This just for information. I'm no native english speaker but I think that the term "Prefix" doesn't apply for this article too. I can't give good examples for a new article name, but Prefix does not feel right at all. --Cloned (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the common denominator Affix? I know some other games do use this term. Kanda (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Item nomenclature is an unnecessarily vague title, that hides information from users. Prefix is a common term for it anyway (after things like 'stat combo' etc) and the terms are mostly used as prefixes (berserker armor, berserker weapons, minstrel chronomancer etc) Sure each prefix has a corresponding suffix, but they are not often used and really don't have to be in the title. Suffix already redirects to Prefix anyway.

For what it's worth I think Item Nomenclature is a more accurate name for the page. I admit I always found the page by typing in either 'prefix' or one of the combination names like 'rabid' because I'm terrible at spelling and less likely to get a short word wrong, but that doesn't make it an accurate name for the article. It's about the names of items based on their stats so Item Nomenclature makes perfect sense. Or if that sounds too technical what about something like 'Attribute Combinations'? Something that makes it clear what the page is actually describing, instead of naming it after just one part of that because it's easier. We wouldn't apply that logic to any other page would we? Should Twilight Arbor be called TA because that's how most people refer to it in-game? No, we use the correct name and add redirects to help people find it if they don't know the proper name. Danikat (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

^ This is exactly why we use redirects. It's the whole point of them. People can type in their own word for the topic and get taken to the proper page with an accurate name.
"Prefix" is not an accurate name for what's being covered; it describes only half of the content. There are a fair number of alternate suggestions above. Do we believe they are all less accurate than Prefix? G R E E N E R 20:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
In any case, "Attribute combinations" would be the correct name. Item nomenclature isn't about stats, it's about item names, which includes skins, runes, etc.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I would have to argue "Item Nomenclature" is not entirely accurate. Loosely defined, it would mean something along the lines of "the naming of items." And I'm certain this page is not going to be talking about how an Iron Sword is different from a Bronze Sword, or why Ring of Red Death and Crystalline Band have the same attribute distribution even though they have different names. It would be a stretch to have it include item prefixes as well.
"Prefix" is not an entirely accurate name either, as most people have pointed out. "Prefix and suffix" wouldn't be entirely accurate without mentioning the suffixes given by runes, but that's easily fixed. It would also be a mouthful. Perhaps we can do what the Diablo wiki does and name this page "Affix," as that would encompass most, if not all, of this page. Intricity (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This page compiles the naming conventions of items based on their stats. This includes attribute prefixes and suffixes, and the names of attribute upgrades such as gemstones, jewels and crests. That is not only prefixes. That is not only affixes. But it isn't 'item nomenclature' either, since that would include the entire construction of names including skin names, runes and sigils. So by process of elimination the name would have to be "Item attribute nomenclature", and "Prefix", "suffix", "affix" and their plurals should redirect here, and the crest and gemstone pages should have 'see also' links to this page (Universal upgrade already does). That seems to be the logical conclusion. Mith🌟Talk 07:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Note from Darqam: Comment below was moved from above for proper chronological order. It was made in response to Konig's earlier comment.
If pedantic nit-picking wasn't bad enough, this kind of too-frequent, not-so-subtle condescending attitude is why I don't regularly bother contributing to this wiki anymore. As a plebian, uneducated normal user, it took me long enough to even learn this page existed due to the register of the term "nomenclature". I've been using it for years now though, and I was slightly pleased to see the redirect to "Prefix," even if it's not entirely accurate or complete -- but then again, neither was "item nomenclature," as others have argued quite well. I suppose nothing really changes from this argument due to redirects, but what if someone removed the "item nomenclature" redirect due to "accuracy"? It'd hamper a lot of users' ability to find their info, even if temporarily. And isn't that exactly the opposite of what a wiki's supposed to do?
This seems to be a common hazard for wiki editors -- losing focus of what the point of what a wiki is actually for and getting up in arms about matters of petty pride. Here's an idea: if there's an issue like this, why not ask the actual end users and tailor the wiki for THEIR use? Go poll a few forums or something: "What would you search for if..." After all, is the point of a wiki not for them? And I know this may be a "public discussion," but I bet that the average public user does not click the "Discussion" tab with any regularity.
If any avid wiki editors can't handle a civil conversation, then maybe take a break or self-imposed vacation? You're not getting paid for this, and to be blunt, what you do here is not a unique skill. Nobody dies from wrong info or formatting, so it's not worth ruining your day or ruining anyone else's. Being rude to people just turns off people from wanting to do what is essentially an unpaid job, and less input from the crowd means more work for that somewhat limited pool of regular contributors. Sincerely, Average User

