Talk:Upgrade item

neccessary?

I really don't think this is neccessary because ungrade component is the the umbrella name for well upgrade items. If you say thiss nesseccary because these belong together, we should search for a more fitting name and use the auto cathegorisation of the template. - Yandere 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, these 5 types do make a distinct set apart from doubloons, jewels, etc. The name of this article is pretty weak, I agree. I don't think we should change any categories, though, what you just added to the template is good enough. —Dr Ishmael 13:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, is see. Heraldric upgrades doesn't quite nail it. We could simply call them square upgrades, since the all use an icon which is a square. Not really easy. - Yandere 13:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The category name is a placeholder. Categorizing by suffix rather than tier makes more sense as we don't group minor, major, and superior runes together in categories. I disagree with the adding of Medallion and Crest categories. The upgrade items don't have a specific type in-game.--Relyk 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree that these thingselong together. I would seperate them by tier (Mark, Talsiman, etc.) because it is the first thing which you are looking for when you are searching for this item. These are indead a bit small categories because there are only about 8 pieces per tier. Grouping them all together under a fitting name would be imo the best solution. Problem is upgrade item isn't really a fitting name, because it is basiclly a diffrent term for upgrade component which is the overall umbrella name. Categorisation by suffix would be even smaller categorized than by tier which isn't really helpful I think. So any good suggestions in the fitting name department? - Yandere 20:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We only need a single page for each type of upgrade item, but simply lack a name to categorize them under. A Medallion category makes as much sense as having a Major Rune category.--Relyk 20:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So we are on the same page... So let's do a bit brain storming, for a good name: heraldic upgrades and square upgrades were already sugested by me. Perhaps we can call them Jewelery because of the talisman and the medallion. We could call these things trinkets. Or things I've got from questioning what Verzierung would be in english: embellishment, adornment, decoration, ornament, brightwork. I like brightwork especially. Anything you would suggest or you like in particuler? - Yandere 20:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's this much trouble to come up with a name, do we really need one? Just call them generic "upgrade components". Not everything has to have a subtype.

As to your suggestions, jewelry is bad because people would think it referred to amulets/rings, and trinket is the Trading Post term for amulets/rings/accessories. —Dr Ishmael 21:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Doubloons also seem to drop from the same sources, so that's probably for the best. I feel the need to have a page that describes how the set of items is related so players will know that there's a higher quality version Crest of the Traveler for the Seal of the Traveler for instance. This could be described on the upgrade component page, but I want a table similar to how runes were done and putting it on the Upgrade Component page may not be appropriate.--Relyk 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We just could state the information on the single pages. Since there already exist a Talisman, Mark and Crest page because of t historical content. Just Make a seal and a mediaon page and refer to the other. So on the Mark page we write that the better version of a Mark of the Traveller would be a Talisman, Seal, etc. and make clear that these items belong together, since they don'T have a unifing name people will probably not search for it. But will search for Seal for example which would lead them to the other 4 articles etc. If you want to make a table I would do this on a subpage and include these to the single articles. Yeah you are right categorising these things after tier doesn't make much sense but is probobably the thing people will looking for. I am pretty exausted at the moment so I am not entierly sure if I got accross what I wanted to say, or understood you correctly...? I made made an edit on the Mark page to sho what I mean.- Yandere 09:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) That almost works, but there are 2 sets of names used at different tiers. Marks and Talismans are of Lingering, Mending, Penetration, Potency, and the Stout, while Seals/Medallions/Crests are of the Magi, the Rabid, the Shaman, the Soldier, and the Traveler. —Dr Ishmael 12:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, AreaNet why? O_o

There 5 names in both cases. is the something that you can say a Mark of Lingering is the predecessor of the Seal of the Magi, or are the totally disconnected? - Yandere 15:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The low ones affect 2 attributes, the high ones affect 3, and there's no "progression" where a Seal is simply a Talisman with an additional minor attribute. Here are some summary tables based on gw2db's data:

Tier 1/2	Major	Minor
Lingering	Condition Damage	Vitality
Mending	Healing Power	Vitality
Penetration	Precision	Critical Damage
Potency	Power	Condition Damage
the Stout	Toughness	Precision

Tier 3/4/5	Major	Minor 1	Minor 2
the Magi	Healing Power	Precision	Vitality
the Rabid	Condition Damage	Precision	Toughness
the Shaman	Vitality	Healing Power	Power
the Soldier	Power	Toughness	Vitality
the Traveler	Magic Find	Power	Precision

Tier	Major	Minor
Mark	5	2/1%
Talisman	7	5/1%
Seal	11/2%	8
Medallion	14/3%	10
Crest	20/3%	14

Percentages are for Critical Damage and Magic Find. The only one you could call a progression is from Mending to Magi, adding Precision; Stout to Rabid is indirect, since Toughness goes down to a minor bonus and Condition Damage is added as the major bonus. The other 3 low-tier pairings don't exist at all in the higher tiers. —Dr Ishmael 15:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So the are basiclly disconected. I udated the mark thext I think I nailed it. and these are not neccessary boni to primary attibutes, so I just wrote various instead. - Yandere 16:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)