Talk:Encounter

Jumping the shark

You know the wiki has jumped the shark when it's moved from documenting the game to documenting itself. -- Hong 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't documenting itself but documenting unofficial terms used for an aspect of the game. When most people think encounter in a game, they think some random fight forced on you like in Pokemon (or at least I do...). Konig/talk 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If the term "encounter" is being used in a confusing way, then you use another term. You don't add a new page to explain your idiosyncratic usage. When there's a hole in the road, you fill it in, you don't put up a sign saying please don't fall in the hole. -- Hong 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with Hong that we shouldn't invent a new use for existing terms. However, in this case, I do see players using encounter to describe these random bits of local color added for Beyond. (Before WiK, I didn't see it used to describe similar scripted dialogues that are part of the other campaigns.)

If the usage is widespread enough (and perhaps it is not), then we should document it in the wiki as part of the game...even if the folks that use it only do so b/c they saw the term in the wiki first. (This would be more a case of bootstrapping rather than jumping the shark.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You can find players using all kinds of silly terms. Adding more pages on this will just perpetuate confusion and make the GW community more insular. -- Hong 16:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

To expand on that, it will make the GWWiki community in particular more insular, by reinforcing the jargon that seems to be creeping up. Although I suppose it's inevitable for a game in GW's stage of life. -- Hong 16:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Before WiK, I didn't see it used to describe similar scripted dialogues that are part of the other campaigns." This was probably due to the sheer low amount of encounters in the four games - I can only think of 2 in Prophecies (both in Old Ascalon - one between Rurik and Zain, the other between Rurik and Adelbern), none for Factions, 1 for Nightfall (the debate between two scholars in Halls of Chokhin), and 2 for EN (if ignoring the henchmen). I'm sure there's some more, but all others I can think of are initial quote-dialogue for quests. In effect, "encounters" (whatever term you wish to use for it) was practically non-existent beforehand.

I made the page since I've seen it used a few times in game (and only since War in Kryta encounters was made). It's a wiki made term, but used outside of the wiki. And there's no harm in having it - since it's used in game, some folks may go "what does encounter mean?" since the game isn't like most which do have the traditional rpg encounter.

If we want to go with official terms then we'd have "script" however a script is, from what I know of game design, a (series of) command line(s) which can range from an NPC being idle to Abaddon breaking his chains after a certain time limit. E.g., there is no official word for it. Either way, there's little point in this unless someone adds a delete tag - to which I won't agree nor disagree; I just figured we should have a page for this, as an article to document a kind of content, similar to storyline, campaign, and so forth (official term or not). Konig/talk 16:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) We document the game, even if (2) players do use a lot of silly terminology. Personally, I cannot stand the use of BU as a synonym for Essence of Celerity. Outside of specialized speed-clearing teams, they are never used as a backup. But we document what players say, not what we wish them to say.

I'd be happy to replace the term with something else. Do you have a suggestion for something that could be used to generically describe the scripted bits of dialogue/actions used to add local color/lore/commentary? – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen players use "encounter" as it is described here. Well, okay, I'm exaggerating; I've seen one person use it. "BU" by contrast is pervasive in many parts of the GW community and so deserves to be noted, along with "conset", "*-way", and so on. Attempting to draw a parallel between these and "encounter" is spurious. -- Hong 17:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@Hong. The analogy is correct, but the specific choice is poor because (as you correctly point out), use of BU is widespread, while use of encounter is not. (That's hardly a spurious parallel, just not the most apt one.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Why is this page unnecessary then? Because one person has only seen one other use it? The wiki uses it throughout War in Kryta, Winds of Change, and related pages. I and TEF have seen it in game. So please give a reason as to why it's unnecessary or else I'll have to go back on my previous comment of not disagreeing. Konig/talk 17:19, 13 February 2012

Why is this page necessary? Because one (or two) people have seen at least one other use it? You have to justify why the page exists. It is not up to others to justify why it should be taken down. -- Hong 17:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be both ways. It is a term used on multiple pages of the wiki, used by multiple (several, not "at least one other"), and can be used to describe more than it does. It is a term - no matter its origins - used to define the largest portions of side content in both War in Kryta and Winds of Change and similarly it is vastly different from other RPGs' use of "encounter" (as I said before). In short, I already explained why I think this page should exist - yet you have not explained why you think it shouldn't other than "it's wiki jargon" (which is a very poor argument considering affiliation and creature type, among many others, are "wiki jargon"). Konig/talk 17:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think Hong's principle is spot on: the burden is on supporters of a new article/category/etc to show that readers would benefit by the change. However, I believe that the term is used more commonly than Hong seems to think. At the same time, if Hong isn't seeing it used at all, then perhaps its usage is less widespread than I thought, too.

