Talk:Storm Eye

are you really going to give players the impression that they are going to start with a level 54 piece of equipment ??? Rudhraighe 05:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. We should never have separate articles separated by case only. Items are consistently named with all caps. If it turns out there are multiple items with the same name and only differing in stats at various levels, we'll want to document the differences to find any pattern that may emerge. --Thervold 06:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Storm eye

are you really going to give players the impression that they are going to start with a level 54 piece of equipment ??? Rudhraighe 05:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost all armor scales already, and on top of that all armor can be given any stats - which includes any level - via Transmutation Stones. Furthermore said target page comes from the demo which contained Sparkfly Fen (as that is the only area thus accessible to us with the appropriate level range), as such it very well could have been starter armor that was scaled to the demo, as I highly doubt Anet would go and make the one starter armor piece non-unique (alternatively, all starter armor pieces will have higher level counterparts and distinguishing them is pointless as per point 1 - all armor has scaling stats). Konig/talk 09:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The BIGGEST issue here is how to handle multiple items with the EXACT same name and DRASTICALLY or radically different stats that do not fall into a rational document-able range ie 0-80? ie. defense of 6 or maybe 8 or even possibly 22 and one is documented at 67 and a rumor of one at 128 but it is undocumented ??? We need a policy in place NOW. Do we just make duplicate item boxes and list the stats individually in each box and have pages with 20 -30 item boxes or until we get a comfortable survey of item boxes to create a table what?? There is a reason i'm not a admin,sysop,or officer i have too many ideas and never enough time to polish them for general consumption. Rudhraighe 13:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem we have right now is that was have such a small sample size, we can't draw general conclusions yet. It may very well be that attributes scale to some nice, orderly algorithm and we just need a handful of samples to determine the scaling factors. But for now, I'd say go for the multiple item boxes. Also something to keep in mind, the level 54 version may no longer exist or may have since changed due to balancing. In fact, any items can actually be as such due to the nature of being in beta. Just something to keep in mind when we do try to figure these things out. --Thervold 14:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I saw, items outside of the starter gear and uniquely-trader-only gear can be obtained at any level, and for each level there's a range of possible stats. The kinds of stats depends on the three upgrades (usually?) - the prefix (e.g., Mighty, Festering, etc.), the suffix (of <something>), and the "upgrade slot." In my opinion, documenting things like level, stats, and cost is more or less pointless to do on each individual item page as the wiki stands - perhaps once the Semantic Wiki coding stuff gets added it can be done, but not now. Similarly, separating articles of the same name, same appearance, and same icon is silly when the only difference are these changing aspects. I wouldn't doubt that each item kind (e.g., focus, headgear, etc.) has its own range of cost and defense/damage per level available, so it 'd be best to create a table on the generic item pages with that info, rather than repeating on every individual page. But as Thervold said, we don't have enough data to confirm this. Konig/talk 23:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that merchant cost of items will follow some sort of scaling pattern (similar to that linking skill effects and attributes): an item has a base cost, which goes up (linearly or multiplicatively) with each type of upgrade, and perhaps with level. In GW1, the source of an item (starter, collector, merchant, crafted, drop, campaign) also affected cost as well as stats, upgradeability, and benefits if you don't meet the minimum requirements.

So, I agree with Konig that we ought to stick to one article per item and collect more data, similar to what we did for drop rates in GWW: name the item, describe the updates, the source, and cost, and stats. The existence of the transmutation stone also suggests that name and level won't be directly tied to cost: if you can wear/wield it, the prices/stats will depend more on upgrades than the minimum level required or source.

