GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

Talk:Artisan list

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

hello Guildwiki,

you may use any pic or info I created a long time ago on this topic from I think mostly the little screenshots could improve the article, I think you got the info allready.

kind regards,


Servants of Fortuna

Cheers Makkert! Infact your thread on GWGuru was one of the sources of information that I used to verify the artisan list. Great work! We might use the maps to show the locations. A map is always clearer than a word description.
Oh, and by the way: You'd be most welcome to do add any missing info yourself. You know GuildWiki is open for all contributors. --Tetris L 06:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Tell me, why do we have this article, when there already is a list of Rare Crafting Material Traders? I agree though that the article name is arguable. :) -- 00:09, 20 Jul 2005 (EST)

Artisans are crafters, not traders. Two different things. --Tetris L 15:27, 26 Sep 2005 (EST)

What about Etham the Artisan in Nebo Village. Is he actually an artisan like the name implies? --Tetris L 15:27, 26 Sep 2005 (EST)

Yes, he is. Like Captain Greywind and Osric, you can choose in the dialog to see his trade instead of talking about quests. He is not on the list?! Sacre bleu!! :) --Karlos 17:05, 26 Sep 2005 (EST)

May I suggest that we change the page to a table format for better overview, as follows:

Artisan Name Artisan Daved Artisan Kristan Etham the Artisan Hadasha the Artisan Sennat Sen Artisan Rudger Crafter Torgil Artisan Orpah Crafter Magnor Crafter Hagrem Nido Shabra
Location *) Old Ascalon Regent Valley Nebo Terrace Mamnoon Lagoon Salt Flats Ascalon Foothills Deldrimor Bowl Tangle Root Talus Chute Mineral Springs The Arid Sea
Roll of Parchment X X X X - - - - - - -
Bolt of Linen X X X X X X - - - - -
Leather Square X X X X X X X - - - -
Steel Ingot X X X X X X X - - - -
Clay Brick - - - - X X X - - - -
Tempered Glass Vial - - - - X X X - - - -
Vial of Ink - - - - X X X - - - -
Lump of Charcoal - X X X X X X X X X X
Spiritwood Plank - - - - X X X X X X X
Bolt of Damask - - - - - - - X X X X
Elonian Leather Square - - - - - - - X X X X
Roll of Vellum - - - - - - - X X X X
Deldrimor Steel Ingot - - - - - - - X X X X

*) click artisan name for location details

This table is mainly as an overview for material availability. I would create the individual artisan pages for details information about the location of each artisan. --Tetris L 01:34, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)

I like this very much. --Karlos 08:54, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
Okay, since nobody objects, I'll go ahead. --Tetris L 01:58, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)
Is this in (usual) order that a PvE player will encounter them? -- Serps 15:58, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)
Good point. I think they should be sorted by the game storyline order.. i.e. Ascalon, Northern Shiverpeaks, Northern Kryta, Maguuma, Southern Kryta, Desert, Southern Shiverpeaks and Ring of Fire. --Karlos 16:37, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)

Hey Tetris L, you want to add Artisan Sivan to the list? I would but I don't want to screw up your chart.  :) --Rainith 18:22, 16 October 2005 (EST)

Done. --Tetris L 06:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Deldrimor Steel[edit source]

So, there is not a single crafter for D. Steel in Factions or NF? O_O RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.jpg 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

square cells[edit source]

I wanted them, but they add 10px to every line. Sigh. --◄mendel► 11:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The {{pix}} are wider than the standard line height at this size. For square cells, we'd need a slightly smaller image for the materials. FWIW, that's probably true of most images that we use inline; they're slightly too big to keep paragraphs/tables looking neat and tidy. Of prof, steel, and gold icons, only Gold preserves the line height for standard text size. And most are more than 1 em wide and many space oddly inline. :-/

mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm
mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm
mmmmm mmWarriormm mmmmm
mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm
mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm
mmmmm mmSteel Ingot(s)mm mmmmm
mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm
mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm
mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm
mmmmm mmGoldmm mmmmm
mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm
mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tennessee Ernie Ford (contribs) .
Dr Ishmael and I had a discussion on the size of the materials icons, and they were sized to be both recognizable and compatible with table row heights. --◄mendel► 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

merge request[edit source]