end comment move-Darqam 04:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Prefix always used to redirect to Item nomenclature. Anyone who searched for it would've found the page just fine --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The main reason why I moved it to begin with was because normal users who gave me feedback while I overhauled the page hated the previous name, really.
I like prefix because it's simple and to the point. It's also better for table aesthetics, since it's shorter. Suffix is irrelevant, used in very specific situations only, and it's there for information purposes.
I also used prefix all across the other pages I overhauled parallel to this one: Ascended trinket, ascended back item, ascended weapon, ascended armor. When users read those pages, they identify what the term is easily, and then can search for it. I think usability should be the top priority, and prefix is the best solution, though the correct name would be "Attribute combinations", which is already stated at the first line of the article.
Also, prefix is friendlier for search engines, since it's a single word and isn't used anywhere else, leading to better indexing. If you type "prefix", you get all the pages where we deal with stats and such, while no normal user would search for item nomenclature.
What I really think needs to be done is an overhaul to Stats, which would work as an index for everything equipment, and have links to all pages related, including this one. Use it to explain how stats work in this game clearly. After all "stats" is the most used term to search anything related to equipment numbers. Maybe even go as far as to merge this page with attribute, though I think that one should focus on explaining each one, and leave combinations elsewhere for size and clarity purposes.
And yeah, the poll suggestions from the anonymous user above could be a very good idea to solve these kind of conflicts. Reader usability should go first.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
If the entire putpose behind the name Prefix is "easier to search", I just gotta quote Greener: "I'd counter with "that's why we have redirects." ; )". Or Gimmethegepgun just above. Given the discussion, as I see it, the only purpose behind the name Prefix is just "people will search it" and that's... never been a problem because Prefix already redirected to the article regardless. I think "Attribute combinations" - Lon-Ami agreed to that above and I think it works well enough (far better than prefix). So I'll be moving it to there and doing minor cleanup for the name change. If folks don't like that after all, then we can keep discussing. Konig (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with this.--Relyk ~ talk < 21:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The easier to search referred to search engines, both the wiki's and externals, like google, which doesn't give a damn about redirects, only page titles matter.
You also do a vote, or wait for the conversation to end before moving everything in a ruse. I haven't agreed to move it to "attribute combinations" at all, I said that would be the correct name, but then again, the correct name isn't always the best name, specially when you regard usability. I would even prefer "Stats" for the name page, considering that's the one used ingame when you switch legendary attributes.
I'm not fine with this, in any way. This is not how you do things in collaborative environments, specially when you haven't worked on the original article being affected in the first place.
Putting back the move suggestion tag until the discussion is really over.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It's obvious that we won't get a unanimous agreement, so I went with what seemed to be the most liked name. The discussion was dead for a full month until Mith's comment and an overly hostile IP's who didn't seem to bother reading the full discussion given what they said. When things come to a standstill, like this most definitely did, then we go to what seems the best option and as it stands, "attribute combinations" is the best middle ground we have. Because it's painfully obvious there's not going to be a full agreement on this topic. You either get terribly inaccurate "what shows up on google" or you get accurate but hard to search. As I see it, by the comments, this is the best concession we can get. Konig (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: Also, I feel that "Stats" is used more in reference Attribute than this. Konig (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I was remiss in not circling back to this conversation. As was pointed out, my preference for "item nomenclature" was too broad, and covered more than I expected. I'm happy with "attribute combinations". G R E E N E R 01:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
When there's no consensus you usually leave things as they were, but whatever.
"Stats" is the term used by the game, as well as the most used one by the players, even if technically ambiguous. If we're going to move away from prefix altogether, that's my alternative.
Proof here for those who can't check it by themselves.
The stats page is already on use, and needs to be deleted by someone with the right permissions before moving the article. A mod should make the move, and no one else.
Next time something like this happens I suggest making an internal poll, like 99% of the other civilized wikis do, and also going to the community for feedback before said poll, not doing anything until said poll is over.
Unilateral decisions and using lack of activity as excuses are not very healthy practices.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
"When there's no consensus you usually leave things as they were, but whatever." Um, no, because that means one side "wins" and the other side gets nothing they preferred in cases such as these ("change vs leave alone"). A middle ground is always what you go for, and that's what Attribute combinations is. A middle ground. If the discussion was about Change A versus Change B, then you'd be right.
"Next time something like this happens I suggest [...] going to the community for feedback" You apparently missed the move tag and even Dashface Darqam created a page on reddit regarding this situation.
"Unilateral decisions and using lack of activity as excuses are not very healthy practices." Except that's how it's always been done. If a discussion stops happening, then people have stated their piece and have no more to add. At that point, someone must look over the comments and decide what happens. That's what I did. No different than a poll, really, except more reading. You're not completely happy with the results? Too bad, neither am I. That's why it's called a middle ground - because no one's completely happy with them, but it doesn't give one side completely over the other. Konig (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If things work, you leave them alone. First rule of information technologies.
By the community I mean the players, which are not acquainted with how wikis or talk pages work. And I don't see any links here to neither reddit nor the official forums, so how do you expect people here to see it and participate?
You don't have any authority above any other editor to take unilateral decisions, over pages you didn't even work with, to make thing worse. And I don't see the conversation is dead, specially when I posted further discussion minutes before you decided we weren't allowed to keep talking about this anymore. In fact, you ignored my whole post previous to your move, not bothering to reply to any of my suggestions right before deciding there was nothing more to talk about.
A recommended reading. And yeah, I insist on the further move to "Stats", since it's the term used ingame, and attribute combinations is not player friendly enough.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't you think it's disingenuous to complain about someone taking unilateral action when you're the one who moved it to Prefix in the first place, with no discussion at all? --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Just dropping by for a link, the reddit thread mentioned is, I think, the one I made here. Two ideas where discussed in the same thread, so a bit of filtering is needed. -Darqam 17:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hypocrisy aside, the thing is that things did not work. Hence the entire point of this discussion. If things worked, we wouldn't be discussing it. The conversation was pretty much dead. There was a gap of two weeks with no comment, a few comments, then another gap of two comments, resparked by someone throwing insults (and Mith's suggestion). When you go a month without progression in the discussion (which we did), that's a dead discussion. I could have waited for another month to pass with little to no comments added. Discussion only reignited so much because I took an initiative to enforce a middle ground that I admitted may only be temporary. Konig (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: All this said, we're now starting to get off topic, caring more about "wiki etiquette" than the actual subject matter, which is a proper name for this. I disagree with stats because that's used in reference to attributes. It's not used in-game (if I'm wrong, please point out where it is), and players only use it in reference in a sense of "what stats are on this gear" (and variations thereof) which is no different than saying "what attributes are on this gear". There was the suggestion of merging this page with Attributes, however, I feel that would make the article too long. Of all names I've seen, the only name that I feel works best is Item Affix - or Affix if you're wanting to be overly general like Prefix was (since Affix refers to both prefix and suffix). But we run into the issue of "searchable by players". The fact is there is no singular best term for searching. There are dozens if not over a hundred ways to refer to this topic, because there is no official name. So it is up to us to make an unofficial term for this. That's what Item Nomenclature was, since it is an organization of the nomenclature of attribute combinations; yeah, it's harder to search, but there is no "easy to search" option without resorting to redirects, which we did, and no google search will ever be effective enough to what you're truly wanting Lon-ami, because it will only be effective in one terminology of the dozens/hundreds used. Konig (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Just chiming in to say that I think "Attribute Combinations" is a fine name for the page. "Stat Combination" or "Stat Combo" would also be decent, but they're small enough distinctions I don't think it would be worth moving the page (again) for even if they were slightly better. Personally I liked "Item Nomenclature", and it's what I use to search for the page still, but its charm was partly due to the quirky and somewhat obscure name that, rationally, I have to agree wasn't the best. "Prefix" was adequate at best, since it's both inaccurate and an uncommon (though obviously not unused) term for it. I vehemently object to moving the page to "Stats", despite its common usage in the community, due to the ambiguity with character attributes. If it has to be moved again there are better alternatives that give less ambiguity.User Entrea Sumatae Sig.pngEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 07:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
