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:Location

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Small to large...[edit source]

Considering the sub-classification of zones goes from larger set to smaller set, it might be overall less confusing to have everything go from large to small. I live in the US, I HATE how street addresses are written here. Asian style makes way more sense. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 01:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

German style, you mean. ;-) Anyway, I would like to question two of your changes:
  • you removed Vortex from below "landmark" with the following reason: " the vortex is technically an object IMO, like buildings or sign posts or statues. They cease to qualify as locations in a very loose way to argue things)". I don't quite get what you mean, statues are certainly landmarks. I can see how "vortex" might not be useful as a location type, though, is that what you meant?
  • you changed "explorable area" as a superclassification to "instance", no reason given. That is a wrong use of the word, I believe. I quote instance: "a new instance—a separate, parallel copy—of the area is created each time a party enters an explorable area". So an instance is a game object that the server creates when you enter certain location types. If you look at Rose of Kali's reasoning on Mission OUtpost, she seems to think of what yo uget when you enter a mission as "explorable" as well, so it is not just I who thinks of these areas as explorables. --◄mendel► 07:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. Yeah, Vortex is not a location type. I also feel it unnecessary to mark every single thing that qualifies as landmarks.
  2. I don't believe your description of my actions matches the state of the article after my last edit. In other words, I didn't what you think I did. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 04:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
2. "Instance" was meant by me to be a short and of Instanced areas. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"this article is about location types, not about combat"[edit source]

I don't like the way in which mendel reverted my edit to the Notes section. Small text is hard to read and should not compose the majority of a paragraph like that. What was wrong with my bulleted list? No, this article isn't about combat, but those specific situations directly relate to the definitions of staging area versus combat area given in the taxonomy section.

Also, the notes about the Command Post and the Fortress of Jahai should either be removed or edited, as those locations are not unique.

  • You can still use skills in the Command Post, which means that it does allow combat, there just aren't any enemies to attack or to use skills against. It's the same as all the other "miniature" explorable areas like Linnok Courtyard or Bokka Amphitheatre. (The latter example demonstrates this very well, as there is a quest-related situation where you do participate in combat there.)
  • There are other landmarks that are named on the map, including the Citadel of Dzagon and the Halls of Chokhin. The taxonomy entry for landmarks already allows that landmarks are usually not named on the map, it doesn't require that they can't be.

Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 22:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Dr. Ishmael's version looks MUCH cleaner. Jink 01:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
These notes are mostly examples, clarifying situations where the taxonomy could be misunderstood. They're not exceptions (as you've pointed out), so the list doesn't have to be complete: when doing the definitions, we strove for simplicity, so I feel these examples are needed to explain them. I picked examples that are (relatively) well known. Command post specifically was chosen because it allows no combat and is full of "service" NPCs, yet is no outpost; if you can replace them with better examples, go ahead.
I agree that the full list of outpost combat examples is not needed on the article, and could well be moved in the interest of "cleanliness", e.g. to staging area. I don't believe we ought to remove all examples when they can't be complete listings.
those specific situations directly relate to the definitions -- with that reasoning, keep the bullets
Re-edited, --◄mendel► 06:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
None of that changes the fact that the Command Post note is inaccurate. It does not disallow combat, because you can use skills there. The lack of enemies to use skills against is beside the point.
The pre-searing note doesn't relate to the definitions here, because none of them mention anything about outposts having henchmen/Xunlai. It's giving an example of an exception when the rule hasn't even been stated.
I'll move the rest of the notes to their respective articles. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 13:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem with your bulleted list is that it strives to be a complete list of staging areas that have (or had at some point) NPC combat. This has no bearing on the focus of the article, which is about location types. If you feel this infomration to be of interest, you could place it on an article that focuses on staging areas or outposts or combat or NPCs, or collect these examples in a category for completeness and link to that. --◄mendel► 06:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)