Regardless, we do need a reasonable word to describe/categorize these events. I'm willing to consider other, equally effective ones. After reading several thesaurus pages, the best I've seen is: chance meeting; the rest of the synonyms for encounter do not effectively convey the idea. For dialogue, the best choice might be exchange (or random exchange in this case). For "meeting," there's (sigh) encounter.

In other words, "encounter" might be the least bad choice to describe chance meetings (or events) that are part of the game, but tied only to the campaign, not any specific quest sequence or mission. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is, from my perspective, why encounter was chosen. Or it is why I've supported it being used, and support its continued use. Konig/talk 00:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't really need an article in the first place. The list of dialogues does a pretty good job of conveying what these are about. And no, comparing this to affiliation and creature type doesn't work. Both of those have actual in-game effects: affiliation affects which monsters will fight each other, and type relates to damage bonuses from slaying weapons. A bunch of NPCs talking to each other has no in-game effect. -- Hong 13:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that it is an in-game effect. And my point with affiliation and creature type is that they're wiki-made terms used only on the wiki (that I've seen), for the wiki, and documented on the wiki. If anything's jumping the shark, it'd be them, as they have official names. Konig/talk 13:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The in-game effect is that they add color/background to the mainline plot; it's not a mechanical effect. To those interested in the story, this is potentially more important than concepts such as affiliation or type. A lot of people don't care about a bunch of NPCs talking to each other, but a lot of people care more about that than whether two groups that are never within aggro distance of each other will fight (and those same people probably don't use axes of dragonslaying or swords of demonbane). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) That's a ridiculous definition of "in-game effect". If you stop and listen to them, the plot will proceed exactly the same as if you just ran straight past, ergo they have no effect. They may add colour and background, but so does everything in the game. And I'd be perfectly happy to redirect affiliation and type to army and family. -- Hong 18:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Using "in-game effect" to include local-color effects is equally valid to restricting the term to include mechanical effects. Just because something is background doesn't make it unimportant; some people care more about local color and stories outside the main plot than they do about the combat aspects of the game.

Turning the question around: how would you like to see us document these bits of sideline dialogues?

• They can't be listed on a specific quest article b/c they don't take place during the quest (or even in the same instance).
• They are too numerous to end up on one article (and there are a variety of triggering circumstances that suggest that they belong to multiple articles).
• What word or phrase should we use to collectively describe them? If not encounter, what alternative do you propose?

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are articles on things that don't have any in-game effect. These are categorised under Category:Lore. This is not lore, by any stretch of the imagination. As for how they should be documented, Winds of Change encounters does a pretty good job. -- Hong 19:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is indirectly lore - in that it's a term for a kind of scene which exposes lore.

I'd like to point out one bit of irony in that this article does no harm. Konig/talk 19:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of things expose lore, that doesn't mean we need an article for all of them. And Dead Spoiler Dude isn't an article. It's a redirect. Similarly, if you redirected this to point to Winds of Change encounters, I wouldn't have a problem with that. -- Hong 19:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a problem, except for this. And if anyone ever decides to make the encounters that exist in the actual campaigns (there are some, just not as many), there'd be those as well. This was made and is solely intended to be a directory of sorts while also explaining the use of the term "encounter" on those pages. Though the point that this article does no harm remains until proven otherwise. Konig/talk 20:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You continue to assume that "encounter" actually needs to exist as an article in its own right. As stated previously, it is for you to show that this article actually needs to exist, not for others to show that it doesn't. At most I can see it as a disambiguation page, but nothing more. -- Hong 20:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reason for existing, I've already stated, yet you simply do not agree with. Sorry to inform you but both sides should defend their point, but generally neither has to (people just have to state their side). Either way, we're going in circles since you refuse to acknowledge my reasoning as being reasoning. Konig/talk 21:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The only pages that need to exist are the lists of encounters. They are what is the substantive content: documenting the game. This page, by contrast, is documenting the documentation. If you get to that point, you need to change the documentation. -- Hong 05:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, would you say the same for landmark? As that's more or less the same as this page (more so than any other link). A little less so, but similarly for storyline, quest, and mission.

We already document documentation in order to explain what is being documented, as such would not make sense on the more individual pages (list articles, most often). In some sense, it's very odd. In another, it makes perfect sense (no pun intended). Konig/talk 14:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, that seems fair enough. I still think it's borderline unnecessary for the wiki (this kind of terminology article makes sense for a general-purpose wiki or a dictionary, but it's not like people will ever confuse a GW landmark with any other landmark) but noone seems to have complained about it in five years. -- Hong 15:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)