There was no ongoing discussion when I moved the page, and I moved it based on the new nature after the overhaul. I think that's quite the different situation. It's what you do instead of creating duplicate-role pages.
You're ignoring my entire post which you haven't still addressed, a post I made minutes before you made the move, and not "months ago". I don't see how that qualifies as "dead", when I was talking just before you acted. Your mistake, which you even admit, is that this may be only temporary, which means we'll have a ton of double redirects that someone will have to fix manually if the bots can't handle them, which makes me go back to the "it worked fine", which referred to a technical viewpoint, not "is the name right" semantics and such. Anyway, I stated my point, and don't want to derail this further.
In the reddit thread someone mentions giving each stat its own page. I think that's fair and interesting to a point, though we would be dealing with a lot of duplicate information, which I don't like too much. Still, the original point of going to the, let's say, viper page, and seeing where to get it easily still stands. The current page could depict which qualities are available, by using different icons instead of 1Yes, each with the maximum available rarity color. Need new icons for it though. Wiki-only custom rarity icons.
I still insist that "Attribute combinations", even if right, isn't intuitive enough, and no, redirects are no good because they won't index properly for search engines.
I don't like "Stats" too much because the term has a too general meaning due to other games and such, but it's the official term used by the game itself, and also the most used term by the playerbase, because no one is referring to single attributes or weapon strength when talking about stats. See this link, which I already linked above.
As I see it, stats is the game's official name for attribute number combinations. Power is the attribute, and "+X power / Mighty" is the stat. ArenaNet might have used a "bad" name, but it's the one they chose.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well this is a large thread. I would also like to voice my opinion. I would agree that stats is rather ambiguous as it could be a number of things such as, player stats, weapon stats, armor stats, (or more unlikely) skill stats, etc. I would also agree that stats would be a good page for disambiguity to host a number of links to the articles mentioned previously. In my opinion, the best solution to these problems would be to simply create a number of redirects to pages of relevance, i.e. weapon stats (which already exists) links to this page. I petition that armor stats and player stats should also be redirects to their article. Sythe 18:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You (Lon-ami) repeatedly say that redirects are a problem for search engines, but Google has no problems at all finding its way here from searching for "Prefix" or "Item nomenclature" (so it's not just caching, since it's been months since the move). Searching for specific names doesn't work as well (second page result for Rampager's), but that problem exists regardless of what name this page has. Whatever your problem with redirects is, I don't see it --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact is that "Stats" isn't used anywhere else in the game, except during "attribute combination" selection (See proof). Leaving prejudices from other games aside, I think it's pretty obvious that "viper" is, by the game's standard, a "stat".--Lon-ami (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It's also used on stuff like Box of Viper's Gear - "gear with Viper's stats". But is that actually a name? They're just using the word stats as a synonym for attributes.
They also use "stat combination", which I would argue is a better and more clear name:
  • On recipe books like Viper's Armor Recipe Book - "gear with the Viper's stat combination"
  • In official Anet comminications:
    • Game updates/2015-10-23 - "New stat combinations: Six new stat combos are available in Heart of Thorns. All have four stats and have boon duration or condition duration (or both!)."
    • Game updates/2013-07-09 - "recipes that use quartz for weapons and armor with a new stat combination"
    • Essence of Luck (legendary) - "If you have gear that previously had a magic find stat combination, you will need to double-click it to permanetly change its stat combination to something else of your choice. The Celestial stat combination has simply had its magic find removed and does not have this special functionality."
"Viper's" is a "stat combination", a set of 4 stats (attributes). That set of stats can also be refered to as "viper's stats". "Viper" is not "a stat", even your own "proof" says "select stats" not "select a stat", because you're selecting a combination of multiple stats. β€”Azurem 14:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at all that, there's a pretty good case to move this page (hopefully for the last time) to "stat combination". It's as close as we're going to get to an official term, with "stat(s)" being a colloquial abbreviation that gets used in specific situations (stat-selectable, select stats, gear with <name> stats, etc) but isn't a good choice when devoid of context as it is for an article title. I'd actually lean slightly toward moving it (to "stat combination") at this point, mostly because the plural in the current "attribute combinations" title bugs me more the more I think about it.User Entrea Sumatae Sig.pngEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 08:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
A move to "stat combination" would be pointless if you're doing it under the context that "stat = attribute", since attributes are the official term anyway.
Attribute combinations is not an unique name, it's a descriptor. This page needs its own name, and needs one the players use, not some technical scholar term that doesn't mean anything outside our own circlejerk. Usability should go first, and redirects are not an excuse if 90% of the traffic will be coming from them instead of the main name.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
If you read the comments, the suggestion for "stat combination" was not under the context that stat = attribute but that "stat combination" is actually used in-game, unlike everything else.
Furthermore... "This page needs its own name" Technically speaking, whatever the article is named under, currently Attribute combinations, is exactly what "its own name" is. Whether that name also functions as a discriptor is irrelevant. It does not need a unique name, many articles that describe mechanics do not. And, honestly, redirects will probably always see more traffic than the main article, because they're often abbreviations that people use because they're shorter and faster to type out. Lastly... no one's circlejerking here... This isn't just a back-forth of insulting people without any progress. If anyone's being insulting and hostile, honestly, it feels like it's coming from you. Perhaps you need to take a step back for a bit. Alex has locked the article from being moved anyways, so its not going to be going anywhere for a while. Konig (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it not the focus of appropriateness that we name the page with? If this is the case, it has been noted by me that Stat is more often used by developers, game update notes, and within the game itself which has been said already. Even if the current name has been righted from its predecessors, we can do better by looking at the logical and repetitive naming used by the game and its masters. Stat is a better name for here. User Foxman525 Image-User Foxman525 sig.png Foxman525 18:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Stat is used interchangably with Attribute. What's used by developers, update notes, and the game is "Stat combinations" which would be little different from "Attribute combinations" since Stat and Attribute are used interchangeably. It's a minor difference between the two but "Stat combinations" would not be worse. Just 'Stat' however, would be. Konig (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I agree with you fully; I just did not bother spelling it out fully. Stat Combinations is what I am in favor of, and I think it would be an improvement. User Foxman525 Image-User Foxman525 sig.png Foxman525 02:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Konig covered most of the points I wanted to make, but for what it's worth: "Stat Combination" over "Attribute Combinations" is a minor detail to align it better with terms commonly used both in-game and out of game. Not important but not pointless either. Usability is important, but not to the point of having unclear or inaccurate titles for the sake of aligning with the most commonly used terms. "Stat combination" does see use, and more importantly it's easily understood when it's used. "Stats", while a common shorthand, is as useless as if we moved the page about characters to "Toon". No matter how commonly the phrase is used, it wouldn't make the wiki more usable, just a bit baffling.
Regarding redirects, yes, it's likely that a significant portion of the people searching for this page will be looking at "stats", but that's only half the equation. The current "stats" article is a disambiguation for a reason, because a good chunk of the people searching that term will be wanting to know about attributes, not stat combinations on gear. Redirecting all that traffic to this page, even with a disambiguation notice at the top, wouldn't make much sense. It makes the most sense to keep the current setup where the broad term is a disambiguation that leads to more specific pages with more accurate and descriptive titles.User Entrea Sumatae Sig.pngEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 10:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I'm fine with "Attribute combination" for now, and have fixed most of the wrong redirects so far. If some days go by without anyone else being in heavy disagreement with the current situation, the move suggestion could be removed for clarity purposes. Also, I opened a thread in the official forums for feedback about the name, but it doesn't seem to be reaching a consensus in any way. Feel free to look at it for other name suggestions.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The only consensus I'm getting from that thread is that there seems to be a general leaning towards "Stat" being part of the name rather than "Attribute", but at this point I agree that the best solution is just to leave it as-is.User Entrea Sumatae Sig.pngEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 23:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Infusions[edit]

