ArenaNet talk:Skill feedback/Archive 2

Draft formatting guidelines

There are two draft formatting guidelines at Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Skill feedback pages. Comments would be appreciated. -- Gordon Ecker 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The cleanup

Isn't there going to be any flaming for my exploits? Seriously? -- NUKLEAR IIV 19:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll flame you.

OMG n00b. WTF BULL**** R U DING TO IZYS PAIGE? U NUB I HOP U DYE INA FIR!!!!!!! ~Shard 07:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Something to help differences with

The templates Orange and perhaps Gray can help distinguish changes between actual skills and suggestions (not respectively). Should we place a note or the like somewhere? --Antioch 04:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated. Sure, it's nice eye candy, but that's it. People won't bother with it. At all. -- NUKLEAR IIV 16:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

accessibility++;

Linking each of the suggestion pages to their relevant mainspace article (e.g. ArenaNet:Skill feedback/Mesmer/Chaos Storm gets a link somewhere on Chaos Storm page - perhaps make a new parameter in the Template:Skill infobox, or use #ifexist call?) seems like a good way to improve accessibility and invite more participation, especially for those who are new to teh Wiki and can't be bothered to read the sidebar like me. (This would also hopefully cut down on teh amount of times a suggestion is moved from a skill's talkpage and put to one of these suggestion page instead.) Vili 07:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Another option would be some form of talk page banner exlaining that skill feedback belongs elsewhere, and linking to skill feedback page's talk page if it exists, or the appropriate skill feedback index (for example ArenaNet:Skill feedback/Assassin) if it doesn't. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean kind of like those banners that Wikipedia throws up for every talkpage? Yeah, that's an option. :) That would also reduce the potential strain on the job queue from changing the skillbox, you'd just have to make a template {{Suggestions Go Elsewhere}}. And like you say, works better for things that don't use a skillbox anyway. Vili 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like a cross between those and our otheruses template. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a talk page notice would be better. The suggestions aren't that relevant to the documentation that we need to expand our already complicated infobox, imo :) - anja 19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Suggestion pages are ancillary and should not be reason to clutter mainspace articles. Talk page notices seems good, but I would object to putting them on every page, especially those that would need to be created. Restricting them to 'likely targets' would seem the better solution to me. Backsword 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could just use a #ifexist to link talk pages to discussions. --JonTheMon 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Does These Pages Ever Been Read by Anet?

Look form Wintersday until now, what did they do to this game's balance? Only 1 skill, do they really care about these pages we've created? Do they really care about this game? So many unacceptable overpowered gimmicky builds there, but updated only 1 skill for 2 months. No wonder [EvIL] returned but doesn't play any more. They mean to make this a imba dead game. What can we do? We've already paid and they got the money. They don't care.--140.128.67.248 06:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm beginning to archive old issues that aren't relevant anymore or were changed by recent skill updates. I'll have this finished soon (1-2 days, if everything goes well). I'll continue to check back after every skill balance to archive issues that don't need to be here anymore. Purpose of doing this is to make it easier to read and browse for the ArenaNet skill balance team. :) DarkNecrid 14:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've finished the Warrior section. Just for further information: I am archiving all ideas that don't make sense with other skill changes, ideas that are prior to an update to a skill, ideas that were removed by their author, etc. So long as an idea makes sense with the current state of the game (ie: people complaining about Shields Up +24 armor bonus doesn't make sense now.) stay, even if they may be questionable (but obviously not JOKE) ideas. I have either moved links up top or archived topics from the ideas that Izzy has done stuff with section because archiving can serve the same purpose, honestly. Ideas that weren't archived from there generally have posted ideas that are still relevant to the skill or could be ways to change it even more. I haven't outright archived them all because Linsey != Izzy, and she might be interested in them still. I also fixed an empty link on the PvE skill page, and made sure the Monster skill & Misc. section is fine.

