Talk:List of champions

List to sort though

Someone posted a better list, so I took out the spammy one.

Better list: | here. The main issue it doesn't differentiate between allied and enemy champions. ~ PheNaxKian talk 14:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What kind of list is that even supposed to be when there are links to pages like [[Daily/Table]] and dungeon articles in there? poke | talk 14:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We could generate these tables automatically except for the event, although #dpl would work until we made a property.--Relyk ~ talk < 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

demo, maybe {{involved in}} template for events the NPC is involved in. We could differentiate between static foes and foes only available during events that way.--Relyk ~ talk < 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So I guess no one is interested in automating the tables?--Relyk ~ talk < 00:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's no fun. Amurense (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thuoght I'd replied. That sounds good to me Relyk, but the issue at the moment is we can't differentiate between allied and enemy champions with SMW. The solution would obviously be to add an additional property to the infobox, but I don't know how people will feel about that. ~ PheNaxKian talk 10:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We need the property to make meaningful queries in most cases. Ignoring the property, it would be useful in the infobox to indicate whether they are allies, neutral, foes, or some combination.--Relyk ~ talk < 11:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's many champions without pages, too. The list will help solve that through red links. We don't know if we'll add more information later, too.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Automating any list, especially one such as this one, is one of the most obvious advantages of all the work you guys have been doing, Relyk. Of course it should be done. :) --Alad (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

category?

Should not champs actually be in a category. Anzenketh (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A category is just a list. These tables provide more information than a plain list. —Dr Ishmael 14:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And can be sorted. And you know you love sorting!--Lon-ami (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Rank

Probably don't need to have rank in these tables as they will all be champions. CosmicChopsticks (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the initial idea was that Legendary rank is also included, although I think most Legendary mobs we can fight are World Bosses. I don't know if Legendary mobs follow the same rules for Champion rewards. Vahkris (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The list is for champions and legendaries, and can be expanded to world bosses as well later. Note that legendary and world boss are different ranks, bonus chest enemies =/= world bosses.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have an issue with this. The page is a "list of champions", not "list of champions, legendary and world boss ranks". If you want legendary as well either move this to reflect the true contents of the page, or create a separate page for legendary (my preference). ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think all of the Legendary foes already count as world bosses anyway, and thus they are already listed at Chest#Bonus chest. —Dr Ishmael 13:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The page is still a work in process, the name doesn't matter. The goal is to make a list of enemies with the new reward system. Okay, maybe you thought it was for champions only. Want me to have created it as "List of champion and legendary enemies with the new reward system" instead? That would have been awful. Anything above champion will probably give the new rewards (except world bosses that never had base loot, only floor chests, and some of them bonus chests).

Also, don't mistake bonus chest group events with world bosses. Claw of Jormag is a world boss. Statue of Dwayna and Champion Svanir Shaman Chief aren't world bosses as per rank. Since this isn't clear and many people mistake both, I'm removing "world boss" from the header.

And finally, can we stop removing information until there's a consensus? The original header of the page was pretty clear (champions + legendaries), and people keep removing content when we still haven't decided what should be included or not. There's a lot of new people contributing, can we stop changing the page's purpose and turning this into an edit war? I'm reverting it to have legendaries back (not all of them are bonus chest group events, like the Legendary Castle Lord, and some champions are part of bonus chest group events, too, they're different reward systems), and I hope to see it stay there, without any information being removed again without it being talked properly here.

The purpose is pretty clear, if you don't like the name's page, wait until we get a better name, but don't go and change the page because of its name, when the header was explanatory, without asking for its purpose when it's an obvious work in process, and when there's new people contributing that are confused enough byt the syntax. Should have I said this page's objective was the new reward system? Probably, my mistake was thinking it was too obvious. I hope it's clear now.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your intention is perfectly clear, however the content and the page's name don't match and leads to confusion. If I see a page called "List of Champions" I would expect there to only be champions listed on the page. ~ PheNaxKian talk 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Something like Champion loot as a placeholder article to hold a list of foes that give bonus loot until we have a more appropriate page name.--Relyk ~ talk < 16:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not like it "hurts" to see legendaries, too, even more considering it's specified in the first line of the article. Also, 90%+ of the enemies here will be champions, the name being generic isn't 'that' bad. We'll probably get a better name out of the game itself in the 6th august, the generic name it has now does the job fine.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think we're all in agreement that "List of champions" isn't a good descriptor for an article serving Lon-ami's intended purpose. But keep in mind that the intended purpose is to document something that isn't in the game yet. My suggestion would be that the article "List of champions" remains simply a list of champions for the time being, and once the update hits and we have this new champion loot system we can think about how to document that. We'll also know for certain whether open world legendaries grant champion loot- my guess is that they will, but for all we know they might even drop more of it. 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If they give the reward as a reward chest, which is very likely, we will have to do something about the Bonus Chest received from world bosses as well. Probably move it to boss reward chest. I don't think the world bosses will give a champion reward chest and boss reward chest, but it's possible.--Relyk ~ talk < 16:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that all the known legendary foes are already included in the existing Bonus Chest system as world bosses are. It seems very unlikely that they'll be added to the new "Champion Chest" system and give you 2 chests for killing the same foe, so even accepting the purpose of the page as "listing foes to be included in the new Champion Chest system," they should not be included. —Dr Ishmael 16:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We have Legendary Castle Lord. Also, if we removed legendaries because of the bonus chests, then we should remove the champions that have bonus chests, too, and it would be a mess. We still don't know how this will work, it seems they're editing the body loot, not additional bonus or ground chests.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this applies to legendary foes in WvW or dungeons. And yes, reading the forums, looks like they are adding new items to the loot table of champion foes instead of a reward chest.--Relyk ~ talk < 17:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange that Auron didn't posted. MalGalad 10:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently have information at Loot#Champion loot reward. Don't know if it's added to the loot table or they will drop a container. I'm betting the enemies are guaranteed to drop a container with a couple guaranteed items and a chance at rarer items.--Relyk ~ talk < 13:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's going to be basically an upgraded version of the existing loot bags, continuing with the different types per foe species/type. Someone extracted new icons out of the test client over here, the first 6 rows (sans the very first and last icons) are the champion loot bags. —Dr Ishmael 14:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The bags should line up with slayer (2 races per bag?), which make it easier to connect an NPC to a race. The bag with the GW2 symbol is adorable. We will have a section on container with the primary article as champion loot bag for an overview on the bags and required races.--Relyk ~ talk < 14:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Champs by type?

It seems they drop items based on their "type" according to this spreadsheet. Should we start categorizing champions by their type aka bandit/pirate, troll, risen, etc.? Fresh Berry Smoothie 18:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps at least what item/container they would drop? That part needs to be collected somewhere. Vahkris (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And if people are looking for a specific item/containter they'd have to sort multiple lists currently Fresh Berry Smoothie 18:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Relyk/sandbox/championloot, there you go. And this page needs to be moved--Relyk ~ talk < 01:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The disadvantage of that list is you can't see all of them together by zone. People farming wants to know if there's a champion next to the one they just killed, no matter the bag.

An extra field with the bag type would be fine, no need to change anything else.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The section wanted a list of champions by type, not by zone. You (I) can make another page sorted by zone (User:Relyk/sandbox/championlootbyarea).--Relyk ~ talk < 00:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)