I disagree with full merge, but an inclusion as Artisan/List might be good. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG.png 19:08, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

MERGE. Needs to be fully merged. I am so sick of having to click on a material, click on artisan, and then click on artisan list. I just want to click on artisan and be able to check.--Darksyde 05:31, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Imo, we should list which artisans craft a material on the material's page. Why do we not, anyways? Maybe even give the (arguably) easiest to reach artisan on the page itself. That way, people who search for a material (which is the most sensible thing to do) can instantly see which artisans can help them out, rather than having to either go to the Artisan page, or know that they should actually just look for the Artisan list page. --Vipermagi 08:41, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the pages ought to be merged necessarily, but we can should make the navigation a lot easier anyhow. We should be able to set things up so that the table is built-up from bits on the individual artisan's page...and that same info can be transcluded to each of the mat's page. IMO, merging the list and the description of Artisans ends up with a messy article.
So, I agree the current system is bad. However, I think we have better alternatives to merge to solve the issues.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:08, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think the merged article would be all that messy, and in any case we already have quite a few articles that are much worse than that would be. The only messiness I can see would be all the gray all over the place (which I've always thought was ugly anyway).
"so that the table is built-up from bits on the individual artisan's page" That might be possible with SMW, but not with normal transclusion, unless you're going to display a full row from this table on the artisan's page (which would be overkill, you only need to list what they do craft, not what they don't). Even with SMW, it would be a lot of work to set up. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 14:04, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
I find the current version harder to read than the last one. Maybe the gray background was ugly, but it set aside headers from data, campaign from campaign. Consequently, I would prefer we revert it and, if necessary, change the background colors used to do that.
Re: building up this chart. I'm not sure why that would be any harder than what we do for lists of skills, where we build up each row in a table from data in a skills template. I'll try to make time to setup a mock-up in my user space.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:30, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
How about just a light gray for the campaign row, then? We already use that style on Vanquisher and Nicholas the Traveler/Past Collections. The actual header row is already "set aside" enough simply by having all the icons in it.
"build up each row in a table from data in a skills template" That's exactly the problem - that works for skills because we have an intricate template system set up for it. We don't have that for artisans, and I don't see much advantage in setting one up, either. With skills, their data can change often due to game updates, thus a template system is useful to dynamically update all pages that display that data; with artisans, their data never changes, thus there's no reason to set up a dynamic system for them. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 16:10, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Re: compromise. Much better imo. I'm not sure that the icons set aside the header row enough, but I'm willing to wait to see if anyone else has a strong opinion (if not, then let's stick w/current implementation).
re: intricate complexities. Ah, didn't realize how horribly dependent all that stuff was (the code is opaque to me). Still, wouldn't it be possible to create an Artisan template and an artisan location template:
  • Artisan has parms include y/n for which items crafted, location, directions/near outpost, name, etc
  • Artisan location presents those parms in a table row (if I were to do it myself, I'd copy what we do for the goth-request rotation)
    • On the artisan's page, present just their row.
    • On the mats page, present the relevant artisans name & location
    • On the artisans or list of pages, present the full table of all
No doubt I'm still missing something, b/c this still seems reasonably straightforward. (If I was quicker w/code, I'd do the mock-up now, but I suspect it would take me a couple of hours even to re-create something already done w/o modifications — since that's what happened with the dungeon chest contents template.) If that's the case (that I'm missing something), it's likely that I'll hafta try above before I really get it (that won't be time wasted for me, since it will ratchet up my understanding of these things a notch or two, I hope).  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:26, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Getting off-topic again... That's why every skill template begins with {{skill box {{{1|}}} instead of simply {{skill box: so that on the skill's page the skill template is called with no parameters and uses the normal skill box template, but QR articles can call the skill template with a parameter like {{Backbreaker|knockdown}} to make it use a different template called skill box knockdown. All the various parameters for all of these skill display templates get stored on the skill template.
Like I said, you could set up something similar for artisans, but I really don't think it's worth the trouble. Since it's all static data, there's nothing wrong with presenting it statically on each page. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 16:58, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
The location descriptions aren't static. They don't change often, b/c not that many people even know that you can craft rare mats (or that it's only particularly worth it for a few...and the cost:benefit for others depend on the commodities markets). However, whenever Nick requests a craftable, it seems there are corrections on this page. I'm hoping that there's an easy way that we could see identical text on three pages, w/o remembering to edit them all: this list, the artisan's page, and the relevant rare mat.
It could be that the best solution is simply to leave a comment on all three, reminding peeps to copy/paste, but perhaps best can also mean automated.
On the off-topic part, it's not that I don't believe you (I do), but (despite the stately adjective in my moniker) I often behave as if from Missouri (the show me state) — I'm going to have to prove to myself that it's not worth the trouble. I appreciate you trying to save me from that Pyrrhic task.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:38, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
After looking through them for a while, I'm not seeing much benefit to the descriptions in this table. Either an artisan is easy-to-reach (being very close to an outpost), or he isn't. If a material has an easy-to-reach artisan, then I'll use him; conversely, if all artisans for a material are hard-to-reach, then I'll have to evaluate them all individually (by going to the artisan's page for a map (if it has one), then checking the explorable area for what kind of foes to expect) to decide which one I want to use. Comparing artisans on this page when they are all described as "a dangerous hike" doesn't help me very much.
Actually, every material has an easy-to-reach artisan. Between Xue Yi and Kainu, you can easily craft everything except Linen and Deldrimor Steel in Kaineng City. Linen can be crafted by Artisan Kristan just outside Fort Ranik, and DSteel by Shalgrim Stonehart a short walk from the CTC through the Battledepths. I say we just mark the easy-to-reach artisans and leave out the descriptions entirely. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 19:22, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
When I first put together the list, I didn't have all areas unlocked; the brief route descriptions were very helpful. I'm guessing that some fraction of ppls coming to the page will be similarly restricted. The point of "dangerous hike" is to suggest that readers will want to look at a map before heading out. "Short hike" means you could do it safely w/o checking the map.
Now, having written that, perhaps it is overkill. (Or underkill?) So, I'm going to pause from my replies here in the hopes that others with opinions add theirs. (Esp. Darksyde, who introduced the idea of making things easier to see.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:03, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