I plan to cruise through Ranger and Monk (maybe Necro + Mesmer if I have time!) later today (I figure Recent changes could use a break! :P), and will finish with the other classes tomorrow. DarkNecrid 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ranger + Monk complete, taking a temporary break, will complete Necromancer & Mesmer later. DarkNecrid 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Necromancer + Mesmer complete, done for tonight. If someone (Shard/Wyn/someone experienced) wants to prowl through the other 5, feel free. Just make sure you use the current setup and try to snag all the outdated ideas. Stuff like Lingering Curse which had ideas posted before its Elite work up etc need to be archived. If no one picks up the torch by tomorrow night, then I'll get to work on it again. DarkNecrid 01:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that some archive pages have attribution issues. The GFDL requires attribution. If the pages do not contain attribution for everyone who has made copyrightable contributions, they should list the source pages (either on the pages themselves or in the edit summaries), which should be taged with the merge source tag and should not be deleted or tagged for deletion until after the merge attribution issues have been resolved on the destination pages. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is there an index of the new archives? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

<---wiki nub so your attribution thing completely went over my head. IDK if you mean a separate category for all the archives or what, but all the archives are listed on each of the classes front pages (currently only the first 5 tho, W/R/Mo/N/Me). DarkNecrid 04:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I found them and am going through them. I recommend using moved tags on source and target talk pages, using mergesource tags on any merge source pages with unattributed content (unsigned posts, feedback entries which don't contain credit etc.) and linking to the source pages in the section titles of the archive pages. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've tagged all the pages with attribution issues. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Gordon, most of this is my fault, as I just asked poke a couple of questions. Since Linsey has expressed a wish to use these pages, but would like a slightly easier to wade through something, we wanted to clean them up, and DarkNecrid offered, and I just tried to come up with the way to do it and totally didn't think about pages losing all of their content and thus the deletion issue. Gotta love the wiki where things can be put back relatively easily. -- Wyn 08:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yeah sorry Gordon D:. Unfortunately I have bad news, I'm not going to have time today or tomorrow to work on this at all, so if anyone wants to work on from Elementalist and on and just archive all the ideas for skills that got updated prior to those updates, feel free if you know what you're doing. DarkNecrid 22:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Revamping the Skill feedback for Linsey's use

Since Linsey has expressed the wish that all skill feedback come here rather than getting walls of text on balance issues on her talk page, maybe some rethinking needs to be done for this area. I agree that some easy to use indicator of whether an issue has been looked at should be incorporated into the feedback template, so adding some extra parameter? like we have for the bugs pages.. -- Wyn 01:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a fake screenshot of a template we could make for her to mark read topics, so she wouldn't have to click through each individual page to find out if anything's new (I wouldn't know how to make a template like this, but I know it can be done). ~Shard 01:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

File:User Shard preview.png

The problem with that method is there are multiple issues per skill spage. I think the indicator should be on each issue? That would also indicate when an issue could/should be archived. -- Wyn 01:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My current idea is pretty simple and is basically a fusion of the bug report + current skill feedback implementation. The category division should probably be by UP issues/OP issues/functionality&other issues then by class since this generally makes the most sense (what is breaking the game now is probably what she'll think first, not "how is the Necromancer doing!"). Users create relevant skill issues like normal which are divided by skill. Discussion is not to happen on these issue pages at all, the only one allowed to respond should be Linsey or Izzy or someone else from ArenaNet. Discussion that takes place here should be moved to the discussion page. The format for these issues should be slightly different then current though. By default, an issue is created with a grey X next to it which represents it is new. Linsey can easily mark this as a red X through a simple edit that marks it has been read by her or a balance member. A green check mark is to be used if it has been read + replied to. I think the thing we should do to make it different is possibly discuss archiving read or answered issues after X days. There is no need to keep them in the "database" until they happen if they have been read by the balance team, it'll be internalized in Anet if that is the case. DarkNecrid 01:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just have sub-bullet points for all section headers. This could make coding the template significantly more difficult, though. Comic Sans 01:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter how we writing these feedback, they just refuse to read them. It's usless, they dont really care the balance. Some OP gimmicky builds have been existing over 3 years, fixed?--RedTeaCat 07:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bro, we're doing this because they want a way to show they are reading them, Linsey asked for it. DarkNecrid 08:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of pages with archives

