Just so you know, the reason I rolled back your edits to those mutations is that mutation articles should not have version tags at all. They all get fed into the page Good mutations, and ideally THAT page gets kept up to date and has an appropriate tag. If the individual pages get tags, the overarching page suddenly gets broken up by dozens of version breaks. Instead, we just try to include the mutation's version history in an extra box added at the bottom of the mutation info. --MoogleDan (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2015 (CET)
Hey, Fingolfin? Are you CERTAIN about that triple crossbow => heavy crossbow name change? I was under the impression that "heavy crossbow" was just the special weapon type for "Sniper," in order to explain its slower than normal attack delay... Have you seen no triple crossbows in that game? This seems like the sort of change they would've mentioned in the 0.16 change notes, but I see nothing along those lines... --MoogleDan (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2015 (CET)
Signing your posts
When you add something to a discussion page (as you did on Talk:Player ghost), it's good to sign your posts using --~~~~ (the tildes are automagically converted to a signature) so everyone knows who's saying what. --Lokkij (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2015 (CEST)
Possible projects - strategy for species
Hey Fingolfin! Honestly, I think I largely edit like you - focusing mostly on updating and correcting obsolete and incorrect info (and even that's in huge fits and starts), but there is one thing that's been nagging at me just a bit lately, the lack of much (or even ANY) decent strategy info on the species pages for newer and more inexperienced players. Some of them have a ton of helpful details and look great (like deep dwarves), but others could really use something (in my admittedly, very non-expert opinion).
For example, the human article. it's pretty short, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it has zero strategy tips, which might be a turn off to some players. I mean, why play a human if you don't know what's good or bad about them and some general ideas of how to use them? Clearly, we don't need anything near as detailed as the character guides, just some general, common-sense tips that most players/editors can agree upon (i.e. won't piss anyone off).
So, that said, if you're interested, can you think of any good strategy we could add to the human article (or any other lacking species)? I was thinking highlighting their adaptability and quick leveling, and trying to show how that might influence even some tactical considerations, but honestly I'm a bit stumped for any real gems of advice. As they say, two heads are better than one - anything come to mind? (also, if this is in anyway not something you're interested in, feel free in telling me to buzz off, I will totally understand :) --Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2015 (CEST)
- I like the idea of adding some strategy info on the species articles, though I have virtually no experience in playing humans (yes, I was rebuked by the lack of any advice on hox to play them, since the article only states the negative points of humans). I also think the same should be done with backgrounds, especially since most caster backgrounds basically just list the starting spells. However I don't have much playing time right now and I won't be able to add any significant contribution before 1-2 weeks, but if you're still motivated then, I'll be glad to join you in this quest. --Fingolfin (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2015 (CEST)
- No worries my friend, and completely understandable. I can handle all the wiki markup and the other more tedious stuff, if that makes it any easier time and effort-wise. I particularly need help brainstorming and vetting things that I think might be universally applicable, utterly uncontentious strategy advice but might not be. You, perhaps unintentionally, raise a good point though - neither of us have overly extensive experience playing humans, and to me, that even more highlights the need for a strategy section. Not only should the wiki be a good place to come and discover sound play strategies, but also (upon reading such) inspiration for playing these species. I'll admit I might be getting a bit ambitious, and maybe treading more into the the character guide territory, but I don't think it's a bad aspiration - info that at worst is sound, standard advice, and at best inspires the reader to want to try it out. ANYWAY, I'll digress this ramble. Let me know if and when! :) --Buddy23Lee (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2015 (CEST)
Thanks for your keen eye and help with the seal doors article. I hope your human characters are fairing well (as boring as humans may be :) I was thinking that eventually we should maybe make a user-page list of articles needing additional strategical advice so we'll know which species, backgrounds, items, or anything else that we happen to stumble upon happens to qualify. It might be nice for reference purposes. Anyway, cheers. --Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2015 (CEST)
- Thanks. I think a list of articles that we need to improve really fits the description of the Current Projects page or Current Events, which are both in dire need of updating. My humans are pretty good as conjurers and wizards (though it isn't a recommended background) thanks to their nice (although not excellent) magic aptitudes and good HP. They also do well as warpers since they also have good combat aptitudes (ad again high hp) but I still have much to test. !they were terrible assassins though, and even worse monks. -- Fingolfin (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2015 (CEST)
- Hey Fingolfin! Any luck with the humans characters from a couple weeks back? I was thinking of putting up a few strategy ideas (simple as some might be) and curious if you discovered anything particularly worth mention. I know you've been pretty busy, so if not, clearly no worries, just figured I'd ask. I'm evidently on a bit of an anthropo-kick for some reason. :) --Buddy23Lee (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2015 (CEST)