I believe these should be removed from the tables since they don't actually add a prefix (or suffix) to equipment once slotted. Pointing people to the infusion or enrichment page might be a better choice. Intricity (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet another case of the new article name throwing people off (see above discussion). Though technically the infusions themselves have prefixes that are determined by stat. Konig (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the above discussion. The tables just look cluttered because of them. They deserve a separate table at least, probably "Upgrade prefixes." Intricity (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
So I just looked to see what you meant by clutter and... all that removing infusions would do is remove 5 rows which only influences the enrichments and AR. The rest - Mighty, Malign, Vital, and Resilience rows would remain, so would the upgrade column. There's no clutter to me, and they do share the same naming by attribute as the single-attribute armor/weapons/trinkets. Konig (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The clutter is mostly in the two attributes table. I only included enrichments because they sort of go hand in hand with infusions. It is very likely their prefixes are not "Mighty Agony" or "Resilient WvW" but instead, they are reusing the single attribute prefixes for "Agony Infusion" and "WvW Infusion." While they do give two attributes (although I would argue the +X% to/from Guards is not an attribute), it would be better to direct people to the infusions page instead. Even though it is nice to have them on this page, it detracts from what this page should be doing, which is showing the types of attribute distributions are available. Intricity (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
All the upgrade components except sigils and runes are included here, and all of them follow the same pattern naming. See universal upgrades and jewels.--Lon-ami (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
My point was that the upgrade component's names are "Agony Infusion" and "WvW Infusion," not "Infusion." They use the same prefixes as the single attributes. They do not belong in the two attributes table. Intricity (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The name is "infusion", just like the names for other upgrade components are "medallion" or "rune".
I understand where you're coming from, but the tables here represent all available attributes, which includes agony and the WvW boosts.--Lon-ami (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
They fall into the category of infusions, just like how a "minor rune" and a "major rune" are both runes.
I also do not believe the tables are here to represent all available combinations. The tables are here to show what combinations are available on armor, weapons and trinkets, and to note whether an upgrade component that offers the same stats exist. While what you say is what they currently show, I do not believe it is their intended function. Intricity (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Given the wording on the sections (for example "Combinations with two attributes can usually only be found in equipment with a level requirement between 20 and 64") indicates the page is mostly talking about equipment stats, I think infusions mostly count as clutter in this case. They also don't fit the emerging/solidifying identity of this page as a list of the different combinations of stats that can be obtained on gear and their names, rather than simply a list of the various ways things are named. Under the old purpose they were a dubious fit, since they did follow the same naming schemes (Mighty, etc.) as the stat combos on gear, but now they don't fit with the rest of the page at all.
They're wasting space and confusing the purpose of the page, and they should really just be left on their own as runes and sigils are.User Entrea Sumatae Sig.pngEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 06:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Infusions are upgrade components, which have always been included in this article. Removing them would mean removing the suffix column as well, which is ludicrous.
I don't see any reason why this article shouldn't depict all existing attribute combinations anywhere in the game.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Infusions are a bit of a 'special case' because while they do include Agony Resistance or the WvW NPC damage boost/reduction, they follow the naming of a single attribute combination. I do not think that ArenaNet considers "Agony Resistance" to be an attribute in the situation of prefix naming. Furthermore, while they are upgrade components, they follow prefix naming rather than suffix naming like all other upgrade components. Technically speaking, the terminology used for infusions is already present - and telling to players - in the first table (single attributes). There's not much purpose in restating the obvious in the second (double attribute) table. I do not think that removing those select infusions would "mean removing the suffix column as well" because they are not using suffices at all, and the naming system (Mighty, Malign, etc.) are not being removed from the article. Konig (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Infusions are very different. I wouldn't think a stat that is used in one section of the game, which is fractals, to be included on the stat/attribute page. It should be included only within the said Infusion page or Fractal page because it is most appropriate there. I also think we can remove infusions from this page w/o deteriorating the usefulness of the section or the page itself. On top of that, why should we have a level 80 stat, which is Agony Resistance, mixed in with the lower level dual stat combos? User Foxman525 Image-User Foxman525 sig.png Foxman525 06:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Infusions are upgrades like sigils, runes or those common equivalents (marks, crests etc). They're all Upgrade components and really don't belong here. I mean we could have a see also link to "Upgrade component", but I don't think it is necessary. I have removed these infusion rows from the table. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 12:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's just better to remove all the unconventional attributes, for clarity's sake, not just agony. Infusions and enrichments don't follow the common pattern for attribute combinations, which could lead to confusions, and they also do not provide any suffix, so removing them should leave things much more clear. They can get their own table elsewhere, providing more information like the differences between the stats of each rarity.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Not all prefixes have a suffix tied to them, so that's nothing new. I just didn't bother bringing Agony back but it can easily go back to the single attribute. It's the two-attribute table that was a clutter and full of redundancy since it's just the single attribute naming system with Agony or a non-attribute. Infusions do follow the common pattern, I'd like to note: they follow the single attribute naming pattern. I would agree to a table elsewhere, but I see no reason to remove from the single attribute table. Konig (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of upgrade components, should the Celestial of the Cat, of the Ghoul, of the Pumpkin and of the Spectre suffixes be in the inconsistent name table? β€”Azurem 18:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Those are obvious unique names tied to specific instances. This page needs to be simple and to the point, and including every single anomaly is a mistake.