There are two discussions going on:

  • should this list be included on Artisan as-is?
  • can this list be edited to make it better?

I suggest that an answer to the second question is not necessary to decide the first. All the schemes that have been proposed to change the this list/table should get at least to the "working demo" stage before a decision is sought.

For the first question, have a look at Artisan, and decide whether it would be too cluttered if this list was inserted (presumably above the Notes section). TEF argues that this would be "messy" -- why? TEF also argues that a better solution is possible, but in the absence of one, the question is, is it better to have the merge than to not have it? Because that would then be a step in the right direction. Everybody else who has weighed in seems in favor of the merge (as am I). TEF, what say you? --◄mendel► 06:34, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the two articles should remain separate. This article is sufficient on its own, and Artisan successfully defines what it is. The fact that both articles provide extra information (this one has a description of location and Artisan has what the items are used for) is another point in my mind for separation. --JonTheMon 15:37, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
I say, "what's the rush?" It will be easier to see if the articles should remain unmerged when this page (and others) are adjusted to make the how-to-find information easier to find. That addresses the only reason suggested to date for the merge and addresses the unmerge argument that Jon has made more clearly than I.
So, I think that the answer to Mendel's second question is highly influential to answering the first.
However, if someone has a mock-up of a merged page that doesn't confuse what is an artisan with where in the world is Carmen San Diego and can do it in less than a large-screen screenful, I'm open to the possibility that merging would be better.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:06, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Mockup at User:M.mendel/Artisan, merge notes sections? --◄mendel► 17:20, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Initial thoughts on mockup: Having the materials on top acts as a key for the material headers for the artisan lists. Spacing could be better. Table formats would need to be more consistent. And of course the notes sections would need to be merged. --JonTheMon 17:29, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
I worked your suggestions into my mockup. --◄mendel► 18:56, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Jon meant by "Table formats would need to be more consistent" (how are they inconsistent? they're structured differently to display different data, so how consistent can they really be?) but I think that looks just fine. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 19:16, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

putting pieces together[edit source]

