User talk:Dr ishmael/Feature pack/Trait

Editor's notes

In addition to updating the article to reflect the Feature Pack's new trait system, I did a complete overhaul on this page. The main thing that bugs me about the current version is that it's called "Trait," but it doesn't actually talk about traits until halfway down the page. First it has to explain trait points and what you get for spending them and how to refund/reallocate them (thankfully I was able to strip most of that last section, hurrah for free refunds everywhere!), then it explains trait lines, then it finally is able to talk about traits and how they fit into the system.

To solve this, I turned that organization on its head. First I define the aspects of the trait system generically, with the actual traits in first position. After everything has been defined, then it's possible to give a discussion of how they interact within the mechanics of trait system.

Those were my goals, anyway, but I think this presentation is both more informative and easier to synthesize than the current article. Feel free to voice your own opinions. —Dr Ishmael 17:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

as a non-playing-gw2 person, the trait points example has increased my understanding of the article massively. (previously the trait page was one that I kind of glazed over with when I encountered it..)

the icon bit is eye-catching as you say, the indent is a bit heavy imo for the non-bold text.

{|
| style="padding-right:7px" | [[File:Trait guardian.png|center|25px]]
| style="padding-top:5px; padding-bottom:5px" | '''Minor traits'''<br>— Minor traits have small icons marked with the profession's symbol. All minor traits are unlocked by default.
|-
| style="padding-right:7px" | [[File:Trait XII.png|40px]]
| style="padding-top:5px" | '''Major traits'''<br>— Major traits have large icons marked with a Roman numeral. Major traits must be unlocked using [[trait guide]]s, which can be acquired as rewards for completing various in-game content or can be purchased from profession [[trainer]]s.
|}

that looks a tiny bit better to my eye, though the indent on the second line could be using &ensp; or none at all..

Any particular reason for moving the references to be inline instead of using the ref tags? -Chieftain Alex 17:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I converted the refs because it felt pointless to have an entire References section for two years-old links that are cited in the section immediately above. And I just realized that the Anet Blog link is dead (like all pre-release blog links), so now there's only 1 link, which makes it even more pointless to put it in its own section. If you know of a better way to format that link in-line, please fix it!

I probably spent too much time on the trait types section. Took another stab at it without using a table - thoughts? —Dr Ishmael 18:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

hmm. "plainlinks" can get some funny looks from editors but...

<span class="plainlinks"><sup>[http://guildwars2.jeuxonline.info/actualite/27250/entretien-exclusif-eric-flannum-lead-designer-arenanet]</sup></span>

I'm sure we'll be able to use more references when Anet have released all their spiel about traits anyway.

the elaborate wiki-code didn't bother me + it looked better before than now imo, but lets allow another user to comment on that huh. -Chieftain Alex 18:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

looking good. -Chieftain Alex 08:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Input

Hey, are we talking about page structure for once? My goal was to organize Armor like that. I don't think the sections have to be explicit though, the summary will do the job of providing an overview of the page structure. Do the major and minor trait symbols have to be keep the proportions from in-game? The screenshot already shows their proportions and there's no other reason to display the symbols at actual size while giving their definitions. It generates a lot of whitespace that we don't address unless we use a table like Alex suggested.

Most of our article (and many articles on the wiki) is about what traits are but not how they're used. Maybe we want a section about traits being connected to skill type or other mechanics like conditions. Maybe write about how traits tie into the combat system and form a major component of builds. How traits relate back to their trait line or other trait lines. And why the wiki refers to the skill type for traits related by skill type...--Relyk ~ talk < 01:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You made me take yet another look at trait types... and I realized I was being redundant, which allowed me to reduce the whitespace. Better? And I don't see why we can't keep the icons proportional, especially since this version reduces the whitespace.

The problem with trying to describe traits is that they come in such a wide variety that it's difficult to give a general overview. If you want to give it a try, though, go ahead. —Dr Ishmael 02:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I like it with the table format perfectly well.--Relyk ~ talk < 15:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)