If we're removing infusions from the page, we should remove enrichments too. And no, "Mighty Agony" isn't just "Agony" and "Mighty". That's like saying we should remove "Strong" because it's just "Mighty" and "Precise". The name being unoriginal does not invalidate it being a name in the first place, and redundancy should not be the problem, but display. If enrichments stay, so should infusions. That said, I do believe it would be better for the page if only universal upgrades and jewels are considered, since they're the only ones which have actual attribute combination instead of random stats with no cohesion whatsoever.
Also, Konig, I find hilarious you tell me "don't revert changes when you disagree with someone" right after you have reverted mine, and I haven't ever reverted any of yours. This is getting borderline ridiculous. It's going back to where I left it, and if you want changes, talk them here before reverting what others do and then pretending you were the one reverted.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah the poly prefixes probably would be clutter, I was just checking.
"And no, "Mighty Agony" isn't just "Agony" and "Mighty"." Yes it is. Nothing even starts "Mighty Agony", if you think it's all one thing you should list "Mighty +5 Agony" "Mighty +7 Agony" and "Mighty +9 Agony" as separate prefixes. The fact that the number goes in the middle shows that "Mighty Agony" is not one thing, surely. You wouldn't have a "Str+5ong infusion" :/ β€”Azurem 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, we're not "removing infusions from the page". We're removing duplicate prefixes. And yes, "Mighty Agony" is just "Agony" and "Mighty" - or rather, it is "Mighty" and "Agony Infusion", or "Mighty" and "WvW Infusion". Just like we have a Mighty Amulet which is "Mighty" and "Amulet". Agony Infusion/WvW Infusion is one thing (what the item is), Mighty is the prefix (the attribute combination).
I do agree we should not list those unique Celestial items because they're at best aura nomenclature, which has no place here in attribute combinations.
Further, "Also, Konig, I find hilarious you tell me "don't revert changes when you disagree with someone" right after you have reverted mine, and I haven't ever reverted any of yours." You actually did revert my changes. Compare to this. I was removing your reverting of proper changes, particularly the changes made in this edit which was, also, a fixing of a revert from changes I made in this edit before you "did things right". I'm not pretending anything. And this is getting ridiculous - hell, it's past that. You're starting to be openly hostile in your edits, and it's getting tiresome. Konig (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The +5 can be interpreted the same way as minor/major/superior for sigil and runes. An attribute combination should describe the whole set of attributes. No item should have multiple "prefixes" inside. Infusions also follow an unconventional system were rarity doesn't determine a general stat increase, which leads to a conflict with the latest remarks I added describing the levels where combinations are usually available. If you want infusions and enrichments here in this page, I would create a new table just for them, explaining the Mighty/Agony thing properly and without redundancy if that's what you worry about, though I think the best place for those is the infusion page, which could welcome an overhaul. I will look at it later, and post about it here to show the end result.
Consider also that the enrichment attribute combinations have neither prefixes nor suffixes, and only appear once in the entire game, and only in upgrade components. I don't think a player searching for that will look for it here, when the enrichment page is much more better.
As for the revert thing, the only major change I see is restoration of internal links, which I don't understand why were removed in the first place. In technical pages it's common practice for every section to have its respective links, instead of one single link in the entire page, for the readers jump to different sections instead of navigating the whole page. It's the same reason why all tables have repeated links, you shouldn't need to check other tables to see where the headers could be linking. Redirects also direct to specific sections as well.
My complain comes from how when the page was moved away from prefix, the references to it as the page name and in section headers were not changed to attribute combinations, and the page was a mess of confusing references to combinations in half the page and prefixes in the other. I worked hard on this page and I hate seeing it left a mess by people just trying to make a point. If you move the page, you should replace the old name with the new one in all its instances across the page.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It is not "Agony" it is "Agony Infusion". Agony is not a prefix, it is part of the item name. Just like Leggings is not a suffix for "Defense" and Sword is not a suffix for "Damage". Agony Resistance is to Agony Infusion as Damage is to Darksteel Sword. Simple as that. Konig (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Konig is right. But, I still feel like Agony just is not appropriate anywhere on this page. Although, I see that it could fit in the single attribute table... User Foxman525 Image-User Foxman525 sig.png Foxman525 02:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Technically speaking, every infusion attribute combination is already there in the single attribute table - because it's a naming system used with weapons and armor. The only thing currently missing are enrichments and, because for some reason "uncommon" equates "inconsistent" (note: it doesn't), it's currently missing Luck/Lucky affixes too. Konig (talk)
Honestly I have to agree with the current state of where things are on the page. Enrichments are not and do not grant, in a meaningful way, attributes or attribute combinations. They really have almost no connection to anything else on the page and are better left out here for the sake of brevity and clarity. Agony is similar, better left for its own page where it's actually meaningful rather than included here just for the sake of completeness. Doubloons are a bit of a middle ground for me. I personally would have left them in the single attribute table but I can't deny they're weird. They don't increase any standard attributes and it is a bit odd lumping them all in with the low-level stat combos despite the fact that they come on many higher-level upgrades. I'm not completely sold on either table as a home for them, though they surely belong somewhere on the page.User Entrea Sumatae Sig.pngEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 10:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against giving them a separate table, but having a table for their prefix when they only exist on just one item each seems kind of pointless. It would basically be a copy of the enrichment page.
The gemstone page has a nice table that could probably be copied onto this page, and other upgrade components could probably get the same thing for the sake of consistency. It could also use an addition that tells what their equivalent exquisite/brilliant/ornate/etc. versions give as well. Intricity (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Why can't we just add a note about infusions and enrichments being able to contribute to stat increases, but they aren't considered as a Stat Combination or prefix? User Foxman525 Image-User Foxman525 sig.png Foxman525
Makes sense to me, we want any equipment that contributes attribute increases on one page so people can calculate their attribute distribution across equipment. We also don't want to pigeon-hole ourselves if ArenaNet rebalances stat distributions from infusions.--Relyk ~ talk < 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Barbarian Feedback 2017/03/24[edit]