In the section above, TEF and Dr Ishmael are discussing this concept:

  • Artisan has parms include y/n for which items crafted, location, directions/near outpost, name, etc
  • Artisan location presents those parms in a table row (if I were to do it myself, I'd copy what we do for the goth-request rotation)
    • On the artisan's page, present just their row.
    • On the mats page, present the relevant artisans name & location
    • On the artisans or list of pages, present the full table of all

There is talk that SMW or maybe some sort of skill-template setup would be needed. However, our skill template setup is pre-DPL, so there's an easier way. If the artisan page has a template call with the necessary info (e.g. to display the table row), then DPL can grab all those template calls, and pass just their parameters to another template for output. This way, the complete artisan table could be built from a single DPL call. To select the artsans for display on the materials page, we could simply have the artisan's page be autocatted into "category:crafts deldrimor steel" etc. A more complicated approach would be to use DPL's "includematch", that would avoid those categories. --◄mendel► 20:00, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

One piece of my argument you missed: WHY? All the basic data is static - Artisan Daved isn't going to suddenly learn how to craft damask and silk. There's absolutely no need for this. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 20:11, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure ANet won't add another artisan? Anyway, it'd be fun to set up. --◄mendel► 20:26, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Erm, this is not my main point, which is: the originally stated problem is that it's hard to find these guys (requires too many clicks on the wiki). I'd like to see if there's a way to do that that doesn't involve merging. (The details above are for a particular way of doing so that might be over-engineering. I'm not against doing so in order to help teach someone else [e.g. TEF] how to do this stuff, but it's beyond the scope of the issue.)
As Ish points out, almost all of the data is static. The goal would be to make it easy to appear on different pages in the right context. Copy/paste would be fine except that people tend to update the short-details of each NPC's location. Choosing just the nearest artisans also has problems because not everyone has access to all campaigns or all outposts.
So, my apologies for repeating: I'm not promoting a specific solution. I'm saying that we should be clear about the problem we are trying to solve, which, I believe, is to make it easier for people to find and reach an artisan for each rare mat.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:37, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Making it easier to find the right artisans[edit source]

I believe that the original issue with the artisan list is that it makes it take too long to find a crafter easily accessible to the player. This mock up takes out the need to follow any links at all. If everyone thinks presenting the locations this way works, than I would like us to work at implementing that solution and then revisiting the idea of a merge in a month or so. At that time, it might still seem sensible to some to merge (or perhaps not).

There are some issues with this solution
  • It's missing the by campaign info — the original list has that as a row; we would need to present it as a column.
  • Marking easy-to-reach artisans by shading is less sensible here; perhaps that should also be a sortable column.
Implementing the solution would require a couple of additional steps
  • Standardize the location map names (even using redirects).
  • Each mat page would end up part of the data available on Artisans and the individual crafter's page. What's the most efficient way to keep that identical and avoid overcooking the copypasta?
There are also some open questions
  • Should we present all artisans? or just the easiest-to-reach and soonest-to-find from each campaign? I argue all, so as not to decide for players which is most convenient for them. Others think less is more.
  • Should we present any notes about how difficult it is to reach the NPC? I argue yes: the idea is to let people know if it's worth unlocking a different area to craft.
  • Should we present any market data? I argue yes: Of 13 craftable mats, only half have been worth crafting since I started playing. (Only 3 are regularly cheaper to make from scratch (buy the common mats and craft). 4 others are often worth crafting (particularly if your raw mats were salvaged).)
    • This is a good week to put that to the test: for 12 months, Swood has been WTB/WTS 30–180Gold at the rare craft NPCs. Since it always costs at least 100Gold to craft and since its components are worth 110Gold even if sold to NPc, this is probably the only time that crafting Spiritwood is going to turn a profit.

Please feel free to add questions/ideas to the above bold-faced sections (although comments should go below). Please also feel free to alter the mock up (linked above) (and, again, let's keep comments here for the moment).