Put another way, I think we should have one article for each unique name/icon/wielded-appearance combo...and manage the variations within the article. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)are you really going to give players the impression that they are going to start with a level 54 piece of equipment ??? Rudhraighe 05:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost all armor scales already, and on top of that all armor can be given any stats - which includes any level - via Transmutation Stones. Furthermore said target page comes from the demo which contained Sparkfly Fen (as that is the only area thus accessible to us with the appropriate level range), as such it very well could have been starter armor that was scaled to the demo, as I highly doubt Anet would go and make the one starter armor piece non-unique (alternatively, all starter armor pieces will have higher level counterparts and distinguishing them is pointless as per point 1 - all armor has scaling stats). Konig/talk 09:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The BIGGEST issue here is how to handle multiple items with the EXACT same name and DRASTICALLY or radically different stats that do not fall into a rational document-able range ie 0-80? ie. defense of 6 or maybe 8 or even possibly 22 and one is documented at 67 and a rumor of one at 128 but it is undocumented ??? We need a policy in place NOW. Do we just make duplicate item boxes and list the stats individually in each box and have pages with 20 -30 item boxes or until we get a comfortable survey of item boxes to create a table what?? There is a reason i'm not a admin,sysop,or officer i have too many ideas and never enough time to polish them for general consumption. Rudhraighe 13:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem we have right now is that was have such a small sample size, we can't draw general conclusions yet. It may very well be that attributes scale to some nice, orderly algorithm and we just need a handful of samples to determine the scaling factors. But for now, I'd say go for the multiple item boxes. Also something to keep in mind, the level 54 version may no longer exist or may have since changed due to balancing. In fact, any items can actually be as such due to the nature of being in beta. Just something to keep in mind when we do try to figure these things out. --Thervold 14:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I saw, items outside of the starter gear and uniquely-trader-only gear can be obtained at any level, and for each level there's a range of possible stats. The kinds of stats depends on the three upgrades (usually?) - the prefix (e.g., Mighty, Festering, etc.), the suffix (of <something>), and the "upgrade slot." In my opinion, documenting things like level, stats, and cost is more or less pointless to do on each individual item page as the wiki stands - perhaps once the Semantic Wiki coding stuff gets added it can be done, but not now. Similarly, separating articles of the same name, same appearance, and same icon is silly when the only difference are these changing aspects. I wouldn't doubt that each item kind (e.g., focus, headgear, etc.) has its own range of cost and defense/damage per level available, so it 'd be best to create a table on the generic item pages with that info, rather than repeating on every individual page. But as Thervold said, we don't have enough data to confirm this. Konig/talk 23:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that merchant cost of items will follow some sort of scaling pattern (similar to that linking skill effects and attributes): an item has a base cost, which goes up (linearly or multiplicatively) with each type of upgrade, and perhaps with level. In GW1, the source of an item (starter, collector, merchant, crafted, drop, campaign) also affected cost as well as stats, upgradeability, and benefits if you don't meet the minimum requirements.

So, I agree with Konig that we ought to stick to one article per item and collect more data, similar to what we did for drop rates in GWW: name the item, describe the updates, the source, and cost, and stats. The existence of the transmutation stone also suggests that name and level won't be directly tied to cost: if you can wear/wield it, the prices/stats will depend more on upgrades than the minimum level required or source.

Put another way, I think we should have one article for each unique name/icon/wielded-appearance combo...and manage the variations within the article. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My several cents: in regards to the "same name, different stats" dilemma, we could either do a table with each non-random (i.e. given, purchased, rewarded, etc.; not dropped) item receiving a whole infobox or a table row, with acquistion information clear. (I can throw a sandbox up if its not entirely clear what I mean.) This would of course mean that the weapon/armor infoboxes are relegated to be more general, but we'll still have available, clear information. Aqua (T|C) 02:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Take out the rarity section, it's throwing us off. --Xu Davella 02:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO, I think the rarity section is throwing us off and should be taken out or modified. It's not like we list gold and blue items of the same name in the original wiki? --Xu Davella 02:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

apologies but this is not the original Wiki. We are going to have the problem with rarity if crafted items can be "common" "fine" "masterwork" and "rare" etc with increasing stats each... Please do not be confused but GW2 is nothing like GW1 and it is only happy accidents when we can borrow things from the past. This is a Whole new game with new rules and naming conventions and stat ranges and requirements. it's nice to learn from GW1 but we are going to have to think in new ways and remember GW2 is not the same. And we are going to have to write entirely new templates for Everything. Rudhraighe 03:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy bro. Thanks...for...elaborating. I think I'll sit this one out. :) --Xu Davella 03:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Table and revamp

Armor/weapon infoboxes that have everything are no longer viable, and I feel like we should move to the table setup that I made here. The infobox can be reduced to "icon, image, name, armor class, slot." (It can also probably include salvage data later, but we don't have it yet.) Only copies of the item that can be obtained through a non-random way, such as event rewards, etc. should be placed in the table. Any problems with this? (Including aesthetics; they're minor but important.) Aqua (T|C) 18:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Does this item still exist?

I checked the GW2 Trading Post and nothing came up for "Storm Eye". I checked the level 54 head armor and it came up with Conjurer Masks and Acolyte Cowls as the only type of light armor. Has this item been removed? Mystikpretzel (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)