The Barbarian has changed from Power, Precision and Vitality to Vitality, Power and Precision since Vitality is the one that has more to it. β€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.95.164.252 (talk).

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. β€”Azurem 15:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Seraph Stat Obtainability[edit]

Hello, on this page, it says Seraph accessories and rings are available, but I do not know of any equipment that offers it in ascended yet for these types. Can anyone help? User Foxman525 Image-User Foxman525 sig.png Foxman525 07:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Alex previously made a list. I believe we'll have to go through them and ensure that Seraph is on all of those. G R E E N E R 08:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Just bought a Sparking Petrified Wood accessory today, and it did have Seraph stats. It's just that some people in-game were telling me other wise. "Best MMO community" my ass. Anyways, all LWS:3 items should include Seraph stat choices then. Also, most recently the lists on the wiki were not updated to reflect this. It looks fine now. User Foxman525 Image-User Foxman525 sig.png Foxman525 02:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
It's very possible that at the start there were no Seraph stats there. So far for each new stat release, anet has been a few weeks to a month behind on back-updating previous items to include the new stats. For example Legendaries 'technically' had seraph stat on release of it, but it was under a placeholder id number, and iirc the stats were exotic level instead of asc level. So yeah, new stats take some time to carry through the game at times. That being said, good to know that it is indeed there; thanks for checking again and confirming! -Darqam 05:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Query for equipment with "seraph" the stat prefix.
Maybe we should make a form/template where you feed in the prefix you want and it returns equipment that matches. I suspect legendary weapons will have seraph as an option too... -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 11:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that would actually be pretty cool. Bonus points if you can make it sort by rarity (which I'm 99% sure is possible). That would be a nice tool to find a cheap/easy way to get the gear you want. And yeah, Legendaries should always have any/all level 80 stats attributes, if they don't it's a bug. -Darqam 16:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Other than sort rarity by alphabetical (in fairness that puts Ascended and then Exotic up top, bugger Legendary) sorting by a custom key on initial page load is not possible without widget intervention. I am not even considering storing item rarity as "0;Legendary" ... it needs to be human readable. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 17:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Honestly I think that how the page output is now works fine, it's pretty clear; simply using the page as is might not be obvious to all, so making it a form might be useful. That form might allow to display "only exotics" or "only ascended", or maybe "both". I also agree that there's no need for legendary listing. They have all stats, people will know that (plus who's going to look for seraph stats, see Bolt, and go yeah I want that for those stats).

