Feedback talk:Guild Wars skills suggestions

Categorization

Its rather annoying that yhe categorization is worse than the old feedback page. For example shadow form already has 5 different suggestors filling up the assassin category.~>Sins WDB 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but this is a result of a new philosophy about suggestions. We decided it is best if each contributor owns their own suggestions. That means that repeat suggestions aren't bundled into one page, but represented more democratically. So, while there may be a whole bunch of shadow form suggestions popping up, at least the devs know exactly how many people feel strongly about it, and that may convince them to change it in itself. Also, our new tables wouldn't work with the old skill categorization system. (Satanael 16:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

this new philosophy will leave this page severely overwhelmed. ~>Sins WDB 21:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why it's important for the community to discuss the suggestions and for the owner of the suggestions to participate in that discussion. If a suggestion is either negated by an update, or proven to be nonviable, the hope is that the owner will tag the suggestion for deletion, thus eliminating it from the lists. As for the Assassin skill section being overwhelmed with Shadow Form suggestions, well, that's kind of the nature of the beast isn't it? Everyone has their own ideas about how it should/could be changed, and the only way to really bring about change is through reasoned discussion. -- Wyn talk 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing, the nature of the beast is going to result in suggestion overload. If the page gets overwhelmed the devs get overwhelmed. Then whole thing becomes ineffective.~>Sins WDB 21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, it's up to the community to keep that from happening if they want this to work. Use reasoned discussion to prove to the owner of the suggestion why their idea doesn't work, and they will remove it from the "gene pool" as it were. It's only been a few days. And the Devs haven't even started looking at it yet (blame PAX), so give it a chance. So far I still have high hopes. -- Wyn talk 21:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's why we archive. DPL has a limit on the number of entries it can display in each list, so we will have to archive whether they are all unique and different or all reiterations of the same idea. (Satanael 21:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

(ECx2)Keep in mind that if people make too many suggestions, the developers would be overloaded regardless of what format we use. We have many ways to prevent this page from becoming unredeable due to having too many entries, but if the community makes dozens of thousands of suggestions (most of which would be repeated, of course), no system would ever work. It falls on us to have to discuss ideas between each other, avoid repeating the same ideas over and over, etc. Erasculio 21:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if the devs decide to read anything off this talk page, I recommend you read the feedback in alphabitized skill order as they come up on your list of skills to change. This way devs don't get overwhelmed by the sheer amount of ideas that are sure to be present in the future. ~>Sins WDB 03:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Subpages

I think the subpages (example) could be improved a bit:

• A better title would be "<profession> skills suggestions", as opposed to "<profession> skill suggestions"; we use "skills" in this central page, and I think that makes more sense.
• Given how the title of the page is "<profession> skill suggestions", I don't think we need a section header stating "<profession> skills suggestions", as it's a bit redundant.
• If we're going to have individual pages per profession, I'm wondering if we could create sections in those pages based on attributes. The Warrior skills suggestions article would have, then, the sections Axe Mastery skills suggestions, Hammer Mastery skills suggestions, and so on.
• We could also add a link to the suggestions portal.

Erasculio 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, actually "Profession skill suggestions" is better. I always stop for a moment when I go through the categories and such because it sounds a bit wrong imo.

About the rest, go and change it :) poke | talk 20:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I created those pages because as more and more skill suggestions get submitted, the single page is not going to be able to house them all and still be usable (there were over 750 individual skill feeback pages in the ArenaNet skill feedback area and those had multiple issues on each). Also, Jon was working on testing some proposed changes to the infobox that would link to specific list pages so this made it easier. As of yet, they haven't been linked in to the primary pages in any way. I think that <profession> skills suggestions looks and sound completely wrong, but I'm not going to argue if you wish to move them all, but I think adding specific attribute pages is over the top, and unnecessary since the tables are sortable by attribute. <edit> Ok, I misread. I thought you meant create separate pages for each attribute.... as for adding individual attribute tables, as more suggestions are submitted, yes, but not for now.-- Wyn talk 20:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ECxone thousand) Given how we're usually talking about multiple skills, IMO "skills" would work better, but whatever, I won't argue about that (although truth be said, if there's a consensus to use "skill", we could change the name of this page too). Take a look here: now the section header says "Scyhe Mastery skills (...)", but the table still lists "Scythe Mastery skills" as the article's subcategory. Is there a simple way to hide that subcategory column, in order to avoid redundancy?

Wyn, my concern with adding the individual attribute tables is also due to size. Splitting the table into multiple smaller ones would make it easier for the DPL to handle a very large number of entries, and it would also be the first step into splitting the pages per attribute, if the individual profession pages themselves become too cluttered. IMO, making individual profession pages wouldn't be necessary now, but if we are going to make those, I think we could already have a section per attribute anyway. Erasculio 20:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I agree, I just am so horrible with the dpl, that for me to create the individual profession pages, it was easiest, and least likely to break if I simply copied over the existing code from the combined page. I added the section headers more to keep the profession icon on the page than with thoughts of the redundancy factor (you know me, I like my eye candy). I don't mind if you wish to create the individual attribute tables, I just didn't want to muck it up :D -- Wyn talk 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As of now I object splitting it by attribute. We are far away from having full lists and the headers are just distracting with such short lists as they are now. Also I don't think we will later be able to increase the DPL limit by splitting it into multiple lists on the same page, because there are quire a lot things happening in the background, so it probably won't work for 1000+ entries. But the future will show that.. poke | talk 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I guess there's no big problem in waiting. However, this looks a bit, well, boring (I like eye candy too : D). I can't figure out how to add at least the profession icon. Erasculio 21:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PvE, PvP, PvPvE

Last thing, I promise : P Some users mentioned how they think we should have a different table for PvE changes, PvP changes and changes for both modes. I don't agree with different tables, but I do think we could list on the current tables which game mode the idea applies to. Right now, the "Alternate category" is mostly useless here (I doubt a suggestion to buff a skill could also be about the Chat system, for example); we could use that column to list if an idea is for PvE, or for PvP or for both. Erasculio 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It does that way. Instructions are here. poke | talk 01:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

What's the deletion policy on these pages? Is there one? Because, seriously, nobody wants to sift through suggestions like these, which is obviously either the post of a troll or a drunk person, because nobody could actually be that bad. Anyway, I was just wondering if there was a way to tag pages for deletion if the community clearly... dislikes the suggestion. --Gah_ 01:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion policy for the feedback area is the same as it is for the rest of the wiki. So long as they are not violating that policy, they can say whatever they want, no matter how much the community "dislikes" a suggestion. (Satanael 03:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

Deletion works the same way as on every other page. If you think something should be deleted, tag it. If people disagree start a discussion and find a consensus. poke | talk 13:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of link to this page from Feedback:Guild Wars suggestions

I think YK's edit was ok, and that this page probably isn't currently useful while inaccessible.. This page is just so long that the wiki just times out rather than returning the results. -Chieftain Alex 11:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)