 —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:20, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed in the section above to put that data on the individual artisan's pages, via some ArtisanInfo template, and collecting it from there. Unfortunately, the campaign is not already part of the BeastInfo (why not?). It's possible to have it remain a row. As the material-specific table has less entries than the big table, sorting by ease of access makes less sense than it does here; I'd advise against it. The map names do not need to be standardized. The most efficient way to store the material data (price to craft etc.) is with the material.
Yes, we should list all artisans for that material (be encyclopedic). Yes, we should keep the "how to reach" notes. No, market data should not be part of the Artisan info.
The market data is a completely different issue than finding the artisans. Market advice is probably appropriate on the material pages; market data as well; but it has no bearing on artisans, their products and locations. We should discuss this elsewhere.
My open question is: is it ok to make categories for the artisan: "Category:crafts Bolt of Damask" etc.? There would be quite a few categories (half a dozen and more) for most Artisans. --◄mendel► 17:06, September 6, 2010 (UTC) I just noticed the Artisan campaign is coded in the Artisan category. ◄mendel► 17:13, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
No on market data on artisans. No on cats for each rare mat crafted. And for the first big question, I don't think it's necessary to make a table to list all artisans that make a specific rare mat; why not just link to the list of artisans? --JonTheMon 11:46, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
We don't "just link" for collectors on trophy pages — we include their offered items. The current alternative, linking to the list, requires two additional steps by readers: (1) follow the link (no biggie, but why require it?); (2) parsing the table to cull out which artisan offers which crafts, whether they are convenient for the current player. This data is much easier to find if we place it on the rare mat page (filtered appropriately).
I don't see a value in listing 3-6 additional categories on each artisan's page...unless we don't include the artisans.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:48, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
unless we don't include the artisans — huh? the categories wouldn't include the artisan's in their name, but the artisan pages would be included in the category -- somehow thi scomment makes no sense to me.
I'll try to come up with a non-category solution, then. --◄mendel► 18:37, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Moving forward

This discussion appears to have stalled. I'm going to attempt to goose things forward by creating mock-up pages for the umpteen artisans and the dozen or so craftable rare mats. Each artisan's page will have the list of items that they craft in a form that allows it to be wiki-magically repeated on the craft page (similar to how we do collectors/trophies). Similarly, that data can be replicated on a page like this one. Since this will be a lot of work (and it will still need to be moved to main space if ppls approve), please let me know if there's a good reason why we shouldn't be headed in this direction.

The data which seems to be useful:

  • artisan name
  • location:
    • thumbnail of map
    • nearest portal (proxy for can I reach them on this toon/account)
    • directions
    • are they easy-to-reach
  • items they can craft
  • thumbnail of their location

Depending on how this works out, it might turn out that we no longer want a table showing all the artisans. (However, since it will be easy to create from the other info, I don't see any reason against it.) It will also be easier to see if we want that table merged with the main article on the type of NPC that crafts rare mats.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:59, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Meta (but not market)[edit source]

I wanted to separate out the reason for discussing market data for rare mats; I think the term generates its own kind of issues, as the wiki has a particular tradition of where we draw the line between documenting the game and discussing the game. I do not want to open up that guideline for discussion.

Instead, let me rephrase the issue: this wiki documents parts of the meta game (through shortcuts that veterans use to work-around mission designs/flaws, common builds, etc). As it happens, there are some meta-game prices that are well understood, notably that of lockpicks and the use of ectos/black dye/zkeys as alternatives to using coin in trades; we document those.

I propose that we offer something similar to players about the utility of crafting materials because:

  • Only 3 rare mats are almost always (financially) worth crafting;
  • Only 3-4 rare mats could be worth crafting, depending on the market (and how the raw mats are acquired);
  • The remaining rares never been worth crafting in 18 months of tracking.

Isn't it worthwhile to find a way to convey that information to players? Here are 2 ideas for presentation?

  1. (Generic) Crafting rare materials can be much cheaper — or much more expensive — than buying them from NPC or player traders. Caveat Emptor: at a minimum, visit the NPC traders to find their WTB/WTS prices before deciding to craft.
  2. (Specific), using {{Speculative note}} Players generally believe this rare material to be [cheaper|more expensive] to craft than buying from NPC traders or players.

 —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:57, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

You should probably discuss this on the community portal. --◄mendel► 18:40, September 7, 2010 (UTC)