I also think keeping level 80 only is fine, no one has really good reasons to go in-depth into gearing before that anyway. -Darqam 17:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Enduring and Stout[edit]

I've been looking into the Enduring prefix (+Tough major, +Condi minor) because it's currently listed as a "historical" prefix. I did a quick search and I got three items with that prefix:

So, Enduring isn't completely gone!

But, I looked a little closer. All three of those items have prefix ID 148, which the API lists as "Stout". That's weird because we already have Stout (+Tough major, +Prec minor). So I did a quick search, and there's only one Stout item: Stout Ring of the Valkyrie, which we currently have listed at +34 Toughness, +24 Precision. I can't link it from chat, but I checked it on the API and the Ring's stats don't match up. The API says that the ring should have +34 Toughness and +24 Condi, making it match all the other "Enduring" items. Also, if you look at the Ring page's old revisions, it has "Enduring" stats too. I'm guessing that the stats got mixed up at some point.

So, what I'm doing is:

  • Removing "Enduring" from the list entirely.
  • Switching "Stout" over it its correct stats: +Tough major, +Condi minor
  • Fixing everything that links to the two.

--Imry (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so there's one thing I overlooked: Mark of the Stout. I'm gonna move that over to Attribute combinations#Inconsistent attribute combinations. --Imry (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Named Armour[edit]

Can we perhaps get a column with these names on exotic gear? Light: Jatoro β€’ Khilbron β€’ Mhenlo β€’ Norgu β€’ Ogden β€’ Tahlkora β€’ Zhed Medium: Aidan β€’ Errol β€’ Nika β€’ Reyna β€’ Shiro β€’ Vatlaaw β€’ Zho Heavy: Brutus & Sheena β€’ Devona β€’ Galrath β€’ Koss β€’ Jalis β€’ Rurik β€’ Yakkington 88.108.117.233 10:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think these tables need less columns not more, besides that information is available on named armor. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 16:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Feedback 2017/09/04[edit]

This page lists Charged Quartz as a universal upgrade for 'celestial' stats but I cannot find any related information to support this. Is this an error? β€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.248.149.97 (talk) at 20:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

