Talk:Echovald Forest/Map

Unwaking Waters (Kurzick)

TEF, why did you want to link to the outpost instead? Just for practicality's sake, who actually goes to the outpost page? haha. I think I gave the label (Kurzick) just so it matched the name on the map. Also, any other opinions on where mission outposts should link, might as well get this sorted out? ~FarloTalk 23:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

People do go to the outpost. It'd be impractical to assume otherwise. Mission should be shown where it happens and outposts on the outpost spot. As that is an outpost you travel to, not actual mission and it'd be less confusing. Kaisha 23:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think it would look pretty cluttered having the mission titles right next to, or in some cases under, the outpost link? IMO, linking to the mission is enough since the outpost probably (I could be wrong) isn't the thing most people want, and even if they do, it's one click away. ~FarloTalk 23:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the way we have things setup on the map right now is best. We really should reflect the fact that there are four important locations for UWaters: outpost (K), outpost (L), mission, and explorable. There might not be a good solution, but I think we can do better than the current situation.

• The first time you explore Echovald, you have to go to the outpost first ... (similarly, first time visiting Jade Sea, you need to find its outpost)
• The map points to the mission.
• The mission points to disambig (unlike other mish, that house their own disambig)
• The diambig points to a bunch of things, including the outpost one is searching for in the first place.

So, I had to look at about 5 pages before I found what I was looking for, which is how to get there if you haven't unlocked it yet. Not saying I had a good solution, but ... I'm open to anything that helps convey the fact that ANet made things more confusing than they needed to be. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, for the disambig, we can change it on the mission article so it matches the rest of the missions, that'll get rid of a few clicks. I just really don't want to see more identical text in different colors splattered on the page. I thought about this when I was making them and tried it (somewhere, can't remember which), but it looked pretty bad, so I'd like to avoid having multiple links with the same name in close proximity if at all possible.

If progress was ever made on this, that'd make the extra click from a single link on the map a lot less painful. ~FarloTalk 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps with the suggestion of Tef, but for outpost do (o), Explorable (e), Mission - (k) for Kuzick and (l) for Luxon. It wouldn't look too cluttered, because perhaps you can just have the name on the outpost and the links using the (o), (e), (k), and (l) as the other and make a key to distinquish what is what. Would that help? This is a thought on the name that is repeated far more than once. 72.148.31.114 02:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We should change the disambig so it's not on a separate page (there's no reason for that). And, as Farlo notes, that drops a bunch of clicks. As for identical text in different colors: it's not identical (one says mish, one not)...and it's not our fault ANet cannot think of more names. On the other hand, the Echovald map doesn't really have room for it...and it would require treating Echovald and Jade Sea differently from the rest of the interactives.

In any case, I don't expect a good solution, so let's try moving the disambig to be native to the UWaters articles...and see if that turns out to be least bad enough. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, we can do that, and yeah, they aren't identical, but come on, they're close enough to make it cluttered and confusing. Even if ANet got more and more lazy as they went down the map, it doesn't mean we can't think of something to make it look half-way decent :P ~FarloTalk 03:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Soz, that was meant to have a :P to go along with not identical (I did know what you meant). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)