Talk:Game updates/2013-06-25

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

formatting the page now, mind not editing/ should be done in a min or 2... Previously Unsigned (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea why when I got to edit hte profession section, it keeps fucking up. I'll try one last time, but it's seriously odd. Previously Unsigned (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The whole wiki is crazy right now, possibly because of the article. I’ve deleted it now. Please keep it that way until the server is stable again. poke | talk 18:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Too may {{skill icon}}s would be my guess. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 18:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Better sections[edit]

Two formatting changes would be really nice to see more clearly through all those changes, and make better use of the wiki capabilities:

  • Collapsible sections (for example, for each profession, for world events, etc...)
  • Grouping skills under headers: weapon X, utility, etc... --Alad (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I’m against collapsible sections on normal content pages. And as for your other suggestion, the game updates are literal citations from the official source, so we cannot really (or don’t want to) change the order around. poke | talk 19:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Why can't we change that practice? The official notes have no organization at all on skills. Adding a bit of organization on our end, without changing any of the actual words, would be supremely beneficial to readers. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The official update notes should be verbatim. However, why not also have a page that presents things in a more useful fashion whenever there are several screenfuls of text? I don't like collapsed sections, but the usual anet presentation leaves a lot to be desired. They don't make much use of tables, nested bullets, alphabetical order, etc. Some concepts might be more useful in table form or in identical form to how related articles are shown on the wiki. For example, before & after table for skills. For example, presenting the trait changes similar to List of engineer traits. 20:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd say any re-organization should be done on a separate (sub?) page. This page I think should remain verbatim, but I see no reason that a summary page can't be made and linked. --JonTheMon (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If changing the page from verbatim to non-verbatim makes it easier for readers, I'm inclined to go non-verbatim. If we still want a verbatim copy, I would rather that be a subpage; how an ANet dev formats something on a forum post is kinda irrelevant, and I don't see why someone would prefer it to a more user-friendly format. pling User Pling sig.png 20:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I, for one, am really bad at remembering skill names. Seeing the skills for a certain weapon grouped together says tons more to me about how that weapon was affected by the changes. As for a more analytical page, I was going to suggest that as well: By profession and weapon, people can tie up the changes to the skills together with the changes to the traits to see what the end result really is. The purpose of the changes was to allow more builds. How that is made possible by those changes is probably the most interesting question.
PS: The "collapsible" idea came to me because of the sizes of the section headers which are almost all the same within the profession changes. You get lost between "Water" and "Engineer", for example. --Alad (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Yow know, you could simply alphabetize the contents of skills or traits. I don't think that is something that would require another page, it's not as "extreme" as creating new groups or custom sorting based on weapon. What do you think? Previously Unsigned (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I have another idea too. What if the table of contents was put on the right and it moved with the scroll bar, wrapping text around it. For very long update notes, like this one, it would still be somewhat quick to navigate, sicne it's always available! Previously Unsigned (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Simply alphabetizing isn't much better, since alphabetical order is insignificant when you're dealing with skills. Floating ToCs have been tried before (although not on this wiki, that I know of), many people hate them, and code-wise they're more trouble than they're worth. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
"If changing the page from verbatim to non-verbatim makes it easier for readers, I'm inclined to go non-verbatim. If we still want a verbatim copy, I would rather that be a subpage." This works for me.
I think the wiki *must* have a verbatim copy for a variety of reasons. It's an important reference when people disagree about presentation or explanations. And we know from GW1 that ANet is lax about maintaining access to relevant data and that the sometimes change things later. Maybe that's less likely on the official forums, but let's preserve a copy just in case. It's really easy and cheap for the wiki to do so.
I support the quote above that the wiki version should be the first thing people see. If the goal is to translate ANet jargon into something players can understand, let's make that prominent. I hope that the OP for this thread takes half of this update page and creates a sample of what the page might look like if we didn't have to be verbatim. 20:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

AoE Looting?[edit]

I haven't been able to get this to work without binding a new hotkey (which I haven't tried). My wife confirms that the checkbox does nothing apparent. Anyone else? --RoyHarmon (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Works as intended for me. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
See offical forum thread and the response from ArenaNet.--Relyk ~ talk < 03:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Wtf oakhearts[edit]

They've turned into derpy little non-veteran ranger summon-esque spirits...wat. Is this a joke, or a weird, (maybe?) player friendly albeit somewhat unnecessary nerf? PalkiaX50 (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)