Added wikilink to Charged Quartz Crystal. Asking for more than that?--Relyk ~ talk < 20:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems the name for the upgrade being referred to may be Exquisite Charged Quartz Jewel. β€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.248.149.97 (talk) at 20:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

Expansion Availability[edit]

With the release of PoF around the corner, shouldn't these tables include expansion availability or something? ~ Fishrock (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If you mean adding a column to indicate which item combination is available from which expansion, then I totally support this suggestion! Balwin (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I am also going to tag onto this. I haven't done wiki editing in a long time, but I will poke at it and see what I can do. -- User:Frvwfr2 02:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Update: I added a column with the Mastery point icon. Could be changed to use the expansion logos or something, but the Mastery point icons are pretty clear. May not be clear to inexperienced players though. -- User:Frvwfr2 02:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest something else, as I can barely tell the difference between the Core red and the PoF purple. -- Kalatash (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh jeez good point, I hadn't noticed. I'll see. -- User:Frvwfr2 05:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
update: Changed it to the logos of the expansion/core. -- User:Frvwfr2 05:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! This looks a lot more clear to me. Hopefully it is helpful to folks that were previously unsure what stats they could get with what. ~ Fishrock (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be better to separate each of the combinations into their own section on each table for better readability, instead of having it switch from core-HoT-core-HoT-PoF... etc. for example. We would lose the grouping for the major attributes, but it would be easier to see at a glance where each combination came from. β€”Intricity (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems like that was done, and now I feel the "expansion" column is just extra space for no reason. Anyone object to me removing it? ~ Fishrock (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok I've removed the column in favor of the headers alone. Among other things, this should make the mobile viewing experience a tad more pleasant. ~ Fishrock (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Good job, boys! Since the expansion-availability organizing, the tables have looked much more clean. User Foxman525 Image-User Foxman525 sig2.png Foxman525 22:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

for PvP stats in the table[edit]

I think PvP Stats are somewhat not proper to be in standard stats table. especially, some stats only existed in PvP like Diviner/Mender(or vice versa) can make people confused and It does not have good readability - PvP only/PvE only/PvP+PvE both available... Would it be better to have PvP stats got separated from standard table? --Targal (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think so. I've always found it confusing myself. I'm sure it made more sense in prior years where there was less separation. ~ Fishrock (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Bugs and inconsistencies with certain stats[edit]

This is what I know so far. If anyone knows more detailed information, please share.

1. Seraph's gives less stats on the Besieger's Ring from the Escort raid. It's supposed to be fixed in an "upcoming" build (https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/89pgq8/same_prefix_rings_with_different_stats/), but no definite time was specified.

2. Bringer's trinkets give the wrong stats, probably due to a non-Bringer's (what stats exactly?) built-in jewel.
Non-trinket id: https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/itemstats?id=1032
Trinket id (different from non-trinket id because of the built-in jewel): https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/itemstats?id=1436
No idea when ANet will eventually fix it though.

--138.75.82.239 04:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback 2018/07/20[edit]

Dafuq is this page? I want to make quick, clear comparisons between stats. I can't. --194.228.11.217 23:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Do we need a note ...?[edit]

The ascended four-stat combinations from core have total attribute increases lower than those of HoT or PoF items. Should we have a note mentioning that? Daddicus (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't true 4-stat combinations. They're 3-stat prefixes combined with a 3-stat gem. β€”Intricity (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was asking about. Daddicus (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

New Table?[edit]

Was it really necessary to make an obnoxious chart mixing in all the 3 stat, 4stat and pvp amulets? Justice (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
My bad, like the filter option. Ty for the work done. Justice (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

4-attribute items that are really 3-attribute[edit]

There are some trinkets that have four attributes, but they are really three-attribute trinkets with a little of one attribute broken off into a fourth attribute. They have the point count of a three-attribute item, but spread into four. I don't think it requires any table entries, but could confuse some newer players.

An example would be the ring Bagh Nakh, which has power 126, ferocity 85, precision 67, and vitality 18. A Ring of Red Death is power 126, precision 85, and ferocity 85. So, all they did was take 18 of the precision points and turn them into vitality.

I think it is enough to put it into a note or footnote, rather than a new table. What do the rest of you think? Daddicus (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Picking major/minor attributes[edit]

I don't think i'm alone in thinking that it was better to click all the stats you want and see all the combinations, regardless of major/minor. --lumpy (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Tolkyria (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Feedback 2019/05/12[edit]

"Wanderer" in the stat table appears to have incorrect information, being described as offering Prec/CondDmg/Tough/Exp when the in-game Wanderer prefix actually gives Pwr/Vit/Tough/Conc --Gateless gate (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Attribute combinations wanderer.jpg
There are two prefix rows named Wanderers, so the table is correct I think. This is because there are two different attribute combinations ingame with this name:
(1) PvP only - available from the PvP build user interface (i.e. via Wanderer Amulet) : Precision (major) / Condition Damage (major) / Toughness (minor) / Expertise (minor)
(2) PvE/WvW - available from Ruka's equipment (e.g. Ruka's Claymore) : Power (major) / Vitality (major) / Toughness (minor) / Concentration (minor)
-Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 17:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)