I don't think we should delete feedback pages with archives. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't thing I tagged any articles with built in archives for deletion, but I'll admit I was (am...) pretty tired towards the end of it, so I may have missed an archive or something that could be moved to the current archive system. if i did, sorry. DarkNecrid 04:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that many of the recently tagged pages are sources for unattributed merges. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that deletion of the archived pages is not correct since we need to maintain attribution under GFDL. I would suggest that other than deleting them links to the archives should be included. I hadn't considered that this morning when I added the archive link to the primary profession pages. Maybe if all issues on the page need to be archived, the page should be moved instead? that would maintain attribution while eliminating the otherwise blank pages and needless links on the main pages. -- Wyn 05:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How Useful is This?

I have a problem with not knowing whether these are being viewed. I say we use Shard's checkmark Idea for individual suggestions. Linsey can place it there when she has a look. In order to know what skills she's been looking at have her put her signature with a date next to the skill link. Here are simple examples... [1] [2]~>Sins WDB

Suggestions to do nothing

Recently, a number of suggestions along the lines of "leave this skill alone", "this skill is fine as it is" and "don't change this skill" have been posted. I am in favor of the removal of all suggestions to maintain the status quo. I'm bringing this up here to establish an informal general rule, and so that we will have a place to point to if someone complains about the removal of this type of suggestion in the future. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Although compliments are a form of feedback, I believe the idea behind these pages was to report on things that weren't working or need adjustment. So I would support this proposal. Vili >8< 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I support/agree with Gordon's proposal to remove "don't change this skill" sections entirely. Those comments belong on the talk page in response to specific balance suggestions. -Auron >8< 04:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I support this as well. -- Wyn 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

iawtc. poke | talk 13:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think this is a good idea at all. When you remove all the positive comments, all you have left are the one's demanding/requesting changes for whatever reason. So if a handful of vocal people were peeved about a skill, they'd only have to post and hey presto, it's being looked at, when most of the time (and in a lot of circumstances), the skill is fine as it is and doesn't need changing. Removing all the "leave this skill alone" comments presents a very one side view which shouldn't be the norm here. Anon-e-mouse 15:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they are talking about pages that only say "Leave this skill alone" and nothing else. Any comments on talk pages for existing suggestions for change will be left. - anja 15:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

make a note?

i sugesst to make a note on the pages saying something to the effect of what build the skill in question is broken and if its a pve or pvp problem.75.165.115.205 22:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

They don't want to use it anymore due to their current legal concerns, but it was used in the past. Also, I don't think that there's any legal problems with basing future skill feedback on ideas (which, as I understand it, can't be copyrighted, only patented, which requires formal registration and the absence of prior art) from existing feedback pages. IMO we should just slap archive tags on all the old feedback pages. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to use the namespace for another license, it needs to be cleaned first, and these are the major contents there. Better if people copy their stuff to userspace. Backsword 06:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for archiving everything, it'll help get this section reworked into the way Linsey wants it once the licensing terms get going too. DarkNecrid 21:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, we're using a separate feedback namespace for the new license. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete this right now in case people want to save their own copies of their suggestions. And yeah, I agree - it should be archived. -- Indochine talk 14:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... it's pretty sad that this company is not even taking suggestions, they are part of feedback. If their new license does state that, Im all in for archiving this. They were never good at taking suggestions nor deciding which one was good.--ShadowFog 16:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Their new license will allow them to take feedback and suggestions, in which case this should be archived and reworked to how Linsey wants it, since she said she definitely wants to check this section out but it'd have to be done to be more friendly and allow her to show the users what she has seen (but not necessarily commented on). DarkNecrid 16:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)